It’s great to see that Joe Rogan can disagree with him and Jordan Peterson reacts politely and thinks about it. Where all the other interviews he is attacked out right and his point is sometimes lost ,in his subdued anger. He treats Joe Rogan as a friend having a conversation with different views. This is how shit should be worked out.
in fairness most of the other interviews which gets circulated are often TV. TV these days is really just about baiting, tricking and getting a reaction for ratings. While its true many on the internet look for clickbait. JR is above that, he doesn't need it.
@@eshedguitar it's impossible to fully satisfy desires, so therefore it's not a good goal, kinda how the original poster was saying just with slightly different phrasing
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also looking into this matter in a different perspective and without condemning of one`s point of view and trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and everyone`s valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say..
The thing is simple, we have to finally decide if we want to be a "tournament species" or a "pair-bonding species". Each one has its own pros and cons. Dr. Peterson favors pair-bonding because it invests more in offspring and yields more stable and peaceful societies.
@@risankati I am not an expert, though IMO, pair bonding societies repress basic human instincts and forget about natural selection a little bit too much . Two things that I'm more than willingly to give up in order to live in more stable an peaceful world.
@@xgRove279 yea, that makes sense. I have always wondered though about out natural instincts. It makes more sense to me that people are naturally monogamous. Just because our babies are so hard to take care of. And we need a mom and a dad at least to do that. Especially in the early days of people, the roles had to be divided. A woman by herself was never able to to take care of a baby or babies alone. Or a man by himself. So it never made sense to me why our natural instincts would favor multiple partners. Especially if you choose a good, healthy, strong one from the start. I don't know.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana exactly. there has never in the history of man been a society that successfully encouraged monogamy, people just did shit on the down low. It’s like trying to discourage drug use. People are gonna do what they want and the only way to stop them is generally jail or death. Enforcing stuff that goes against instinct sets countries up for economic and social disaster. I’m not a virgin so maybe I’m less upset about it tho 😅
jake hedger Because it makes for an interesting interview. Do you really want listen to these two just circle-jerking over shit everyone knows they already agree on for 2 fucking hours?
@@jasonhymes3382 it's not about laziness, it's about women not finding men desirable. Some men will never find love no matter what because they are ugly
@@jasonhymes3382 nailed it. Not sure why Joe has such an hard time grasping this obvious fact. That is exactly what is happening today and stats prove it. Guys are having less sex but women aren't. What is the obvious explanation?
I once wanted to buy a table from IKEA; I was thinking of pine with a clear varnish finish, but they only had dark ones with dark varnish finish. I was going to leave it, but my wife insisted we buy it. That was my first experience with "forced mahogany"
@@VHale-yz7hc I think what Appelflap is talking about is that in the past more children were raised on a set of values but now it's more on perceptions and comfort.
@ 7:53 Jordan's brain grinds to a halt as he catches himself promoting a position he vehemently condemns (inducing equality of outcomes), just prior to dropping this gem.
@@rosshewage6893 nope. Peterson has always said wealth and income inequality has to be controlled or there is violence In Society, through some redistribution. Sexual marketplace is exactly the same. And enforced monogamy if 100% successful still is not equality of outcome, the lower value men get the lower value women. It's like saying get the poor a job each, does not mean get them all CEO jobs, the valuable ones will still get the CEO jobs
What missing from the conversation are the positives aspects of being in a monogamist relationship beyond raising children. It feels good to have someone who got your back no matter what, and having the feeling like you are in a team. Research backs this up, happily married couples are happier. I have been in a couple with a man for 17 years and we both grew as individuals because we supported each other. We don't have children and I still want to spend the rest of my life with him and I never think about cheating on him.
Also Peterson should’ve mentioned what he has said before about one having serial sex relations, having sex with numerous ppl to only have sex with them, is a bad habit in the long run not only for the possibility of children being raised in an unfavourable family structure but for the individual themselves it is indeed almost a gateway to psychopathy in a way, in the sense that the individual is detaching the humanity of the person from the act every time they simple use a person for nothing more than that. Effectively teaching them to dehumanise others.
Gio bandito it is wrong when you are preaching bullshit and you just discovered you were wrong about your bullshitt If he's wrong about this, what else is he wrong about?
You do not go to jail for cheating on your husband or wife. And if you are hinting that divorce unfairly punishes males in this country I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
Right. He could say "culturally endorsed monogamy" or some other terminology, which would make his message clearer. However, I suspect he likes to keep it deliberately vague so he can enjoy a sort of persecution complex by the media.
D L, I agree. I have a brother that went through a divorce and it's ridiculous. Child support taking 25% of his take home even though he has 50/50 custody is also painful. But she is the one that cheated on him and he doesn't even know if his kids are his. My question is... why get married nowadays if the consequences are so one sided? I think there are a lot of younger people that aren't getting married because of what the government does.
Esquire, it wouldn't surprise me if it was deliberate. He seemed to relish the NY Times' apparent mistreatment of him as a badge of honor. It certainly raises his profile more than if he simply communicated fully what he meant.
Sure, but I think "encouraged" isn't even enough. Because if you use Jordan's example at the end of "I had multiple affairs, aren't I a good guy (or girl)?" And to discourage it would be "Well... I don't think it's a great idea in the longrun." I'd consider the idea that "Not only are you not a 'good' guy, but you're actually a pretty 'terrible' guy, a bad person. Stop!" On the latter, the term "culturally enforced" still seems appropriate to me.
When I first heard about the proposal of enforced monogamy by Jordan I agreed with him initially, especially because in my religion(Islam, 90%+ majority of the population), it is an obligatory duty of the parents to marry their sons and daughters as soon as they are eligible for mariage(according to the age of marriage present in the whatever country we may be talking about). But then I thought about it. There are plenty of men marrying women pretty early on as enforced by religion but the number of cases of marital rape and domestic violence is extremely high(and present at all ages). Turns out, enforced monogamy only lets those young men have sex legally without legal consequences. They never grow up. And the enforced marriages only contribute to further increases in population. Keep in mind this from the perspective of someone from a third world country, but the prevalence of discrimination and violence against woman in my country is undeniable. So I think the point that JP presents is very optimistic but probably unrealistic. As much as I feel weird to say this, I think Rogan is correct on this one. Enforced marriage does not really help if men don't grow up to be better human beings.
Thats why it has to be socially enforced. In a hyper patriarchal society like the middle east, women have 0 choice, and its bad for everyone. In the current hyper feminist society that we live in, men have 0 choice, and its bad for everyone. The optimal place seems to be in the middle, where the west was prior to the 1960s
He should've used Encouraged Commitment instead of Enforced Monogamy. He's a clinician, he thinks logically and objectively. People keep looking for some sinister agenda.
@@emmashalliker6862 It is because these people look for sinister agendas everywhere besides themselves, especially when you bring into account the use of dogwhistles.
@@imperator692 maybe because they are being used nad people dont notice them? its literally on steve bannons playbook to the alt right, how to get people accustomed to ideas. do you think peterson is just using the wrong term here, or is he cozying up his audience to more radical ideas? "Could casual sex necessitate state tyranny? The missing responsibility has to be enforced somehow...." Dr Jordan Peterson, 11:51am - 17 Dec 2016 via @jordanbpeterson Twitter
Wut? He asked the exactly same point time and time again, without going further into the answer Jordan gave him, which is why this is one of the worse podcasts I've seen from him (I too generally like Joe, but this was so bad).
"I don't know" is a great answer in some cases. If you watch some Peterson interviews from long ago he'd say this, adding that he hadn't yet fully thought it through so it would be better to not comment on it. Peterson needs to have someone video record all his interviews. After the journalist publishes his/her article then Peterson can upload the entire conversation to his youtube channel. This accomplishes a few things. Firstly, it allows people to check out whether Peterson or the journalist has played loosie goosie with the facts. Secondly, by knowing the entire conversation has been recorded it may stop the journalist from taking liberties. Thirdly, when the recording proves Peterson's claim that the journalist has taken things out context it increases Peterson's popularity.
@@joaodelgado6696 Jup and morons praise him for it. Admiting your own shortcomings is a good thing. Arguing, making up claims, then saying "I don't know" to critical answers and continuing with the same bullshit claims is not good. It is in bad faith and straight up manipulation.
@@aakkoin I think it is interesting that people who want equality usually want the ability to be assholes. Women used to be the best drivers. Drove the speed limit, used signals, etc. Now women drive like assholes, texting or with the phone up to their ear as they treat their automobile like it's their living room.
I believe the point Peterson is trying to make is that there is a large section of the population that would have gotten married because of tradition etc
@@jimmyittycheria1868 That rational can be used to argue for sanctioned murder... so I think I'll pass. Its not about having all choices available its about guiding choice to maximize benefits to society. That's literally the point of society, free will and choice are dandy but encouraging people to make selfless choices is better.
@@leganzar7831 People will not make selfless choices for the benefit of the society just because someone tells them to, especially in the case of relationships. You cannot tell a person to be a part of a monogamous relationship if they are not happy with it. Mr. Peterson is talking about women like they are goods. Women will have a say on whether to be or not to be with someone. BTW, polygamy is not the reason some people aren't getting some. You do realize that the women who sleep with one man will also sleep with other men. The reason why some men aren't getting laid is because they actually don't know how to.
@@jimmyittycheria1868 Good people will, and you seem to be projecting your misconceptions on to the discussion. You're also building a straw man by framing your comment around enforcing being in a particular relationship. The idea isn't that we enforce staying in any one relationship its that the end goal of dating is to be in one relationship. Dr. Peterson isn't talking about women as if they are goods, he's talking about humans as if they are a resource. ... you know like a social scientist. The reason some men aren't getting laid is they're undesirable. There isn't "a way to get laid" , people are all different and making a connection with them requires fulfilling some desire that person has making them want to reciprocate fulfilling your desire.
dude really should've just said Encouraged Monogamy rather than 'Enforced' Monogamy could've avoided that whole mess with the journalist and more accurate portrayed his argument
@Spanish Moustache Okay, lets take incest as an example then. Alcohol and drugs are things you decide by yourself, and do to yourself. It is your body and you can decide what is best for you. Still there is a border. At the moment you become a danger for the people arround you, you can get arrested. The problem with incest (and less drastically, but in the same way with polygamy relationships) is that it does not only involve two adults making a choice for themselves, it also involves the life of a potential child. So you could say that the deed has a direct risk on the potential child that might come into being as a result of your deed. In that case you are crossing the same border as with alcohol and drugs: you become a danger for the people arround you. In which to me it seems sound to forbid it.
@Spanish Moustache There's always social pressure, why would sexuality be excluded. And how would it ever be excluded, sexuality is one of the things that are the most socially regulated. And for a good reason. You won't see a day when people would regard sexuality indifferently. Monogamy is the way to go in my opinion also, I hope people will keep to their senses and not lose that.
Father Leo Manlet beta male bald 52 year old would kill to even be 5’10 or 5’11. Everyone knows he is not even 5’7 he wears lifts Rogaine has been 5’6 1/2 his whole miserable life.
For anyone that’s unaware “enforced monogamy” is an anthropological term and the journalist who interviewed him was an anthropologist. Of just a quick search of the NYT database “enforced monogamy” is cited as a feminist ideal in a social science journal parading it as a solution for stable pair bonding and a catalyst for the EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN in the secular world Lol
I agree with Jordan's point. In a monogamous society, a small percentage of the population remains "incel", let's say 10%. They won't harbour as much resentment because they don't resent happy couples, what they mostly resent are "chads", the top 10% who get all the women. In a monogamous society, even chads only get one girl. Sure, she may be the most attractive and cheerful one, but it's only one. In a polygamous society, the disparity grows between incel and Chad and the amount of incels grow considerably, making it a real problem. Which is why it's now becoming a problem and not, say, a century ago.
There was a study on sales people. They gave one group a small bonus for a group of above average performers and another a very big bonus for a very small group of the highest performers. In the latter group, total performance dropped, while in the former, there was a sin significant increase. The conclusions drawn from this study are that big rewards for a small amount of high performers demoralise the low performers ("what's the point of trying, I'm not going to get the bonus anyways"), while a small reward that reaches a large portion of the group motivates them ("I might have a chance at getting the bonus, if I try a little harder"). Sure, a big bonus is going to motivate the high performers to give their absolute best, but if we're going to keep the low performers with us, we should at least give them false hope or they're just going drag us down.
@@summermarshall2005 Nobody said it was women's* problem that men can't get laid. It's everyone's problem. What about people that can't get jobs? Jordan Peterson has made the argument that 10-15% of the population has too low an IQ (because IQ is a major factor in how complicated tasks a person can be trained to do) to get a real non-criminal job. The result of that has been that a lot of low IQ people become criminals. We have no obligation to employ people to do things they can't do or to do basically nothing, but we better figure out something to do about these people. Because otherwise the rest of us will have to be content with overcrowding prisons and high crime rates. Same for unattractive men. We're not obligated to do anything, but if we don't want them to become resentful towards the wider society, we should figure out something to relieve their despair.
@@summermarshall2005 It's not about getting laid. It's about having a chance at creating an intimate relationship that, if successful, would eventually lead to sex. It's a little something called hooking up. It's understandable how you would not see this, since Women don't struggle with this as much as Men do.
@@summermarshall2005 Because the guys who don't get laid tend to lash out and drive SUVs through crowds of people. We as a society are kinda stuck with everyone's concerns to a certain extent. Ignoring them certainly isn't a good strategy, and the only other one I can think of is killing them all, which I imagine most people wouldn't agree with.
My wife met me when I was a homeless teenager with nothing to offer and my prospects never got much better. Now im disabled and am fighting to get social security at 31 so I've never had much to offer and she has remained faithful to me for all 14 years we've been together. Now she provides for us while I do my best to care for our child at home. I severely question what you consider a social norm for gender roles. Make no mistake I'm the hunter and protector but she's the provider so I don't know if there really is a standard. Of course this is anecdotal and just an opinion.
Your wife great person. The thing is that it is all in statistic. If you look into any studies about attractiveness it is always 60% of women have chosen this type of man, 20% this type and 10% this man. I am far from alpha when you exclude my athletic abilities (anxious, sensitive, introverted, nerdy) yet I was able to find girlfriend. But before that I had experienced so many rejections because majority of the women want something resembling an alpha (courageous, assertive, leader type). My gf is very well in 10% of women that actually like sensitive guys. It is all just matter of chance.
I loved this, I think this is Joe at his best. JP went in to the convo confidently asserting that enforcing equal outcomes is always an evil thing. But through his thoughtful questioning, Joe was able to force him to realize that, at least when it comes to marriage, JP himself favors pursuing equal outcomes. I hope that JP took those thoughts with him after he left the studio, but even if he didn’t, the rest of us are left with something to think about, all presented in a simple and friendly manner. Good stuff.
JP said nothing about being in favor of equal outcome, and in fact, socially enforced monogamy does not create equal outcome. JP is in favor of equality of opportunity, and that is what socially enforced monogamy creates. In polygamous societies, only about 10-20% of men will have mating opportunity, while the rest will have none at all. That is too steep a hierarchy. There is no opportunity for anyone outside the top 10-20% of men. In monogamous societies, men who are lower on the dominance hierarchies can choose to better themselves and potentially create mating opportunities. This creates more stability in society at large - men are less likely to fight over mates. If JP was in favor of equal outcomes, then he would be championing incompetent men as mates the same way that feminists champion fat women. He doesn’t do that. Like he said, he does not believe in forcing women to choose suboptimal men. In a free monogamous society, it is up to men to optimize their own mating opportunities. It is up to them to build themselves up so that women actually choose them as their singular partner. If women are still rejecting a man in a society where monogamy is the social norm, than it’s the man’s fault. All JP is in favor of is equal opportunity.
@@seanodonnell429 I mean yeah that’s the conclusion he finally comes to, but he starts with saying that the reason there’s incels is because there isn’t enough monogamy, which just isn’t the case. Sure young adults experiment and date around and sleep with multiple people, but both men and woman are doing that, and often both are trying to get with the hottest people. Then that phase passes and they start looking for someone they are genuinely emotionally connected with. Hot men taking all the woman and long lasting polyamory are nonissues, and quite frankly have nothing to do with why incels can’t get girlfriends. I’m not sure if you just don’t know many incels or if it’s cause you’re one yourself but I have two that have been trying to get with me for awhile (one for 5 years) and it’s not their physical attraction that’s keeping me from dating them, nor is it me choosing other hotter guys. It’s because they’re assholes. They’re legitimately the rudest guys I know and see woman as objects that they deserve. And on top of that, despite the fact that they’re kinda desperate, they have the absolute highest standards. Somehow they think that even though they live with their parents, are super rude, have poor hygiene, and aren’t trying to get a job, they deserve a doting model. Quite frankly, the reason they can’t get a girlfriend isn’t cause all the women are taken, but because they don’t actually want to date the ones who are in their league. There’s plenty of woman out there that also can’t get a date, they just aren’t these 7-10/10s. These guys just refuse to accept that they don’t deserve the best. The advice we should be telling them is to lower their expectations, a lot.
First of all, I am not an incel, and your passive aggressive insinuation was uncalled for. Second of all, I am sorry that you’ve had to deal with harassment from incels. That community is reprehensible, and their attitude and behavior towards women is inexcusable. These are men that do not deserve mates, period. Women are smart to reject them because they are weak, toxic, narcissistic vermin. Having said that, JP never said that incels exist BECAUSE of the existence of polyamory in our society. In fact, in any direct reference he makes to them, he condemns them. He points out multiple times that if a man is rejected by all women, then it is his responsibility to look to his own inadequacies and put the work in to improve. The point that he does make is that polygamous societies tilt towards violence, and they do for several reasons. It stems from fact that women are hypergamous and tend to flock towards men in the top 5-10 percent of dominance hierarchies. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest this. You need only look at the stats on dating apps and hookup culture. I don’t what why you said it’s a non-issue, but that’s completely false. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with women being attracted to the top shelf guys. In fact, women’s sexual selectivity has benefited our species greatly from an evolutionary perspective. The trouble with polygamous societies is that the men who do have access to women treat them as disposable pleasures. They use them for sex, then kick them to the curb. Why? Because they can. The women are allowing it and even encouraging it indirectly by throwing themselves at these men. Then when they get tossed out, they are left embittered and resenting all men because the men they choose are narcissistic and psychopathic. Meanwhile, the other 90 percent of men are without mating opportunities. Men are deeply incentivized on a biological level to mate. This drives everything from healthy competition and productive work to violent jealous outrages. If there are no structures in place to prevent men from stealing each other’s partners, then they tend to get aggressive with each other. I’m not saying that’s right, but that’s what happens. Also, having families incentives men to keep society stable and safe. If the vast majority of men don’t have a family, they have no incentive to keep society stable. I think the vast majority of people push back on the idea of enforced monogamy because the term invokes an image of a totalitarian society where women are stripped of their autonomy, ripped from their families and forced to mate with undesirable men. This is not what it means at all. It simply means that we culturally celebrate the choice to have one stable monogamous relationship and discourage cheating.
Everyone having one wife is not an equal outcome. Because not every woman is the same. You still have a mechanism for reward for a good man, he gets a good woman. But with dollars, an equal amount for everyone is equal outcome because all dollars are the same.
@@seanodonnell429But by hurling abuses at all men who may technically be incels, you are adding to the reasons why they become hateful, misogynistic in the first place. The society should not be shunning these men by hurling abuses at them if they can't find girlfriends. The only solution for them is society being empathetic, and making them realize that there's nothing wrong with not having a girlfriend. They should focus their time and efforts on improving themselves, which will in turn make them more happier and less hateful and misogynistic. For this to happen, society also has to accept that if there are men who don't have a girlfriend, but they are successful and happy in their lives, they shouldn't be shunned and hurled abuses at. So, the solution to the incel problem is both internal to the incels looking at improving themselves and becoming less miserable. And, the society accepting them as people, and not degrading them as degenerates
The problems Jordan addresses are absolute crucial in the way our society will function in the future. The need for monogamy is essential for a sustainable life, but I believe that the solutions to this problem are very hard to obtain, due to the complexities of our current society. I’m not sure what can be done to fix this, but I at least respect Jordan for creating a conversation to be thought about and discussed.
I think I figured it out the reason we need enforced monogamy is that society doesn't work if unattractive men don't contribute to so to use Joe's reference lebron can play basketball well but we still need someone to make the court and ball and play against him and if only lebron gets rewarded for his effort ws hy would anyone else try
Basically. We all get to have a perfect sex partner and no one gets particularly hurt. Although the real men will still get more real women to actually reproduce with. But maybe that's not such a bad thing..? Maybe only 6's and above should be allowed to reproduce LMAO. But wait... If everyone is a 6 or above, then the 6's would now be "1's" in the new hierarchy. The hierarchy would just reform... So even then, the problem never gets solved. It's actually crazy the lengths you could go and never fix any of this. It's very complicated.
Peterson is right. Look at the stats on Tinder (which is basically polygamous at this point) and you’ll see that the top 20% of men get the same amount of matches as the bottom 80% combined. For women, it’s basically an even split. Nowadays, the majority of young couples meet their partners through online dating according to data My question is how can we ever expect society to function this way? How do we expect our people to do the evolutionary bare minimum, having children? We’re absolutely and totally screwed if this trend continues, and frankly it shows no signs of stopping
Rogan keeps talking about how the guy at the top will attract the most women. But IF you were to go back to societally enforced monogomy then what would happen is that the top man would basically.... climb the ladder if you will to see how high he can go. That is to say he'll have more sex and more sexual experiences. But another aspect of societally enforced monogamy is that the society will pressure the man into eventually "settling down" which he will at some point be forced to do or risk damaging his reuptation. Meaning the dominant males will eventually be forced into a bottle neck where they'll get married and that frees up any of the women he was going to be with after the fact to go look for other men and eventually settle.
I come from a country with a forced/encouraged monogamy culture so I can weigh in on this a bit: One thing that happens a lot in my country is parents tell their children all through their development "one day you're gonna be a husband (or wife), have kids, you should prepare for that both financially and as a person." They tell the kids what virtues and skills they're going to need to be a good father/mother, husband/wife. It does work in curing the incel problem and prepping people for marriage, it's just unfortunate that "my" people have a really fucked up sense of morality so it creates A LOT of very toxic households.
I come from the place where casual dating and fucking around is the norm. Trust me its not that much better in the long run. All even moderately attractive women are ran through. You cant find a 25 year old. which had less than 10 sexual partners before. With each that parner, one night stand or relationship. They bring with them psychological issues. So we have a shit show of trust issues, cheating out of boredom, failure to value what you have in the situation and so much more, bitterness from less successful men, who dont want, feel like its unfair to date a woman or settle with a woman who had a lot more partners than they, pretty much a big clusterfuck of lonely, fucked up people. Especially in 30s, when most women decide that they want to have a family and pool of willing mates shrink, cause most men dont want to settle or dont want to settle with them and on top, everyone carries lots of psychological issues, men and women with them and even if people find each other, the relationshits dont last long or dont last without cheating, lying and manipulation. Overall forced marriage isnt good and does not sound great, but promiscious sexual society isnt either.
I was struggling to find a girlfriend for a very long time. I was joking with friends that I should move to a country with arranged marriages. But thankfully I didn’t have to go that far I just had them move to a different state and I found the most awesome person in the world.
@@scottmclearn6949 Do you know the difference between man and woman? You are illuded that she'll be loyal to you and thus you are disposed to do the same. Women can allow themselves to stay in a level of the hyerarchy, waiting silently to go up This is just an illusion, nature doesn't work this way. If the conditions allow it, she'll replace you. Hyerarchy is everything. It's just that laws and morals try to mask these things
@@brickgraims83 you know sometimes I feel bad for guys like this, they have so little self-confidence that they've given up trying to find a partner and now believe "all women only want rich CEO men, I only average man". Your life must be miserable
To address Joe's inequality outcome analogy, polygamy is more like if some people in society are making lots of money and other people in society are simply making zero money. Well that's a problem, you can't have them making no money, or else they will riot. That's Jordan's point, I think.
Lol this was kinda funny Joe: I had no idea what the term meant I'd never heard it, it's a psychological term Seconds later Peterson: She knew what the term meant, she's not stupid.
@@carllagerfield4996 eeh...Rogan is high enough in the hierarchy that she might not feel the need. And besides it's common for women to cheat but still not a normality.
It isn’t always that women are rejecting these men. There’s a huge problem with young people not having a single healthy relationship due to a generation growing more polygamous.
Polygamy is having more than one spouse, not more than one wife. If we had a polygamous society it wouldn't just be men with multiple wives, it could also be women with multiple husbands.
@@wanderingstar5270 Yes if you take in the context of the argument he was making and the conversation as a whole, it was indeed obvious that he was not talking about legal mandates.
That was an interesting discussion to watch. Here's an supposition that might he worth examining: The sexually successful man who only wants casual sex with a bunch of women is actually losing by doing so; finding a woman who is personally compelling enough to dominate a man's attention is actually more desirable than casual sex with multiple women.
Funny that Joe mentions professional sports, where I'm pretty sure an athlete has to sign a contract and be in only 1 team and win only 1 spot in the end, basically an enforced monogamy. I wonder how long a sports organization would last if an athlete could be in any amount of teams they wanted and could win 1st, 2nd and 3rd place at the same time? imagine 8 out of 10 football teams being the same lineup and the same person getting all the money in every competition? Sound like it would demotivate a bunch of potential athletes, why should they go into this sport if the have a close to 0% change to ever achieve anything?
So if we should reign polygamy ( sexual inequality) with enforced monogamy "to provide stable circumstances for children". Wouldn't that same argument work for reign in wealth inequality???
@@fe5018 Yeah I was about to say there are plenty of people in America who came here SPECIFICALLY to escape societies with militantly enforced monogamy. I'm sure there are plenty of young women who have fled their homes to escape abusive arranged marriages that would not interpret "enforced monogamy" the way Peterson meant it, but instead of acknowledging he could have done a better job with phrasing when addressing a non-academic audience Peterson blames everyone around him for being stupid (even after Rogan tries to get him to read the room) which pretty much sums up who he is as a person.
@@Ryan-nm8pw Yeah right, even when Jordan is given a softball pitch clarifying question he spins off into even grander claims purposefully designed to get the backlash he is looking for and clarifies nothing. His shtick doesn't work if he can't portray himself as a victim, which is extremely ironic.
Joe makes a good connection between 'enforced monogamy' and 'equality of outcome.' That's the crux of the matter that people wanted to ask Peterson, and Joe did ask it.
I wouldn't say that's equality of outcome though. It's equality of opportunity. If it's a mathematical fact that most men will miss out, as they would in a polygamous society, that is not equal opportunity.
@@spockskynet I think this discussion is fundamentally flawed because it's failing to recognize that poly women often have multiple male partners. I'm monogamous personally, and happily married, but I have female friends who have several boyfriends/lovers, and sometimes a husband too. I don't think it creates less opportunity for anyone, it's just not for me.
@@candi6642 Poly women in a monogamous society is completely different than having a polygamous society. Men are less selective maters than women. That means more women will gravitate towards the top men and most men will be left without sexual or romantic opportunity
I was married and i have two children with this woman. We separated and both started to date other people. I got, surprisingly to myself, jealous. Then i checked it out, confronted it and healed that emotional issue and now i see different women, that have other relationships and i m now at peace. A personal experience that i went through is showing me the way. Heal the insecurities, and then mating becomes so a joy with no more drama. If the children involved have the presence, love and support of their parents exactly when they need it, and if they live in a healthy community, were the parents can are around, instead of being kidnapped by the schedule of the society plans, they would grow into healthy human beings with much traumas then the isolated children that live with monogamous parents im the present situations that our society propose
Joe is quit dumb on this one. If we don't have a civilization based on monogomy, marriage and family, We will lose the whole system just like in past history. Families keep communities strong.
I must live in an other world entirely. Never met another women who have chosen their boyfriend/husband based on hypergamy. Everyone around me is together with someone that has the same status or lower status.
So basically his point is that children of broken homes, or least separated parents are more statistically likely to lead a troubled adult life resulting in the destabilization of society?
No, I think he was trying to come up with a solution to combat the fact that a lot of men are lonely and his best guess is enforced monogamy which is imo a very poor attempt at fixing the problem because it just causes many new ones, he should have just admitted that it was a bad idea instead of being afraid of looking wrong on the podcast which is why I think he didnt want to admit it
@@brady2075 I do agree, but giving opinions that limit peoples freedoms where it is not needed imo is just as bad, and im not trying to justify not solving these problems but we have lived generations with these same problems and we seem to be doing relatively fine, fine enough to still be able to fix them, it seems that as of late people have been slowly turning their minds towards problems like this so I think everything is going to be ok, I just hope we start waking up about climate change
@@bro4539 Hmmm, I think I agree with what you are saying, I would need statistics to completely solidify these thoughts but there has been a sexual liberation movement I do agree with that, and a movement towards consequence free sex which includes apps and websites in this new age of the internet so yes, good points
@@Septiviumexe But he's not advocating for limits placed on freedoms. You would still be able to be promiscuous and partake in poly relationships and no one would stop you, however there would be a social stigma placed on you. That isn't forcing anything.
That just insinuates that the guy is attractive looking or something (rich or good with women or whatever). That is just common sense. I am not talking about that, I mean a woman who doesn’t find a guy attractive at all then she finds out he had a lot of exes and that idea own itself is attractive to her. That is just annoying and immature. that if you are not some player then women wouldn’t find you attractive. I guess most of these women are insecure and immature anyways
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man...IN HIS FIELD. When it comes to some of these topics, he seems to be no more informed than any other person except his vocabulary is particularly well rounded. Talking about enforced monogamy is barely one step away from enforced heterosexuality as far as I see.
It’s not though. Also it was made obvious that JP hasn’t thought through his ideas and taken them to their logical conclusions. In the end he is a quack and christian apologist and these things inform his views more than research in the fields he pretends to be an expert in.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Most of western society and much of eastern is in the state of enforced monogamy. We don't allow marriages to multiple people at once and it has worked better than polygamous societies. If you're thinking that he somehow wants to force women into something, you're wrong
@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters he did.. although here the argument was weak but this is a small segment of a large video. And he is right, the most successful societies do have monogamy as a default setting
@@TheDionysianFields Happens to all of us, physical attraction can only last for so long before you just decide: "fuck this person." I've met beautiful women, and crushed hardcore but then listening to them be sloppy assholes completely turns me off.
@@mazymetric8267 Yeah, I meant after they started having a choice. There's still enough of a timeline there to establish a pattern/tradition. Not that I've claimed that they did.
Jordan: It's bad for society to have one group of people controlling everything Joe: Yeah... but I like it that way Jordan: Yeah but its bad for society Joe: BUT... I like it Jordan: *sigh*
Go to any college campus or high school and you will see a polygamist society😂. That’s where all these intel’s come from. Many of them aren’t middle age men they’re adolescents.
They need to become "men" first and foremost. Now, what that nebulous shyster expression actually means and what advice would one give, completely befuddles me, but nevertheless, they need to "man up". Also, watch out for that clearly defined "toxic masculinity".
what they don't talk about is the natural evolutionary aspect of the situation: better and better looking people are naturally pushed to be preferrable sexual partners in order to improve the overall health, intelligence, looks, attitude and strength of the population, generation by generation. Edit: fun fact, I wrote this comment when I was at 10:12 of the video, literally as soon as I resumed watching Peterson talked about this aspect Edit 2: I still find myself disagreeing with what Peterson said because sure, evolution might lean the population to a slight poligamy, but in the long term this would improve the overall quality of the population hence reducing the need for poligamy because every individual would be a good sexual candidate at that point.
Joe should come visit my town, 60% of women have 2-3 kids all from different men. Most of them are still single or with a new guy that isn't the father to any of their children. I can tell you that sure as hell isn't good for the kids.
@@marionow6227 It is not hard to find out wether a man is husband material or not, she WANTED to date the bad boy because he was a turn on. That is what happens when you follow your animalistic desires and don't think
@@reezis1619 people are short sighted, if that is what you mean. Especially when they fall in love and later find out that this person is different then they expected. Happens to all of us. Only some people are more short sighted then others, due to many reasons.
I have always been considered attractive, and was used to woman acting weird and guys acting weird around me, and I enjoyed the spoils but never really appreciated it. Then I got wounded, on my face. I took care of it, and now have a minor scar I have bearded over. But I learned a lot over that 6 month period. I appreciate things more, and have greater empathy.
I don't agree with Joe Rogan. It's easy to call incels "unattractive" to women, but they don't start that way. People aren't born with toxic attitudes about women and sexuality. They get pushed there by the frustration and despair at being unable to find a partner, either through attributes that aren't in their control (genes control your height, your face, your metabolism, all things that contribute to physical attractiveness), or attributes that ARE in their control, but just aren't taught to young men by our society. Showing dominance has been retooled as "toxic masculinity." Being confident and approaching women is now termed "sexual harassment". I agree with Jordan Peterson that a polygamous society helps create incels. Casual hookups and open relationships are extremely common today. With online dating becoming the norm, it's easy for women to swipe left on a man that's only 5' 8". Compare this to a physical interaction, where a man approaches a woman in a social setting. A woman isn't going to "swipe left" on a guy that they're talking with face-to-face, even if they're meeting for the very first time. Even if she's not immediately attracted to him, a pleasant conversation can change that. All that disappears with online dating. You can really see what Jordan Peterson is talking about through the perspective of online dating. Men who don't have the idealized face and body get swiped left on. The most attractive men are usually the ones that horde all of the matches.
It's ironic that Joe Rogan uses the examples of sports and business as a counter point to Peterson's argument considering that both the sports and business worlds have rules and contracts. Why then is it so unpalatable to Rogan to think of rules (monogamy) and contracts (marriage) in the world of romantic relationships?
Because he's a sexual deviant and desperately wants to internally justify cheating on his wife by labeling himself as a "sexual winner" rather than a cheat.
I agree with JP based on size of population opportunity, and the internet, mixed with the fact we are not more evolved than we were 10,000 years ago. We wouldn’t have access to a thousand mates, let alone millions. People took what they got. And basic psychology has shown again and again that more choices make us miserable.
Wow, Rogan had the balls to completely clash with Peterson on the issue of enforced monogamy. That’s actually so impressive that he pushed Peterson intellectually on that point.
It's kind of annoying to have people blaming me for being an Incel, saying I'm not a real man. I work hard, own my own property, have friends but apparently I'm not a real man. It's not my frigging fault I was born unattractive.
@AdolphHipster You say grinding sarcastically yet you simultaneously tell him to start lifting. I'm talking about grinding in the context of physical health, mental strength, knowledge, social skills and fashion. Don't be so hopeless
I wonder if with internet dating things have changed. Combined with the fact that often men tend to be less choosy with casual encounters and women tend to prefer a guy who has many women in parallel (which men would not accept) but is desirable / high status. Hence, polygamy ensues unless constrained by contrary social norms.
I would say that that's exactly what's happening in online dating sites and apps like tinder. These apps and sites have grown the dating pool exponentially meaning that women have better chance of finding and attracting those high status men. While before the online dating the dating pool was confined within the city/town you lived in and the social groups you had, unlike now when you can date people even from the other side of the planet.
If guys could only sleep with a girl if they were going to spend the rest of their life with them by law, then that would mean that people would find people on their level or around their level and stick to each other. What happens now, more and more is that the best males sleep with anyone 4 or even five places maybe more below their level. This in turn means that women hold out for these guys dipping their proverbial toe into their level. These guys never settle down with those lower level females, but what does happen is they inflate the ego of these women through attention they get from higher level males. So their opinion of themselves increases so much that they reject guys at their own level or even a touch higher than their level, as they have a shot of attention from hundreds of better guys dipping their toe. If all the guys stopped toe dipping. Which is impossible imho, but if they did due to some law. Then this would mean they only go with people on their level, women who previously had attention from men above their level stop getting that and realise their level, and settle for someone on their level. Instead of being rejected constantly by higher level guys dipping their toe. The result is all people end up with people on their level. Rather than the alternative which is the top 30-40% of guys do all the fucking and the bottom third or more have zero. This is bad because of lack of family unit, like peterson said, but also because the bottom third or more who have no chance at getting any sex or the middle ground who can’t find a woman on their level, give up on life, suicide increases, men don’t try and give to society or work or earn or look after themselves. The main reason guys do this currently is to find a mate, without this there is no reason. Competition with other males as a reason without sex is not really a factor i dont think. Not strong enough to save us anyway.
Lol props to Joe Rogan. Jordan Peterson has no logical reason to say that enforced monogamy would solve incels problems, or that it is better for society even. Because it's better for the children? That's extremely arbitrary and slanted thinking. If a part of society exists that only rewards attractive males, that doesn't equate to poor homes for kids. It seems Peterson is personally pro a monogamous society because he feels it is more moral and organized in his view, but has no logical argument to support it. Common amongst religious intellectuals to have disjointed points of views like that.
Enforced monogamy = lowering the standards meaning more men who previously didn't have a chance now have a chance and JP is ok with that but try telling him we should lower academic standards so more people enter university or lowering the standards for high paying jobs so more people can have 6 figure salaries and all of a sudden JP is against the idea.
If more people enter universities, it does not translate into more people making 6 figure salaries, as money is a relative thing. If more people have more money, it just ends up having less value. The other option would be to let the people battle for the 6 figure income after they finished uni, and the same amount of people will get that 6 figure income, but half of them would have studied for nothing an be in dept (if it's usa)
Enforced monogamy is not lowering the standard. The most desirable men will still be the most desirable and women can still choose to pursue them, they will just face consequences just as men do for aiming so high with little effort on their part thanks to polygamy and men's lower standards. If anything monogamy encourages women to compete as men do.
Education should have high standards, do you want an uneducated doctor perform a high risk surgery on you? It can not be compared to marriage and formation of family.
Enforced monogamy seems like the idea is to take choice away from women. Ultimately monogamy will occur more often if men are better people and “mates”
Behind-every-successful-man-there-stands-a-woman definition. A man 's achievements are made possible by the support and work of their wife or female partner. Women just grew to be a bit too selfish. I don't know much about monogamy and stuff.. I know that females went for alpha male through humanity's history and the alpha male impregnated them all.. Now I don't know how much benefit came from monogamy when it was popular.. if there was any boom in progress or something.. but sure I would be much happier and more productive if I had a partner that I would be love-dovey with.
@@BodhiGeraci People getting married and staying married has been on the decline for decades. Look back at the 1950s where people got married in their 20s and stayed married for life. People on average had more sex than they do now and not by coincidence were happier. We are now living in a type of "hook up culture" where people meet at bars or tinder and have sex. Many women are hooking up with the same "alpha" guys so even though they are not in polygamist marriage they are in polygamist relationships.
i don't think joe understands that there are some guys out there that are simply unattractive no matter how much they learn, grow or "become men". Whether it's their vibe, they way they look or whatever, there are some guys who behave like men, make all the right moves, learned how to attract women and still see no progress because they are simply not attractive
Joe talks about sports but sports has rules to even out the playing field and I feel this is the same with the enforced monogamy it’s a sort of rule is society to give the others a chance.
Honestly it's nearly impossible to make sure nobody misunderstands you nowadays. We are in the Twitter generation after all. Every explanation that goes beyond 100 characters already strains the average person's attention span.
Exactly, few people are willing to get a full understanding of what they're looking at and calling '...ist' or '... Phobic'. They are quick to judge a person's entire life, beliefs, situation, and personality in a short clip, or even a matter of words
@@lolomatic3534 I completely agree. And another thing is even how people completely neglect someone's views when he or she says only 1 thing they don't agree with. I for instance disagree with a handful of points Peterson made regarding relgion for instance. But I still recognize that his ideas on other topics are valuable. I've never once encountered an intellectual who I've agreed with on everything. Peterson has a few bad takes too (excluding those that people take out of context due to confirmation bias of course).
It’s great to see that Joe Rogan can disagree with him and Jordan Peterson reacts politely and thinks about it. Where all the other interviews he is attacked out right and his point is sometimes lost ,in his subdued anger. He treats Joe Rogan as a friend having a conversation with different views. This is how shit should be worked out.
Must be a nice change of pace for him. Never seen a interview with him where they don't try to bait him except this
@@headecas or attack him for saying things he hasnt said
in fairness most of the other interviews which gets circulated are often TV. TV these days is really just about baiting, tricking and getting a reaction for ratings. While its true many on the internet look for clickbait. JR is above that, he doesn't need it.
Check out the Russel Brand vid with Jordan.
Yes!!!!!
If anyone wants to continue listening to this this on the podcast its in jre 1139# at 1:41:00.
You legend
Love you bro!
Thank you kind sir.
People like you give me hope
not all heroes wear capes
Joe "6"5' beautiful man" Rogan
5.6"
aka CHAD
Why did you include his penis length before his height? That's weird dude.
@@shaunpearson7905 That's a good size.
Madhomo
Doesn’t this really just boil down to the uncomfortable fact that what we desire isn’t necessarily good for us?
You got it!
consumption is finite, desire is infinite
@@Willsonnax what's your point?
@@eshedguitar it's impossible to fully satisfy desires, so therefore it's not a good goal, kinda how the original poster was saying just with slightly different phrasing
No.
Joe "I love describing attractive men" Rogan
Joe "There was a time, i loved it when this chick rubbed my dick with her feet. But only for a couple months i was into it." Rogan
Joe "People like LeBron James" Rogan
Dr. Ziegler lmao I have a foot fetish and this is hilarious
Mr_Zahael hahhahaha
Joe "whoa" Rogan.
surely just call it 'encouraged monogamy'
wouldve stopped all the backlash he got if he just said that
That literally solves the whole problem
That’s better. “enforced” sounds a little too authoritarian
Or "positively re enforced monogamy"
It's socially enforced monogamy.
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also looking into this matter in a different perspective and without condemning of one`s point of view and trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and everyone`s valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say..
😂😂😂😂
My favourite fucking type of comment.
I post this joke too sometimes
Hahahahahhhaha
😂😂😂😄😂😂
+
The thing is simple, we have to finally decide if we want to be a "tournament species" or a "pair-bonding species". Each one has its own pros and cons. Dr. Peterson favors pair-bonding because it invests more in offspring and yields more stable and peaceful societies.
Literally the only comment ive read so far that makes sense.
Robert, what are the cons of a pair bonding society in your opinion?
@@risankati I am not an expert, though IMO, pair bonding societies repress basic human instincts and forget about natural selection a little bit too much . Two things that I'm more than willingly to give up in order to live in more stable an peaceful world.
@@xgRove279 yea, that makes sense. I have always wondered though about out natural instincts. It makes more sense to me that people are naturally monogamous. Just because our babies are so hard to take care of. And we need a mom and a dad at least to do that. Especially in the early days of people, the roles had to be divided. A woman by herself was never able to to take care of a baby or babies alone. Or a man by himself. So it never made sense to me why our natural instincts would favor multiple partners. Especially if you choose a good, healthy, strong one from the start. I don't know.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana exactly. there has never in the history of man been a society that successfully encouraged monogamy, people just did shit on the down low. It’s like trying to discourage drug use. People are gonna do what they want and the only way to stop them is generally jail or death. Enforcing stuff that goes against instinct sets countries up for economic and social disaster.
I’m not a virgin so maybe I’m less upset about it tho 😅
I'm glad Joe actually pressed Peterson on this.
Ryan G why joes wrong
jake hedger Because it makes for an interesting interview. Do you really want listen to these two just circle-jerking over shit everyone knows they already agree on for 2 fucking hours?
Joe Rogan is a lesbian.
Jordan admitted Joe poked a good hole in his argument, about equality of outcome. How was he wrong +jake hedger ?
Yes i agree. Uhuuh post modernism baaaad equity baaaad. Nice to see a nice change of pase.
Even with enforced monogamy, there will still be a group of men that end up alone
Significantly less. Its the difference between one guy being a lazy bum and 30% of the population being lazy bums.
@@jasonhymes3382 it's not about laziness, it's about women not finding men desirable. Some men will never find love no matter what because they are ugly
@@JoeyJ0J0 the point is, that there is no right being not alone.
@@jasonhymes3382 nailed it. Not sure why Joe has such an hard time grasping this obvious fact.
That is exactly what is happening today and stats prove it. Guys are having less sex but women aren't. What is the obvious explanation?
@@JoeyJ0J0 dude. Think. Incels didn't exist 30 years ago. Are there now 400 times as many ugly men as there was 30 years ago?
I once wanted to buy a table from IKEA; I was thinking of pine with a clear varnish finish, but they only had dark ones with dark varnish finish. I was going to leave it, but my wife insisted we buy it. That was my first experience with "forced mahogany"
Everyone wants to protect the children, but nobody wants to admit the the current average parents are terrible for children.
@@VHale-yz7hc I think what Appelflap is talking about is that in the past more children were raised on a set of values but now it's more on perceptions and comfort.
Children in the past were regularly assaulted by their parents especially the father.
@@John-xk2sd better than spoiling them with the pride bs
noone cares what the women want we're always the ones expected to "sacrifice " our bodies
Nonsense, if that was the case society would fall apart. Most parents are decent.
Jordan "to the degree that she had a point that was her point" Peterson
🤣🤣😂
Lol, he is a legend
The subtle shade
@ 7:53 Jordan's brain grinds to a halt as he catches himself promoting a position he vehemently condemns (inducing equality of outcomes), just prior to dropping this gem.
@@rosshewage6893 nope. Peterson has always said wealth and income inequality has to be controlled or there is violence In Society, through some redistribution. Sexual marketplace is exactly the same.
And enforced monogamy if 100% successful still is not equality of outcome, the lower value men get the lower value women.
It's like saying get the poor a job each, does not mean get them all CEO jobs, the valuable ones will still get the CEO jobs
Jordan peterson: * says literally anything else *
Joe: wow you just blew my mind with that!
Jp: maybe not have sex with many women
Joe: hold up!
Hol up, wait a minute, somethin ain't right
Because he is in the say, top 2 %.
@@novelaviator he’s 5’3 lmao other than his money he’s not in the top 2%
@@BuRsTiNxMLB He's also smart, disciplined, and has a reputation of respect and ethical action
Be a lobster, clean your room
Clean your lobster you filthy dragon!
Clean the dragon, you commie
What missing from the conversation are the positives aspects of being in a monogamist relationship beyond raising children. It feels good to have someone who got your back no matter what, and having the feeling like you are in a team. Research backs this up, happily married couples are happier. I have been in a couple with a man for 17 years and we both grew as individuals because we supported each other. We don't have children and I still want to spend the rest of my life with him and I never think about cheating on him.
Also Peterson should’ve mentioned what he has said before about one having serial sex relations, having sex with numerous ppl to only have sex with them, is a bad habit in the long run not only for the possibility of children being raised in an unfavourable family structure but for the individual themselves it is indeed almost a gateway to psychopathy in a way, in the sense that the individual is detaching the humanity of the person from the act every time they simple use a person for nothing more than that. Effectively teaching them to dehumanise others.
Faith in humanity restored. The good ending 😌:
i think Peterson started questioning his own point here, and there is nothing wrong with that guys.
Gio bandito completely agree
Gio bandito it is wrong when you are preaching bullshit and you just discovered you were wrong about your bullshitt
If he's wrong about this, what else is he wrong about?
"Oh my gawd, someone is not perfect, who can I worship now, woe is me"
Top Ranked he’s probably wrong about more than a few things..... so what? Who’s right about everything?
@@topranked5465 try to be more precise with your accusations. And just pick the top three offenses.
Problem... When Jordan uses the term "Enforced Monogomy" people think government... they think cops with guns... they do not think social pressures.
You do not go to jail for cheating on your husband or wife. And if you are hinting that divorce unfairly punishes males in this country I would wholeheartedly agree with you.
Right. He could say "culturally endorsed monogamy" or some other terminology, which would make his message clearer. However, I suspect he likes to keep it deliberately vague so he can enjoy a sort of persecution complex by the media.
D L, I agree. I have a brother that went through a divorce and it's ridiculous. Child support taking 25% of his take home even though he has 50/50 custody is also painful. But she is the one that cheated on him and he doesn't even know if his kids are his. My question is... why get married nowadays if the consequences are so one sided? I think there are a lot of younger people that aren't getting married because of what the government does.
Raja, I wonder if the term he used is psychologist jargon? Also, I don't think he did that on purpose, it didn't turn out very well for him.
Esquire, it wouldn't surprise me if it was deliberate. He seemed to relish the NY Times' apparent mistreatment of him as a badge of honor. It certainly raises his profile more than if he simply communicated fully what he meant.
Yeah just say "encourage" instead of "enforced" - dispute solved.
Sure, but I think "encouraged" isn't even enough. Because if you use Jordan's example at the end of "I had multiple affairs, aren't I a good guy (or girl)?" And to discourage it would be "Well... I don't think it's a great idea in the longrun." I'd consider the idea that "Not only are you not a 'good' guy, but you're actually a pretty 'terrible' guy, a bad person. Stop!" On the latter, the term "culturally enforced" still seems appropriate to me.
@@XtremeConditions We’re too far gone for that as a society.
@@XtremeConditions good point
@@SAMSARALIVEEEEEE True...
@@miguelberetta7887 Much appreciated.
When I first heard about the proposal of enforced monogamy by Jordan I agreed with him initially, especially because in my religion(Islam, 90%+ majority of the population), it is an obligatory duty of the parents to marry their sons and daughters as soon as they are eligible for mariage(according to the age of marriage present in the whatever country we may be talking about).
But then I thought about it. There are plenty of men marrying women pretty early on as enforced by religion but the number of cases of marital rape and domestic violence is extremely high(and present at all ages). Turns out, enforced monogamy only lets those young men have sex legally without legal consequences. They never grow up. And the enforced marriages only contribute to further increases in population. Keep in mind this from the perspective of someone from a third world country, but the prevalence of discrimination and violence against woman in my country is undeniable.
So I think the point that JP presents is very optimistic but probably unrealistic. As much as I feel weird to say this, I think Rogan is correct on this one. Enforced marriage does not really help if men don't grow up to be better human beings.
Thats why it has to be socially enforced. In a hyper patriarchal society like the middle east, women have 0 choice, and its bad for everyone. In the current hyper feminist society that we live in, men have 0 choice, and its bad for everyone. The optimal place seems to be in the middle, where the west was prior to the 1960s
It essentially only placates temporarily at the expense of women.
@@pwbets6386 Please give me logical reasoning behind your "hyper feminist" society, where poor men are disadvantaged. Quickly.
But in islam, they allow 4 wives
@@SQUELCH-zj7il hes a misogynist he doesn’t have one
He should've used Encouraged Commitment instead of Enforced Monogamy. He's a clinician, he thinks logically and objectively. People keep looking for some sinister agenda.
Well even a person as clever as him make mistakes now and then
It's interesting you feel the need to defend him. he is responsible for what he says in his position of influence. you are not.
That not a bit ironic Jim?
"where are all the Marxists?"
@@emmashalliker6862 It is because these people look for sinister agendas everywhere besides themselves, especially when you bring into account the use of dogwhistles.
@@imperator692 maybe because they are being used nad people dont notice them? its literally on steve bannons playbook to the alt right, how to get people accustomed to ideas. do you think peterson is just using the wrong term here, or is he cozying up his audience to more radical ideas?
"Could casual sex necessitate state tyranny? The missing responsibility has to be enforced somehow...."
Dr Jordan Peterson, 11:51am - 17 Dec 2016 via @jordanbpeterson Twitter
Joe did a good job by asking those questions
Yeah ! He is way smarter than i thought
Wut? He asked the exactly same point time and time again, without going further into the answer Jordan gave him, which is why this is one of the worse podcasts I've seen from him (I too generally like Joe, but this was so bad).
@@qwormuli77 how do they think joes smart for this
@@qwormuli77 no he made jordan peterson explain
@@lionman7688he made Jordan explain, and didn’t comprehend his answer and made him explain again
"I don't know" is a great answer in some cases. If you watch some Peterson interviews from long ago he'd say this, adding that he hadn't yet fully thought it through so it would be better to not comment on it.
Peterson needs to have someone video record all his interviews. After the journalist publishes his/her article then Peterson can upload the entire conversation to his youtube channel. This accomplishes a few things. Firstly, it allows people to check out whether Peterson or the journalist has played loosie goosie with the facts. Secondly, by knowing the entire conversation has been recorded it may stop the journalist from taking liberties. Thirdly, when the recording proves Peterson's claim that the journalist has taken things out context it increases Peterson's popularity.
he sure loves talking about shit online he doesnt know to the amount of times he peddles back to that in lots of arguments
@@joaodelgado6696 Jup and morons praise him for it.
Admiting your own shortcomings is a good thing.
Arguing, making up claims, then saying "I don't know" to critical answers and continuing with the same bullshit claims is not good. It is in bad faith and straight up manipulation.
I have news for you lol ...
Key words being 'USED TO'. Nowadays he has an opinion on everything even when ot's increasingly clear he knows nothing about the subject at hand.
@@campbellsoup93 Example?
This is a great display of men sharing a healthy disagreement.
Joes idea of what Peterson thinks was off
@@TheRealAT both of these old guys are way off
"Chivalry is dead... And women killed it."
- Dave Chapelle
It really isn't, if you personally don't let it. It's about intent guys.
I think men and women did it together. Women only get away with what men let them.
Women wanted to become like men, and men are assholes, so now everyone is an asshole, thanks a lot for that
@@aakkoin I think it is interesting that people who want equality usually want the ability to be assholes. Women used to be the best drivers. Drove the speed limit, used signals, etc. Now women drive like assholes, texting or with the phone up to their ear as they treat their automobile like it's their living room.
Shut the fuck up Kira or I'm calling an ambulance
6 foot 5, beautiful man covered in tatoos witha jujitsu blackbelt with a podcast :-)
joe is 5'7. but everything else checks out lol
Ya noticed that too. Or maybe that's Joe's type of perfection 🤣
Using american retard logic if identify as 6 ft person regardless of my actual height it is my right for others to refer to me as such
@@kingraj333 bald head
More like 5’6
have incels tried " DMT " ??
see thats ntthe questions that need to be asked
@@ojberrettaberretta5314 really important
LOL
Yes i havent.
@@karlhans6678 do it
I’m a 24 year old highly neurotic man. This is my Achilles heel, especially when it comes to attracting women.
me too. i also have a tiny penis
@@rahulkemp8347 "its all in the hips" - chubbs peterson
Have you tried DMT?
Just kidding :)
🙏
Get plastic surgery
You can tell Joe's a swinger
Sometimes you just got to swing until the energy's gone.
Even though he’s married with 3 kids?
@@jonathanmcculley3728 Well hes literally arguing against enforced monogamy so how do you know marriage and children is a barrier for him
@@callanc3925 He's mentioned it many times. He's happily married, if you don't believe him, why even watch the podcast?
@@FusionC6 You realise being happily married doesnt mean monogamous right? You can have an open marriage
My guy Joe is pressin' my guy Peterson
sus
That's why we like Joe.
Sounds really gay
Bench pressing?
He's trying to
6:56 I just pictured a bunch of 5’1” guys saying, “whoa whoa, hold the fuck up Joe.” LMAO
I believe the point Peterson is trying to make is that there is a large section of the population that would have gotten married because of tradition etc
Getting married because of tradition takes away your right to choose.
@@jimmyittycheria1868 That rational can be used to argue for sanctioned murder... so I think I'll pass. Its not about having all choices available its about guiding choice to maximize benefits to society. That's literally the point of society, free will and choice are dandy but encouraging people to make selfless choices is better.
@@leganzar7831 People will not make selfless choices for the benefit of the society just because someone tells them to, especially in the case of relationships. You cannot tell a person to be a part of a monogamous relationship if they are not happy with it.
Mr. Peterson is talking about women like they are goods. Women will have a say on whether to be or not to be with someone.
BTW, polygamy is not the reason some people aren't getting some. You do realize that the women who sleep with one man will also sleep with other men.
The reason why some men aren't getting laid is because they actually don't know how to.
@@jimmyittycheria1868 Good people will, and you seem to be projecting your misconceptions on to the discussion. You're also building a straw man by framing your comment around enforcing being in a particular relationship. The idea isn't that we enforce staying in any one relationship its that the end goal of dating is to be in one relationship. Dr. Peterson isn't talking about women as if they are goods, he's talking about humans as if they are a resource. ... you know like a social scientist. The reason some men aren't getting laid is they're undesirable. There isn't "a way to get laid" , people are all different and making a connection with them requires fulfilling some desire that person has making them want to reciprocate fulfilling your desire.
@@leganzar7831 What's your point ?
dude really should've just said Encouraged Monogamy rather than 'Enforced' Monogamy
could've avoided that whole mess with the journalist and more accurate portrayed his argument
@Spanish Moustache But then why is polygamy (and also incest) forbidden and criminalised in most countries?
@Spanish Moustache Okay, lets take incest as an example then. Alcohol and drugs are things you decide by yourself, and do to yourself. It is your body and you can decide what is best for you. Still there is a border. At the moment you become a danger for the people arround you, you can get arrested.
The problem with incest (and less drastically, but in the same way with polygamy relationships) is that it does not only involve two adults making a choice for themselves, it also involves the life of a potential child. So you could say that the deed has a direct risk on the potential child that might come into being as a result of your deed. In that case you are crossing the same border as with alcohol and drugs: you become a danger for the people arround you. In which to me it seems sound to forbid it.
@Spanish Moustache There's always social pressure, why would sexuality be excluded. And how would it ever be excluded, sexuality is one of the things that are the most socially regulated. And for a good reason. You won't see a day when people would regard sexuality indifferently. Monogamy is the way to go in my opinion also, I hope people will keep to their senses and not lose that.
@Spanish Moustache I agree as long as your not having sex with a family member, a child or an animal.
Be precise in your speech
Man I wish the clip was longer. It cut off at a time when I was really listening hard to the conversation, wondering what would be said next.
just go watch the podcast
Watch the whole podcast dude
th-cam.com/video/jsMqSBB3ZTY/w-d-xo.html
Joe '6"5' handsome perfect body' Rogan
Uhh, 6'5"? Bro, Rogan short as shit; like 5'7" tops.
That is Josephine Rogan's ideal sexual partner.
Watch Mojo
Yup.
Lmao Rogan wishes he was 6'5
Father Leo Manlet beta male bald 52 year old would kill to even be 5’10 or 5’11. Everyone knows he is not even 5’7 he wears lifts Rogaine has been 5’6 1/2 his whole miserable life.
For anyone that’s unaware “enforced monogamy” is an anthropological term and the journalist who interviewed him was an anthropologist. Of just a quick search of the NYT database “enforced monogamy” is cited as a feminist ideal in a social science journal parading it as a solution for stable pair bonding and a catalyst for the EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN in the secular world Lol
Stable pair bonding, got it.
I agree with Jordan's point. In a monogamous society, a small percentage of the population remains "incel", let's say 10%. They won't harbour as much resentment because they don't resent happy couples, what they mostly resent are "chads", the top 10% who get all the women. In a monogamous society, even chads only get one girl. Sure, she may be the most attractive and cheerful one, but it's only one. In a polygamous society, the disparity grows between incel and Chad and the amount of incels grow considerably, making it a real problem. Which is why it's now becoming a problem and not, say, a century ago.
There was a study on sales people. They gave one group a small bonus for a group of above average performers and another a very big bonus for a very small group of the highest performers. In the latter group, total performance dropped, while in the former, there was a sin
significant increase.
The conclusions drawn from this study are that big rewards for a small amount of high performers demoralise the low performers ("what's the point of trying, I'm not going to get the bonus anyways"), while a small reward that reaches a large portion of the group motivates them ("I might have a chance at getting the bonus, if I try a little harder").
Sure, a big bonus is going to motivate the high performers to give their absolute best, but if we're going to keep the low performers with us, we should at least give them false hope or they're just going drag us down.
Why should we care that some young men can’t get laid? Why should we do anything to make them happy? It’s their problem, not womens.
@@summermarshall2005 Nobody said it was women's* problem that men can't get laid. It's everyone's problem.
What about people that can't get jobs? Jordan Peterson has made the argument that 10-15% of the population has too low an IQ (because IQ is a major factor in how complicated tasks a person can be trained to do) to get a real non-criminal job. The result of that has been that a lot of low IQ people become criminals.
We have no obligation to employ people to do things they can't do or to do basically nothing, but we better figure out something to do about these people. Because otherwise the rest of us will have to be content with overcrowding prisons and high crime rates.
Same for unattractive men. We're not obligated to do anything, but if we don't want them to become resentful towards the wider society, we should figure out something to relieve their despair.
@@summermarshall2005 It's not about getting laid. It's about having a chance at creating an intimate relationship that, if successful, would eventually lead to sex. It's a little something called hooking up. It's understandable how you would not see this, since Women don't struggle with this as much as Men do.
@@summermarshall2005 Because the guys who don't get laid tend to lash out and drive SUVs through crowds of people.
We as a society are kinda stuck with everyone's concerns to a certain extent. Ignoring them certainly isn't a good strategy, and the only other one I can think of is killing them all, which I imagine most people wouldn't agree with.
My wife met me when I was a homeless teenager with nothing to offer and my prospects never got much better. Now im disabled and am fighting to get social security at 31 so I've never had much to offer and she has remained faithful to me for all 14 years we've been together. Now she provides for us while I do my best to care for our child at home. I severely question what you consider a social norm for gender roles. Make no mistake I'm the hunter and protector but she's the provider so I don't know if there really is a standard. Of course this is anecdotal and just an opinion.
Your wife is a diamond.
Your wife great person. The thing is that it is all in statistic. If you look into any studies about attractiveness it is always 60% of women have chosen this type of man, 20% this type and 10% this man.
I am far from alpha when you exclude my athletic abilities (anxious, sensitive, introverted, nerdy) yet I was able to find girlfriend. But before that I had experienced so many rejections because majority of the women want something resembling an alpha (courageous, assertive, leader type). My gf is very well in 10% of women that actually like sensitive guys.
It is all just matter of chance.
Like, I'm going to believe an anonymous guy on internet
@Leandro Aude okay, anonymous guy on the internet.
I loved this, I think this is Joe at his best. JP went in to the convo confidently asserting that enforcing equal outcomes is always an evil thing. But through his thoughtful questioning, Joe was able to force him to realize that, at least when it comes to marriage, JP himself favors pursuing equal outcomes. I hope that JP took those thoughts with him after he left the studio, but even if he didn’t, the rest of us are left with something to think about, all presented in a simple and friendly manner. Good stuff.
JP said nothing about being in favor of equal outcome, and in fact, socially enforced monogamy does not create equal outcome.
JP is in favor of equality of opportunity, and that is what socially enforced monogamy creates.
In polygamous societies, only about 10-20% of men will have mating opportunity, while the rest will have none at all. That is too steep a hierarchy. There is no opportunity for anyone outside the top 10-20% of men.
In monogamous societies, men who are lower on the dominance hierarchies can choose to better themselves and potentially create mating opportunities. This creates more stability in society at large - men are less likely to fight over mates.
If JP was in favor of equal outcomes, then he would be championing incompetent men as mates the same way that feminists champion fat women. He doesn’t do that. Like he said, he does not believe in forcing women to choose suboptimal men.
In a free monogamous society, it is up to men to optimize their own mating opportunities. It is up to them to build themselves up so that women actually choose them as their singular partner. If women are still rejecting a man in a society where monogamy is the social norm, than it’s the man’s fault.
All JP is in favor of is equal opportunity.
@@seanodonnell429 I mean yeah that’s the conclusion he finally comes to, but he starts with saying that the reason there’s incels is because there isn’t enough monogamy, which just isn’t the case. Sure young adults experiment and date around and sleep with multiple people, but both men and woman are doing that, and often both are trying to get with the hottest people. Then that phase passes and they start looking for someone they are genuinely emotionally connected with. Hot men taking all the woman and long lasting polyamory are nonissues, and quite frankly have nothing to do with why incels can’t get girlfriends. I’m not sure if you just don’t know many incels or if it’s cause you’re one yourself but I have two that have been trying to get with me for awhile (one for 5 years) and it’s not their physical attraction that’s keeping me from dating them, nor is it me choosing other hotter guys. It’s because they’re assholes. They’re legitimately the rudest guys I know and see woman as objects that they deserve. And on top of that, despite the fact that they’re kinda desperate, they have the absolute highest standards. Somehow they think that even though they live with their parents, are super rude, have poor hygiene, and aren’t trying to get a job, they deserve a doting model.
Quite frankly, the reason they can’t get a girlfriend isn’t cause all the women are taken, but because they don’t actually want to date the ones who are in their league. There’s plenty of woman out there that also can’t get a date, they just aren’t these 7-10/10s. These guys just refuse to accept that they don’t deserve the best.
The advice we should be telling them is to lower their expectations, a lot.
First of all, I am not an incel, and your passive aggressive insinuation was uncalled for. Second of all, I am sorry that you’ve had to deal with harassment from incels. That community is reprehensible, and their attitude and behavior towards women is inexcusable. These are men that do not deserve mates, period. Women are smart to reject them because they are weak, toxic, narcissistic vermin.
Having said that, JP never said that incels exist BECAUSE of the existence of polyamory in our society. In fact, in any direct reference he makes to them, he condemns them. He points out multiple times that if a man is rejected by all women, then it is his responsibility to look to his own inadequacies and put the work in to improve.
The point that he does make is that polygamous societies tilt towards violence, and they do for several reasons. It stems from fact that women are hypergamous and tend to flock towards men in the top 5-10 percent of dominance hierarchies. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest this. You need only look at the stats on dating apps and hookup culture. I don’t what why you said it’s a non-issue, but that’s completely false. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with women being attracted to the top shelf guys. In fact, women’s sexual selectivity has benefited our species greatly from an evolutionary perspective. The trouble with polygamous societies is that the men who do have access to women treat them as disposable pleasures. They use them for sex, then kick them to the curb. Why? Because they can. The women are allowing it and even encouraging it indirectly by throwing themselves at these men. Then when they get tossed out, they are left embittered and resenting all men because the men they choose are narcissistic and psychopathic. Meanwhile, the other 90 percent of men are without mating opportunities. Men are deeply incentivized on a biological level to mate. This drives everything from healthy competition and productive work to violent jealous outrages. If there are no structures in place to prevent men from stealing each other’s partners, then they tend to get aggressive with each other. I’m not saying that’s right, but that’s what happens. Also, having families incentives men to keep society stable and safe. If the vast majority of men don’t have a family, they have no incentive to keep society stable.
I think the vast majority of people push back on the idea of enforced monogamy because the term invokes an image of a totalitarian society where women are stripped of their autonomy, ripped from their families and forced to mate with undesirable men. This is not what it means at all. It simply means that we culturally celebrate the choice to have one stable monogamous relationship and discourage cheating.
Everyone having one wife is not an equal outcome. Because not every woman is the same.
You still have a mechanism for reward for a good man, he gets a good woman.
But with dollars, an equal amount for everyone is equal outcome because all dollars are the same.
@@seanodonnell429But by hurling abuses at all men who may technically be incels, you are adding to the reasons why they become hateful, misogynistic in the first place. The society should not be shunning these men by hurling abuses at them if they can't find girlfriends. The only solution for them is society being empathetic, and making them realize that there's nothing wrong with not having a girlfriend. They should focus their time and efforts on improving themselves, which will in turn make them more happier and less hateful and misogynistic. For this to happen, society also has to accept that if there are men who don't have a girlfriend, but they are successful and happy in their lives, they shouldn't be shunned and hurled abuses at.
So, the solution to the incel problem is both internal to the incels looking at improving themselves and becoming less miserable. And, the society accepting them as people, and not degrading them as degenerates
Why do they keep referring to this man as a man, his name is chad
And beyond him lies the Chad of Chads.
*_G I G A C H A D_*
The problems Jordan addresses are absolute crucial in the way our society will function in the future. The need for monogamy is essential for a sustainable life, but I believe that the solutions to this problem are very hard to obtain, due to the complexities of our current society. I’m not sure what can be done to fix this, but I at least respect Jordan for creating a conversation to be thought about and discussed.
I think I figured it out the reason we need enforced monogamy is that society doesn't work if unattractive men don't contribute to so to use Joe's reference lebron can play basketball well but we still need someone to make the court and ball and play against him and if only lebron gets rewarded for his effort ws hy would anyone else try
The solution is Blade Runner level sex robots.
Or Mute.
doubt
Yeeee
@음란물은사랑을죽인다진심으로 yes with proper funding.
Basically. We all get to have a perfect sex partner and no one gets particularly hurt. Although the real men will still get more real women to actually reproduce with. But maybe that's not such a bad thing..? Maybe only 6's and above should be allowed to reproduce LMAO. But wait... If everyone is a 6 or above, then the 6's would now be "1's" in the new hierarchy. The hierarchy would just reform... So even then, the problem never gets solved. It's actually crazy the lengths you could go and never fix any of this. It's very complicated.
Peterson is right. Look at the stats on Tinder (which is basically polygamous at this point) and you’ll see that the top 20% of men get the same amount of matches as the bottom 80% combined. For women, it’s basically an even split. Nowadays, the majority of young couples meet their partners through online dating according to data
My question is how can we ever expect society to function this way? How do we expect our people to do the evolutionary bare minimum, having children? We’re absolutely and totally screwed if this trend continues, and frankly it shows no signs of stopping
honestly, I do not believe that for women it is an even split tho. maybe half as distorted as ours.
@@mckonal That's not statistically true
Elon musk is the first big figure speaking about plummeting birth rates
Glad to see Rogan taking a more confrontational approach.
Rogan keeps talking about how the guy at the top will attract the most women. But IF you were to go back to societally enforced monogomy then what would happen is that the top man would basically.... climb the ladder if you will to see how high he can go. That is to say he'll have more sex and more sexual experiences. But another aspect of societally enforced monogamy is that the society will pressure the man into eventually "settling down" which he will at some point be forced to do or risk damaging his reuptation. Meaning the dominant males will eventually be forced into a bottle neck where they'll get married and that frees up any of the women he was going to be with after the fact to go look for other men and eventually settle.
"I'm tryin to use you to convince my wife to add another chick and you're kinda fuckin it up, Jordan"
hehe
I come from a country with a forced/encouraged monogamy culture so I can weigh in on this a bit:
One thing that happens a lot in my country is parents tell their children all through their development "one day you're gonna be a husband (or wife), have kids, you should prepare for that both financially and as a person." They tell the kids what virtues and skills they're going to need to be a good father/mother, husband/wife. It does work in curing the incel problem and prepping people for marriage, it's just unfortunate that "my" people have a really fucked up sense of morality so it creates A LOT of very toxic households.
A Confused Shoe where are you from, may I ask?
The trouble is that women and men have to marry in such societies like it or not and the partner may not be that desirable to you.
I come from the place where casual dating and fucking around is the norm. Trust me its not that much better in the long run. All even moderately attractive women are ran through. You cant find a 25 year old. which had less than 10 sexual partners before. With each that parner, one night stand or relationship. They bring with them psychological issues. So we have a shit show of trust issues, cheating out of boredom, failure to value what you have in the situation and so much more, bitterness from less successful men, who dont want, feel like its unfair to date a woman or settle with a woman who had a lot more partners than they, pretty much a big clusterfuck of lonely, fucked up people. Especially in 30s, when most women decide that they want to have a family and pool of willing mates shrink, cause most men dont want to settle or dont want to settle with them and on top, everyone carries lots of psychological issues, men and women with them and even if people find each other, the relationshits dont last long or dont last without cheating, lying and manipulation. Overall forced marriage isnt good and does not sound great, but promiscious sexual society isnt either.
People who repeatedly "misinterpret" truer words often don't want to hear truth.
I was struggling to find a girlfriend for a very long time. I was joking with friends that I should move to a country with arranged marriages.
But thankfully I didn’t have to go that far I just had them move to a different state and I found the most awesome person in the world.
" the most awesome person in the world" will not be the words you'll use when she'll replace you for someone higher in the hierarchy
@@brickgraims83 Not always, Hierarchies matter,But its not everything
@@scottmclearn6949 Do you know the difference between man and woman? You are illuded that she'll be loyal to you and thus you are disposed to do the same. Women can allow themselves to stay in a level of the hyerarchy, waiting silently to go up This is just an illusion, nature doesn't work this way. If the conditions allow it, she'll replace you. Hyerarchy is everything. It's just that laws and morals try to mask these things
@@brickgraims83 you don’t possess the sight required to speak in absolutes
@@brickgraims83 you know sometimes I feel bad for guys like this, they have so little self-confidence that they've given up trying to find a partner and now believe "all women only want rich CEO men, I only average man". Your life must be miserable
To address Joe's inequality outcome analogy, polygamy is more like if some people in society are making lots of money and other people in society are simply making zero money. Well that's a problem, you can't have them making no money, or else they will riot. That's Jordan's point, I think.
almost soudns like ac ertain social democrat that the right keeps saying is crazy
@@joaodelgado6696 He is crazy, because in a socialist society, it's like allowing other people to sleep with your wife.
@@joaodelgado6696 Equality of Opportunity != Equality of Outcome
@@ericstaples7220 big brain take you did it you completely debunked socialism congrats
@@joaodelgado6696 Socialism debunked itself by failing in every instance of its implementation.
Lol this was kinda funny
Joe: I had no idea what the term meant I'd never heard it, it's a psychological term
Seconds later
Peterson: She knew what the term meant, she's not stupid.
Well the woman he was interviewing with was an anthropologist soooo... maybe there was more to the conversation then what got published in the article
peterson: women cheat
Rogan: that's unconfortable
Joe is sweating thinking about what his wife is able to do
@@carllagerfield4996 eeh...Rogan is high enough in the hierarchy that she might not feel the need. And besides it's common for women to cheat but still not a normality.
@@Roguenight863 but she would still get some money from the divorce even though not 50% if she was proven guilty of cheating
@@Roguenight863 yeah but Joe don’t got that big kelbasa and some women want that big ol kelbasa
@@Traumatised311 true. But I was talking about cheating not necessarily divorce.
It isn’t always that women are rejecting these men. There’s a huge problem with young people not having a single healthy relationship due to a generation growing more polygamous.
Do you want a stable society or a free society?
Polygamy is having more than one spouse, not more than one wife. If we had a polygamous society it wouldn't just be men with multiple wives, it could also be women with multiple husbands.
Culturally enforced monogamy is obviously what he meant. But some people live to pick JP’e ass for every statement that could possibly be turned.
Are you single and ready to mingle?
He phrases it stupidly. All he had to say was encouraged not enforced.
@@fe5018 But enforced can have multiple different connotations. It was plainly obvious he was not talking about legal enforcement.
@@keyboardmamma Not so obvious actually - enforced has a specific meaning.
@@wanderingstar5270 Yes if you take in the context of the argument he was making and the conversation as a whole, it was indeed obvious that he was not talking about legal mandates.
1:28 Jordan catches himself when he's about to say "It's so fucked up."
Nope, it was "its so funny"
100% caught that too
That was an interesting discussion to watch.
Here's an supposition that might he worth examining: The sexually successful man who only wants casual sex with a bunch of women is actually losing by doing so; finding a woman who is personally compelling enough to dominate a man's attention is actually more desirable than casual sex with multiple women.
Tell it to basketball players.
Funny that Joe mentions professional sports, where I'm pretty sure an athlete has to sign a contract and be in only 1 team and win only 1 spot in the end, basically an enforced monogamy. I wonder how long a sports organization would last if an athlete could be in any amount of teams they wanted and could win 1st, 2nd and 3rd place at the same time? imagine 8 out of 10 football teams being the same lineup and the same person getting all the money in every competition?
Sound like it would demotivate a bunch of potential athletes, why should they go into this sport if the have a close to 0% change to ever achieve anything?
Based
Shhhhhhh
Principled logic was outlawed remember?
So if we should reign polygamy ( sexual inequality) with enforced monogamy "to provide stable circumstances for children". Wouldn't that same argument work for reign in wealth inequality???
They thought " I wanted to take nubile young women and deliver them at the point of a gun to useless men. No one has ever believed that!" LMAO
There are absolutely people who have believed that though. It's literally happening in extremist/fundamentalist sects.
@@fe5018 Yeah I was about to say there are plenty of people in America who came here SPECIFICALLY to escape societies with militantly enforced monogamy. I'm sure there are plenty of young women who have fled their homes to escape abusive arranged marriages that would not interpret "enforced monogamy" the way Peterson meant it, but instead of acknowledging he could have done a better job with phrasing when addressing a non-academic audience Peterson blames everyone around him for being stupid (even after Rogan tries to get him to read the room) which pretty much sums up who he is as a person.
@@Ryan-nm8pw Yeah right, even when Jordan is given a softball pitch clarifying question he spins off into even grander claims purposefully designed to get the backlash he is looking for and clarifies nothing. His shtick doesn't work if he can't portray himself as a victim, which is extremely ironic.
@@samus598 How is he a victim? How does he portray himself as one? He's married with kids...
@@Ryan-nm8pw there’s a difference between forced and enforced.
Joe "I don't think the two are related" Rogan.
Joe makes a good connection between 'enforced monogamy' and 'equality of outcome.' That's the crux of the matter that people wanted to ask Peterson, and Joe did ask it.
I wouldn't say that's equality of outcome though. It's equality of opportunity. If it's a mathematical fact that most men will miss out, as they would in a polygamous society, that is not equal opportunity.
@@spockskynet I think this discussion is fundamentally flawed because it's failing to recognize that poly women often have multiple male partners. I'm monogamous personally, and happily married, but I have female friends who have several boyfriends/lovers, and sometimes a husband too. I don't think it creates less opportunity for anyone, it's just not for me.
@@candi6642 Poly women in a monogamous society is completely different than having a polygamous society.
Men are less selective maters than women. That means more women will gravitate towards the top men and most men will be left without sexual or romantic opportunity
@@candi6642 gross
I was married and i have two children with this woman. We separated and both started to date other people. I got, surprisingly to myself, jealous. Then i checked it out, confronted it and healed that emotional issue and now i see different women, that have other relationships and i m now at peace. A personal experience that i went through is showing me the way. Heal the insecurities, and then mating becomes so a joy with no more drama. If the children involved have the presence, love and support of their parents exactly when they need it, and if they live in a healthy community, were the parents can are around, instead of being kidnapped by the schedule of the society plans, they would grow into healthy human beings with much traumas then the isolated children that live with monogamous parents im the present situations that our society propose
Joe "everything is totally fine and polygamous societies are totally fictional" Rogan.
Joe is quit dumb on this one. If we don't have a civilization based on monogomy, marriage and family, We will lose the whole system just like in past history. Families keep communities strong.
Finally good logic and decent comment.
Your argument is baseless, just like jp.
@@devamjani8041 Rome would be an example of system failure due to lack of family strength
I must live in an other world entirely.
Never met another women who have chosen their boyfriend/husband based on hypergamy. Everyone around me is together with someone that has the same status or lower status.
you have a lot to see then my friend. wait till they reach 40s and get a divorce and monkey branch to a richer men.
@@modernapexfinancials I'm from India here divorce rate 4% only it's cultural difference man
If someone is with someone of lower status, wouldn't that make the lower status person hypergamous?
So basically his point is that children of broken homes, or least separated parents are more statistically likely to lead a troubled adult life resulting in the destabilization of society?
No, I think he was trying to come up with a solution to combat the fact that a lot of men are lonely and his best guess is enforced monogamy which is imo a very poor attempt at fixing the problem because it just causes many new ones, he should have just admitted that it was a bad idea instead of being afraid of looking wrong on the podcast which is why I think he didnt want to admit it
@@Septiviumexe sure. Although you do have to admit just continuing to ignore the problem in hopes it sorts itself out is also a bad idea.
@@brady2075 I do agree, but giving opinions that limit peoples freedoms where it is not needed imo is just as bad, and im not trying to justify not solving these problems but we have lived generations with these same problems and we seem to be doing relatively fine, fine enough to still be able to fix them, it seems that as of late people have been slowly turning their minds towards problems like this so I think everything is going to be ok, I just hope we start waking up about climate change
@@bro4539 Hmmm, I think I agree with what you are saying, I would need statistics to completely solidify these thoughts but there has been a sexual liberation movement I do agree with that, and a movement towards consequence free sex which includes apps and websites in this new age of the internet so yes, good points
@@Septiviumexe But he's not advocating for limits placed on freedoms. You would still be able to be promiscuous and partake in poly relationships and no one would stop you, however there would be a social stigma placed on you. That isn't forcing anything.
I met many women who were attracted to other men just for the sole reason that other women were attracted to them
That just insinuates that the guy is attractive looking or something (rich or good with women or whatever). That is just common sense. I am not talking about that, I mean a woman who doesn’t find a guy attractive at all then she finds out he had a lot of exes and that idea own itself is attractive to her. That is just annoying and immature. that if you are not some player then women wouldn’t find you attractive. I guess most of these women are insecure and immature anyways
@@VHale-yz7hc Go fvck youself roastie!
Jordan Peterson is a brilliant man...IN HIS FIELD. When it comes to some of these topics, he seems to be no more informed than any other person except his vocabulary is particularly well rounded. Talking about enforced monogamy is barely one step away from enforced heterosexuality as far as I see.
This is his field, it is related to human psychology and sociology
It’s not though. Also it was made obvious that JP hasn’t thought through his ideas and taken them to their logical conclusions. In the end he is a quack and christian apologist and these things inform his views more than research in the fields he pretends to be an expert in.
I'm afraid you're wrong. Most of western society and much of eastern is in the state of enforced monogamy. We don't allow marriages to multiple people at once and it has worked better than polygamous societies. If you're thinking that he somehow wants to force women into something, you're wrong
@@SeaCowsBeatLobsters he did.. although here the argument was weak but this is a small segment of a large video. And he is right, the most successful societies do have monogamy as a default setting
The way women have traditionally chosen mates makes it seem like they're after power. That's why it's an uncomfortable topic.
@E C I agree with at least some of that. Question: Why does every woman I know say that they've made the worst choices when it comes to dating/mating?
@@TheDionysianFields Happens to all of us, physical attraction can only last for so long before you just decide: "fuck this person." I've met beautiful women, and crushed hardcore but then listening to them be sloppy assholes completely turns me off.
Women had no say in choosing mates for 95% of history. Girls' fathers used to decide who their daughter is gonna marry.
@@mazymetric8267 Yeah, I meant after they started having a choice. There's still enough of a timeline there to establish a pattern/tradition. Not that I've claimed that they did.
@Leandro Aude lmao no they do not you incel
Jordan: It's bad for society to have one group of people controlling everything
Joe: Yeah... but I like it that way
Jordan: Yeah but its bad for society
Joe: BUT... I like it
Jordan: *sigh*
His big stupid head doesnt get it.
Go to any college campus or high school and you will see a polygamist society😂. That’s where all these intel’s come from. Many of them aren’t middle age men they’re adolescents.
Yeah the 5'2 balding Indian guy can totally compete with the 6'2 model looking guy by "just lifting bro!"
sunny my black pill brother, gimme a high five
@@shannondove96 sending you a digital high five fam
@Eden Grey The fundamental thing is you gotta stop being a pussy and just talk to girls.
They need to become "men" first and foremost. Now, what that nebulous shyster expression actually means and what advice would one give, completely befuddles me, but nevertheless, they need to "man up". Also, watch out for that clearly defined "toxic masculinity".
@@Subhumanoid_ Its not a nebulous saying, its the nice way of saying grow some balls pussy. Stop being a bitch, get some game and start going to bars.
Jordan: men should only pursue a relationship with one woman
Joe: what if I don’t want too?
Pretty much 🤣
what they don't talk about is the natural evolutionary aspect of the situation:
better and better looking people are naturally pushed to be preferrable sexual partners in order to improve the overall health, intelligence, looks, attitude and strength of the population, generation by generation.
Edit: fun fact, I wrote this comment when I was at 10:12 of the video, literally as soon as I resumed watching Peterson talked about this aspect
Edit 2: I still find myself disagreeing with what Peterson said because sure, evolution might lean the population to a slight poligamy, but in the long term this would improve the overall quality of the population hence reducing the need for poligamy because every individual would be a good sexual candidate at that point.
Joe should come visit my town, 60% of women have 2-3 kids all from different men. Most of them are still single or with a new guy that isn't the father to any of their children. I can tell you that sure as hell isn't good for the kids.
Well when a woman find she's married an asshole, thats what happens
@@marionow6227 It is not hard to find out wether a man is husband material or not, she WANTED to date the bad boy because he was a turn on. That is what happens when you follow your animalistic desires and don't think
@@reezis1619 people are short sighted, if that is what you mean. Especially when they fall in love and later find out that this person is different then they expected. Happens to all of us. Only some people are more short sighted then others, due to many reasons.
What do you mean? The women are happy so everything is fine right?
/s
@@nomadsland8322 if u can’t see the bigger picture your part of the problem.
I have always been considered attractive, and was used to woman acting weird and guys acting weird around me, and I enjoyed the spoils but never really appreciated it. Then I got wounded, on my face. I took care of it, and now have a minor scar I have bearded over. But I learned a lot over that 6 month period. I appreciate things more, and have greater empathy.
I don't agree with Joe Rogan. It's easy to call incels "unattractive" to women, but they don't start that way. People aren't born with toxic attitudes about women and sexuality. They get pushed there by the frustration and despair at being unable to find a partner, either through attributes that aren't in their control (genes control your height, your face, your metabolism, all things that contribute to physical attractiveness), or attributes that ARE in their control, but just aren't taught to young men by our society. Showing dominance has been retooled as "toxic masculinity." Being confident and approaching women is now termed "sexual harassment".
I agree with Jordan Peterson that a polygamous society helps create incels. Casual hookups and open relationships are extremely common today. With online dating becoming the norm, it's easy for women to swipe left on a man that's only 5' 8". Compare this to a physical interaction, where a man approaches a woman in a social setting. A woman isn't going to "swipe left" on a guy that they're talking with face-to-face, even if they're meeting for the very first time. Even if she's not immediately attracted to him, a pleasant conversation can change that. All that disappears with online dating. You can really see what Jordan Peterson is talking about through the perspective of online dating. Men who don't have the idealized face and body get swiped left on. The most attractive men are usually the ones that horde all of the matches.
U sound like an incel
The separation of people who do & don't want children is such an extreme nuance in life.
It's ironic that Joe Rogan uses the examples of sports and business as a counter point to Peterson's argument considering that both the sports and business worlds have rules and contracts. Why then is it so unpalatable to Rogan to think of rules (monogamy) and contracts (marriage) in the world of romantic relationships?
Because he's a sexual deviant and desperately wants to internally justify cheating on his wife by labeling himself as a "sexual winner" rather than a cheat.
@Lee Juddy definitely came across that way
you can't make rules and contracts for romantic relationships. you would know that if you've ever had one
I agree with JP based on size of population opportunity, and the internet, mixed with the fact we are not more evolved than we were 10,000 years ago.
We wouldn’t have access to a thousand mates, let alone millions. People took what they got. And basic psychology has shown again and again that more choices make us miserable.
Wow, Rogan had the balls to completely clash with Peterson on the issue of enforced monogamy. That’s actually so impressive that he pushed Peterson intellectually on that point.
Very clever JR. You got him to tell you exactly what everyone else needs to hear.. Good podcast 💯😎✌️
Clean your room
LAZYB00GiE *Clean your room, bucko.
Larson Kaser this guy just seems like psychological snake oil salesman...but hey if it helps people it's ok I quess?
My house is ONE room, I never clean all of it MingLee
It's not snake oil if it makes sense and helps people.
Can someone explain this meme to me
It's kind of annoying to have people blaming me for being an Incel, saying I'm not a real man. I work hard, own my own property, have friends but apparently I'm not a real man. It's not my frigging fault I was born unattractive.
Keep grinding you'll find someone easily. Stay kind
@ching chong I fail to see how using a certain label anonymously online could affect my dating prospects.
@AdolphHipster You say grinding sarcastically yet you simultaneously tell him to start lifting. I'm talking about grinding in the context of physical health, mental strength, knowledge, social skills and fashion. Don't be so hopeless
@AdolphHipster Sounds like you're being a coward
Yes but unattractive can get women. By having status or money, personality, game etc.
Sleeping with anything that moves should not be considered empowering. It's borderline animalistic. Promiscuous people disgust me.
Mmmm if you hate promiscuity that much don't engage in it , that's it ,no need to put other people down !
I wonder if with internet dating things have changed. Combined with the fact that often men tend to be less choosy with casual encounters and women tend to prefer a guy who has many women in parallel (which men would not accept) but is desirable / high status. Hence, polygamy ensues unless constrained by contrary social norms.
I would say that that's exactly what's happening in online dating sites and apps like tinder. These apps and sites have grown the dating pool exponentially meaning that women have better chance of finding and attracting those high status men. While before the online dating the dating pool was confined within the city/town you lived in and the social groups you had, unlike now when you can date people even from the other side of the planet.
There is a problem called 'the tragedy of the commons' this seems to relate to availability of sexual mates and what is being discussed.
I'd like to see this topic discussed with rogan, peterson, and Dan balzerian together.
If guys could only sleep with a girl if they were going to spend the rest of their life with them by law, then that would mean that people would find people on their level or around their level and stick to each other.
What happens now, more and more is that the best males sleep with anyone 4 or even five places maybe more below their level.
This in turn means that women hold out for these guys dipping their proverbial toe into their level. These guys never settle down with those lower level females, but what does happen is they inflate the ego of these women through attention they get from higher level males. So their opinion of themselves increases so much that they reject guys at their own level or even a touch higher than their level, as they have a shot of attention from hundreds of better guys dipping their toe.
If all the guys stopped toe dipping. Which is impossible imho, but if they did due to some law. Then this would mean they only go with people on their level, women who previously had attention from men above their level stop getting that and realise their level, and settle for someone on their level. Instead of being rejected constantly by higher level guys dipping their toe.
The result is all people end up with people on their level.
Rather than the alternative which is the top 30-40% of guys do all the fucking and the bottom third or more have zero.
This is bad because of lack of family unit, like peterson said, but also because the bottom third or more who have no chance at getting any sex or the middle ground who can’t find a woman on their level, give up on life, suicide increases, men don’t try and give to society or work or earn or look after themselves. The main reason guys do this currently is to find a mate, without this there is no reason.
Competition with other males as a reason without sex is not really a factor i dont think. Not strong enough to save us anyway.
Lol props to Joe Rogan. Jordan Peterson has no logical reason to say that enforced monogamy would solve incels problems, or that it is better for society even. Because it's better for the children? That's extremely arbitrary and slanted thinking. If a part of society exists that only rewards attractive males, that doesn't equate to poor homes for kids. It seems Peterson is personally pro a monogamous society because he feels it is more moral and organized in his view, but has no logical argument to support it. Common amongst religious intellectuals to have disjointed points of views like that.
Enforced monogamy = lowering the standards meaning more men who previously didn't have a chance now have a chance and JP is ok with that but try telling him we should lower academic standards so more people enter university or lowering the standards for high paying jobs so more people can have 6 figure salaries and all of a sudden JP is against the idea.
If more people enter universities, it does not translate into more people making 6 figure salaries, as money is a relative thing. If more people have more money, it just ends up having less value. The other option would be to let the people battle for the 6 figure income after they finished uni, and the same amount of people will get that 6 figure income, but half of them would have studied for nothing an be in dept (if it's usa)
Enforced monogamy is not lowering the standard. The most desirable men will still be the most desirable and women can still choose to pursue them, they will just face consequences just as men do for aiming so high with little effort on their part thanks to polygamy and men's lower standards. If anything monogamy encourages women to compete as men do.
If everyone had 6 figure jobs then those jobs wouldn’t be six figures anymore. Economics is pretty simple.
yeah dude, let any guy from the street do a surgery on you.
Education should have high standards, do you want an uneducated doctor perform a high risk surgery on you? It can not be compared to marriage and formation of family.
Rogan dropping the “beautiful man” line again.
peterson is absolutley right in the point that he is making, the evidence through history is clear as day.
@Spanish Moustache agreed
Enforced monogamy seems like the idea is to take choice away from women. Ultimately monogamy will occur more often if men are better people and “mates”
Behind-every-successful-man-there-stands-a-woman definition. A man 's achievements are made possible by the support and work of their wife or female partner. Women just grew to be a bit too selfish. I don't know much about monogamy and stuff.. I know that females went for alpha male through humanity's history and the alpha male impregnated them all.. Now I don't know how much benefit came from monogamy when it was popular.. if there was any boom in progress or something.. but sure I would be much happier and more productive if I had a partner that I would be love-dovey with.
JP is right we are in a polygamist society because marriage and monogamy is no longer the norm
I mean it is just not (I'm presuming we're the same age) at our age, and there's nothing wrong with that imho.
It is the norm after 30
@@BodhiGeraci People getting married and staying married has been on the decline for decades. Look back at the 1950s where people got married in their 20s and stayed married for life. People on average had more sex than they do now and not by coincidence were happier. We are now living in a type of "hook up culture" where people meet at bars or tinder and have sex. Many women are hooking up with the same "alpha" guys so even though they are not in polygamist marriage they are in polygamist relationships.
i don't think joe understands that there are some guys out there that are simply unattractive no matter how much they learn, grow or "become men". Whether it's their vibe, they way they look or whatever, there are some guys who behave like men, make all the right moves, learned how to attract women and still see no progress because they are simply not attractive
Joe talks about sports but sports has rules to even out the playing field and I feel this is the same with the enforced monogamy it’s a sort of rule is society to give the others a chance.
Honestly it's nearly impossible to make sure nobody misunderstands you nowadays. We are in the Twitter generation after all. Every explanation that goes beyond 100 characters already strains the average person's attention span.
Exactly, few people are willing to get a full understanding of what they're looking at and calling '...ist' or '... Phobic'. They are quick to judge a person's entire life, beliefs, situation, and personality in a short clip, or even a matter of words
@@lolomatic3534 I completely agree. And another thing is even how people completely neglect someone's views when he or she says only 1 thing they don't agree with. I for instance disagree with a handful of points Peterson made regarding relgion for instance. But I still recognize that his ideas on other topics are valuable. I've never once encountered an intellectual who I've agreed with on everything. Peterson has a few bad takes too (excluding those that people take out of context due to confirmation bias of course).