Doc Jordan Peterson Says "Attractive Men Should Not Capitalize On Sex Appeal"
Doc Jordan Peterson wants to say it's not good for those with higher attractive sex appeal to "capitalize" on this and sleep with multiple women, but instead to make a sacrifice and choose monogamy. Because apparently this is better for society.
Better for SOCIETY? Says WHO??
Because I'm over here, like
"Heyyy.. what's up doc? You're tripping over "progressives" in Canada weaponizing speech in academia, I'm saving the babies from autism. Oh yeah, I solved the baseline physics of human sensory integration. Without the vocalization/hearing feedback loop at birth the human baby can't learn to spatially encode its environment tonotopically and suffers a severe developmental disorder. Why? Because no other human sense creates an actual response from the environment which can be used to decode and encode its external environment. It's the same concept as radar; we're born with it we just have to learn to use it. Vision comes in later based on this auditory integration. Also.. the same postnatal stimulus signals mechanoreceptors in the skin and muscles to jump start "reflexive" smooth muscle involuntary endogenous processes, such as peristalsis, to synapse at the spine. It literally provides the fundamental initial coordination of reflexes at birth.
Oh and Doc you like to "encourage" young men to be brave in your online lectures? That's your big psychological mission? Well I turn them into hunters of the world's most beautiful creatures. How about that.
Oh and yeah I took your "Big Five Aspects" Personality Test. Here's the results:
Looks like your test works. Snarf "
It's true though, I did hit up Doc Peterson to let him know of my work, but didn't get a response. Of course I've also been corresponding with other doctors and biologists and medical professionals. Some of us still work. But hey I hope the doc enjoyed his drug-fueled vacation the last couple years. PFff. Those "opium pills" are strong, huh?
The idea that the successful minority should cater to the unsuccessful majority is one of the democratic idiosyncrasies that just doesn't work and has never worked throughout history. His two arguments:
1)You treat yourself casually if you have casual sex and it damages your soul:
Dr. Peterson is attempting to paint all sexual encounters as cheap one night stands and within that very process, you begin to respect yourself less and cheapen your own worth. He's completely missing the much larger part of the equation where a romantic casual encounter, one-night stand, hookup etc, EXISTS within the male and female fantasy. It's an experience that women crave. I.e. Meeting a stranger, getting to know one another over a wild night, and it ending in safe, consensual, and fun sexual fulfillment. His view on sex is juvenile and the irony is that he's calling the most prolific male fantasy of having multiple women and picking from the flock, a 14-yr old boy's fantasy. No. It's not boyish. Don't infantilize a real, rewarding and exhilarating experience for both men and women that way. The days of drunk, sloppy, college hookups, kicking her out the next morning and then bragging about it to your friends isn't the mark of a seasoned renaissance man. It's certainly part of the landscape, sometimes people get hurt, but you can't prevent all the pain when a man or woman has more expectations that the other can't fulfill. They still can enjoy the experience and will seek out more of the same. Instead, we need more outreach, like what this forum does, to evolve men from timid boys, to having regular sex, to taking it deeper and showing women great experiences even if it's only ends up a fling. Those CAN be a good thing and good experiences that women look fondly over. Men are not the evil transgressors and the women our victims. Those are the patriarchal days of old. We're all willing participants in this fun sexual and romantic dance.
2)Its bad for society: It is not. It is only upsetting and hurtful to those who are unable to do the same. The great lie is that they can't, when they CAN. This msg is easy for them to feel safe and secure and never venture out into the unknown to find what could've been. What's bad for society is repression of this biological instinct. Instincts that get ignored, shamed, or shut down turn perverse and unleash themselves one way or the other. There are many examples of this. Glossing over the issue with a generic statement in that "it's bad", only trivializes it. Allow room for biology but nurture and tame it so it doesn't run rampant. From my understanding, many men DO choose one women anyways (atleast for a period of time) but monogamy isn't so black and white. They may have had partners before, they may get divorced, they may cheat to find other fulfillment, they may explore with their partner. This already exists in society.
Why don't we instead, elevate the game? Make ourselves better in a healthy and productive way. This is good for all involved.
Caliph, phenomenal post brother. Encapsulates so many teachings from this forum
Yeah I agree. That's the second time reading his response and I like it more this time.
So the focus here and in the community is NOT on one night stands, though that is a natural occurrence a fair amount of times. But I don't appreciate the discussion being so quickly turned in that direction and I'd certainly be against any attempts to pigeonhole the site or discussions on here in that way. There's a LOT of relationships that form from the skills gleaned and created here and the processes of self-actualization espoused here.
And I've had PLENTY of students meet their girlfriends through training. Plenty