Jordan Peterson's perspective on sex and women?

[AlphaNoob]

I've been watching Jordan Peterson's videos lately and he to be attractive to multiple women, but only chose one. He thinks sex is dangerous because it reaches down to the soul of an individual, it involves emotions, pregnancy, disease, and much more complicated things that we cannot fathom (even though pregnancy and disease can be partially taken care of by protection). He says that we cannot divorce sex from other aspects of our lives such as family and emotions. If we want our lives to be of meaning, that cannot be possible when our sexual lives value diversity and quantity. When we have lots of casual partners, we turn ourselves into casual partners. This can have an impact on the psyche that can damage our future ability to form stable relationships with a partner and potential children.

The example he uses is Tiger Woods cheating on his wife, so I am not sure what he thinks before someone finds a good partner.

So my main question is does having a lot of casual partners affect my future ability to form a stable relationship and family???

 

[Who Dares Win]

Being unable to bond after several sexual partners works much more on women than men.

For men the number has be much higher to reach that same result.

While a woman with 5+ previous partners is a weak bonder and a 10+ is unable to bond, for men it takes up to 10 to reach phase one and more than 20 to reach phase two.

The differences are so many, but the most important one is that women have sex with guys that qualifies for a relationship in their eyes while men split sex and relationship very easy.

If you qualify to have sex with a girl, its very likely that you qualify for a ltr with her too, for us its not the case since there are plenty of girls we would bang but not even invite to dinner.

 

[AlphaNoob]

Being unable to bond after several sexual partners works much more on women than men.

For men the number has be much higher to reach that same result.

While a woman with 5+ previous partners is a weak bonder and a 10+ is unable to bond, for men it takes up to 10 to reach phase one and more than 20 to reach phase two.

The differences are so many, but the most important one is that women have sex with guys that qualifies for a relationship in their eyes while men split sex and relationship very easy.

If you qualify to have sex with a girl, its very likely that you qualify for a ltr with her too, for us its not the case since there are plenty of girls we would bang but not even invite to dinner.

So do you agree then sleeping with a new girl every week can have detrimental effects on future serous relationships and family?

 

[Who Dares Win]

So do you agree then sleeping with a new girl every week can have detrimental effects on future serous relationships and family?

Yes but it would take so many women that the risk is very unlikely to happen for most men.

If you fvck around for so long given the effort necessary, you are already in your head not interested in anything stable.

Plus our laws in no way encourage men to cheat or leave their wifes, this has to be taken into consideration too.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

So my main question is does having a lot of casual partners affect my future ability to form a stable relationship and family???

I believe that it does. Consider that the last couple hundred years have been the very first time in human history where marrying somebody with 5+ sexual partners is acceptable as normal.

Far too many variables to make any conclusions, but from an instinctive level, it doesn't make much sense.

For example, most people are fat and unhealthy because food is readily available.

I can't imagine that having sex readily available doesn't come with unintended negative consequences.

Sure, you can diet and stay fit, but few people do.

And you can engage sexually and stay emotionally healthy, but few people do.

It's also hard to believe in unicorns when most guys have so much experience with women that give it away relatively easily.

Even if having tons of sex doesn't do anything to men, it will make it much more difficult, from a competitive, economic view, to find a "quality woman" with a low body count.

Which means that high quality women (intelligent, low debt, low body count) are going to be VERY picky.

Which means the current market of easy sex and high body counts pretty much prices most guys out of the market for "high quality women."

Definitely not a good environment for average quality guys who value traditional relationships.

 

[highSpeed]

I believe that it does. Consider that the last couple hundred years have been the very first time in human history where marrying somebody with 5+ sexual partners is acceptable as normal.

Far too many variables to make any conclusions, but from an instinctive level, it doesn't make much sense.

For example, most people are fat and unhealthy because food is readily available.

I can't imagine that having sex readily available doesn't come with unintended negative consequences.

Sure, you can diet and stay fit, but few people do.

And you can engage sexually and stay emotionally healthy, but few people do.

It's also hard to believe in unicorns when most guys have so much experience with women that give it away relatively easily.

Even if having tons of sex doesn't do anything to men, it will make it much more difficult, from a competitive, economic view, to find a "quality woman" with a low body count.

Which means that high quality women (intelligent, low debt, low body count) are going to be VERY picky.

Which means the current market of easy sex and high body counts pretty much prices most guys out of the market for "high quality women."

Definitely not a good environment for average quality guys who value traditional relationships.

I understand what you and the OP are saying and fundamentally, I agree. The reality is, and some have listed some of the issues that create real barriers to meaningful relationships, is that society simply doesn't encourage these types of connections anymore. We've had about 3 generations now that do the hippy, free love bullcrap and while it sounds like a good deal in theory, it doesn't work in practice.

Most women, get emotionally attached to some degree, until you get to a high number, for there to be no emotion centered around sex. Most guys, get jealous if they were to see their woman f*cking someone else. It's in our DNA. So simply saying free love, better living through chemicals, it's mostly crap. It's brainwashing, for what purpose I'm not exactly sure, but brainwashing nonetheless.

We've now "empowered" women, through the media, through the liberal communist nonsense, through "academia" and especially through the law, to perform at their basest level. That basest level is hypergamy and while in the past women could use hypergamy, it was never encouraged societally. The proverbial gloves are off now though, so with many women, their truest sevles show through. And that is bad for men and ultimately, society as a whole.

I truly had wished for a quality, committed, loving relationship all through my young adulthood and as I now start to enter middle agedom, I realize how shallow, myopic, illogical and unlikely to happen that this actually was. Women, the environment we currently live in, the law, it all conspires against the man who wishes a meaningful connection. It's not low quality or high quality men either, you're going to get this behavior across the board. High quality men can deflect this obviously, much easier than a low quality man but it happens to all in any event.

Not saying that I don't wish anyone well and am dam jealous of anyone who runs into the unicorn but I've really taken off the rose colored glasses and realized that the vast majority of men are unlikely to ever find such a meaningful arrangement and if this is to be the case, focus more on satisfying myself and less on trying to find the "one."

 

[AlphaNoob]

I understand what you and the OP are saying and fundamentally, I agree. The reality is, and some have listed some of the issues that create real barriers to meaningful relationships, is that society simply doesn't encourage these types of connections anymore. We've had about 3 generations now that do the hippy, free love bullcrap and while it sounds like a good deal in theory, it doesn't work in practice.

Most women, get emotionally attached to some degree, until you get to a high number, for there to be no emotion centered around sex. Most guys, get jealous if they were to see their woman f*cking someone else. It's in our DNA. So simply saying free love, better living through chemicals, it's mostly crap. It's brainwashing, for what purpose I'm not exactly sure, but brainwashing nonetheless.

We've now "empowered" women, through the media, through the liberal communist nonsense, through "academia" and especially through the law, to perform at their basest level. That basest level is hypergamy and while in the past women could use hypergamy, it was never encouraged societally. The proverbial gloves are off now though, so with many women, their truest sevles show through. And that is bad for men and ultimately, society as a whole.

I truly had wished for a quality, committed, loving relationship all through my young adulthood and as I now start to enter middle agedom, I realize how shallow, myopic, illogical and unlikely to happen that this actually was. Women, the environment we currently live in, the law, it all conspires against the man who wishes a meaningful connection. It's not low quality or high quality men either, you're going to get this behavior across the board. High quality men can deflect this obviously, much easier than a low quality man but it happens to all in any event.

Not saying that I don't wish anyone well and am dam jealous of anyone who runs into the unicorn but I've really taken off the rose colored glasses and realized that the vast majority of men are unlikely to ever find such a meaningful arrangement and if this is to be the case, focus more on satisfying myself and less on trying to find the "one."

Times have certainly changed, but it also means that it is possible for things to shift so that there is equality for both genders but also women are a less loose with their sexuality. The pendulum is bound to swing back eventually. The fact that women are loose with their sexuality to me means that marriage are destabilized and subsequently children are less likely to have a stable household to be raised in. This can lead to psychological, emotional, and interpersonal difficulties for the child. Cohort studies on this should definitely be considered to fight for policy reform. But then again, what if this is somehow nature's way of dealing with overpopulation. The more quantity there is, the less quality there is to it. If future generations are actually going to get fked from be raised in unstable families then what if that manifests into inability to form healthy relationships and let alone an absent desire to have children?

 

[AlphaNoob]

I believe that it does. Consider that the last couple hundred years have been the very first time in human history where marrying somebody with 5+ sexual partners is acceptable as normal.

Far too many variables to make any conclusions, but from an instinctive level, it doesn't make much sense.

For example, most people are fat and unhealthy because food is readily available.

I can't imagine that having sex readily available doesn't come with unintended negative consequences.

Sure, you can diet and stay fit, but few people do.

And you can engage sexually and stay emotionally healthy, but few people do.

It's also hard to believe in unicorns when most guys have so much experience with women that give it away relatively easily.

Even if having tons of sex doesn't do anything to men, it will make it much more difficult, from a competitive, economic view, to find a "quality woman" with a low body count.

Which means that high quality women (intelligent, low debt, low body count) are going to be VERY picky.

Which means the current market of easy sex and high body counts pretty much prices most guys out of the market for "high quality women."

Definitely not a good environment for average quality guys who value traditional relationships.

Where should I look to find a traditional relationship?
Things that do come to my mind is Christians, church, Asian women.
However, I am a little iffy on the Asian side because I am much more attracted to white women.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Where should I look to find a traditional relationship?

I would recommend not thinking in terms of "where" rather think in terms of improving your own quality.

 

[ohrein]

I would recommend not thinking in terms of "where" rather think in terms of improving your own quality.

Exactly. First raise your own SMV and game. If you're high value then a woman is less likely to find a man good enough to try and branch swing.

Secondly, you need to learn how to screen women. If you're aiming for LTR and especially family, you can't just be aiming for a decent woman. You need to be aiming for the highest quality (not best looking) woman you can. You need to see if she has personality disorders, impulsive behavior, integrity, how her emotions effect her behavior, her self control, her family values etc etc. And in this day and age, if you're going to settle down with a woman, you simply cannot afford to do it with a woman who is not as close to flawless in character as you can find. Even then, you are not protected completely. This is why many men opt out of the game entirely, and I can't blame them. I'm tempted to as well but having a woman in my life adds enough value that it's worth the calculated risk.

 

[strikerace13]

If you can't have a stable relationship with women, then what you project is not trusting women from the start to the finish of the relationship. Not many guy's will look at the hidden things that your mom and dad taught you that messes with every relationship in some ways. If you start from the start of the relationship being the guy she depends on that gives great sex and is not her doormat and stand up for what he believes. Quality women will make a effort to get your attention and give you want you want. A relationship is really up to you as a guy as the women gauge from the very start what your value is. Meet this guy at this place I worked at, he could get any girl he wanted just by how he valued himself. Women can tell and make the effort to be with him.

 

[ohrein]

If you can't have a stable relationship with women, then what you project is not trusting women from the start to the finish of the relationship. Not many guy's will look at the hidden things that your mom and dad taught you that messes with every relationship in some ways. If you start from the start of the relationship being the guy she depends on that gives great sex and is not her doormat and stand up for what he believes. Quality women will make a effort to get your attention and give you want you want. A relationship is really up to you as a guy as the women gauge from the very start what your value is. Meet this guy at this place I worked at, he could get any girl he wanted just by how he valued himself. Women can tell and make the effort to be with him.

Good post but I would say instead of "what you project is not trusting women" is that you project insecurity and weakness. Women want a man who knows he can replace her because subconsciously that means he is a catch she is lucky to be with. When you display behaviors that are insecure and weak, such as worrying about whether or not she's cheating, you're saying you know she is the valuable one and you are lucky to be with her.

If you're not a catch, become one. If you are a catch, act like it.

 

[Von]

Exactly. First raise your own SMV and game. If you're high value then a woman is less likely to find a man good enough to try and branch swing.

Secondly, you need to learn how to screen women. If you're aiming for LTR and especially family, you can't just be aiming for a decent woman. You need to be aiming for the highest quality (not best looking) woman you can. You need to see if she has personality disorders, impulsive behavior, integrity, how her emotions effect her behavior, her self control, her family values etc etc. And in this day and age, if you're going to settle down with a woman, you simply cannot afford to do it with a woman who is not as close to flawless in character as you can find. Even then, you are not protected completely. This is why many men opt out of the game entirely, and I can't blame them. I'm tempted to as well but having a woman in my life adds enough value that it's worth the calculated risk.

I think Jordan Peterson is a Jesuit lol.

Remember, he's an advocate of "no sex before marriage" or atleast moving in together.

Funny he uses the same language words for words as the "Chastity / Purity ring" projects

I love Jordan Peterson and he also came out about using anti-depressant (and food allergies to increase depression)

Although I am fairly liberal in my view of dating and Marriage is for me... just cause the girl want it. I would prefer to have sex/moving together before marriage

Jordan does make good valid points about the "Plate spinning mentality" and "jumping from one to another".

What's the point of bonding to your plate, when you gonna throw the rests in the garbage?

I think... he wants to pass the point that " communition, understanding, and going beyond sexual needs" are what makes a good partner.

Marriage is for kids/family (like he says).

For that screening is a big reason and knowing you ready to "work"

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

I've been watching Jordan Peterson's videos lately and he to be attractive to multiple women, but only chose one. He thinks sex is dangerous because it reaches down to the soul of an individual, it involves emotions, pregnancy, disease, and much more complicated things that we cannot fathom (even though pregnancy and disease can be partially taken care of by protection). He says that we cannot divorce sex from other aspects of our lives such as family and emotions. If we want our lives to be of meaning, that cannot be possible when our sexual lives value diversity and quantity. When we have lots of casual partners, we turn ourselves into casual partners. This can have an impact on the psyche that can damage our future ability to form stable relationships with a partner and potential children.

The example he uses is Tiger Woods cheating on his wife, so I am not sure what he thinks before someone finds a good partner.

So my main question is does having a lot of casual partners affect my future ability to form a stable relationship and family???

For starters, he is correct about the science, about the facts, and date. We know this. We know casual sex isn't casual. That it is consequential and that, the laws allocate male resources towards female victimhood along with corrupt court systems. feminism is a disaster. Marriage is not for the couples. Its for the children.

If you want more knowledge, listen to, Truth on sex podcast by FDR. Truth on Single moms. Watch the gene warfare podcast series. The data is there.


The problem is that, women while on top form have a complete monopoly on sex until of course SMV craters and her best days are over. Then, she is scorned, pissed off, puts on the good girl shtick, ropes in some beta, and takes his dumb ass to the cleaners dragging through divorce courts kicking and screaming. 18yrs of child support. Its just not smart.

As for Tiger, he ****ed up. Dude dun goofed. You do not marry the whitest of white girls. He bangs everything and marries, follows the beaten path of monogamy with white womens only to give up half a billion dollars. Ruins his life. Every black male athlete with the goods always has crazy white women after them.



TS, Peterson is correct. Imagine, if all males in the pickup community actually put their time towards say terraforming Mars, starting a business, game changer of some sort, innovating and creating? You would meet women by default.

Women got the game flipped. When on top form SMV, she has a monopoly. When her best days are over, daddy government pedals to her every whim even if she cheats, gets fat, cucks her husband. She is awarded resources.

 

[The Duke]

So my main question is does having a lot of casual partners affect my future ability to form a stable relationship and family???

Its definitely effected me. I burned thru a lot of girls in my 30's. If they were hot and fun then it was on. I didn't care if she had 3 kids, $tripper, crazy, multiple divorces. Even fuhked a married girl that was my physical therapist. I had a ton of crazy good times back then.

The problem for me wasn't the sex, it was surrounding myself with women that had issues. Dealing with all of that drama takes a toll on a guy. You can become jaded. You learn too much about what the majority of females are all about.

However the flip side is if you never experience multiple women, you also never learn their true nature and set yourself up to get burned. I've been thru 54girls in the last 10yrs and almost half of those years was spent with only 2 different girls. Women are very risky investments and I wouldn't invest in 80% of the females out there.

These days I'm pretty skeptical towards all women and very cautious about who I invest in. Very few girls will ever see the "real" me. Most aren't deserving of that greatness.

When you can't remember their names or faces, you've probably had too many.

 

[strikerace13]

You sound like a Katy parry song, in that you can't trust and you can never show the real you. Just show the real you from the get go and if they don't like it tell them there's the door. lol If you can't be the real you, how are you ever going to get a girl to trust and respect you. There's this guy youtube who says the same thing as you, you might want to listen to him. Tom Leykis Compromise video on youtube is a good video to watch for you.

 

[AlphaNoob]

I would recommend not thinking in terms of "where" rather think in terms of improving your own quality.

Exactly. First raise your own SMV and game. If you're high value then a woman is less likely to find a man good enough to try and branch swing.

Secondly, you need to learn how to screen women. If you're aiming for LTR and especially family, you can't just be aiming for a decent woman. You need to be aiming for the highest quality (not best looking) woman you can. You need to see if she has personality disorders, impulsive behavior, integrity, how her emotions effect her behavior, her self control, her family values etc etc. And in this day and age, if you're going to settle down with a woman, you simply cannot afford to do it with a woman who is not as close to flawless in character as you can find. Even then, you are not protected completely. This is why many men opt out of the game entirely, and I can't blame them. I'm tempted to as well but having a woman in my life adds enough value that it's worth the calculated risk.

Wait did you guys mean quality as in value/SMV or quality as in moral character (not being with too many people)?

 

[Roober]

Multiple partners damages both sexes, and I would argue that it does it equally.

Women end up wanting a guy that is like all her fvckboys. A guy that has a six-pack, treats her like crap, but will also treat her like a queen. She gains this perfect image of a man, and tells herself "I will not settle" because she thinks that LTR material can be represented by a composite of all her fvckboys.

This concept is really no different in men. The mantra of the perennial plate spinners here is that women are fvcked up, have had too many partners, or design these impossible criteria for a solid mate. They want a HB9, who has a completely stable mindset, will give them their space, not want any part of their money, and the list goes on and on. When someone develops impossible criteria, ofcourse one will find it near impossible to find a mate. You are taking the best qualities of the 50+ women you have bedded and making this perfect image in your mind.

What they fail to understand is that their failures are more of their own doing than that of their partners. Relationships are easy, and if one finds consistently finds them difficult, it is time for a deep self-examination of your own issues. Not easy to do on a forum populated heavily by men who landed here after some sort of severe heartbreak, likely still putting the pieces together... many years later...

I could look at every intimate female encounter I have ever had, and determine where a) I did not stick to my values, or b) I contributed to the downward spiral ending in separation. and everyone else could do the same...

 

[The Duke]

You sound like a Katy parry song, in that you can't trust and you can never show the real you. Just show the real you from the get go and if they don't like it tell them there's the door. lol If you can't be the real you, how are you ever going to get a girl to trust and respect you. There's this guy youtube who says the same thing as you, you might want to listen to him. Tom Leykis Compromise video on youtube is a good video to watch for you.

I probably didn't explain myself well enough, It's not that I can't trust and can't show the real me. I have no problem being myself and always am. You screw yourself down the road if you aren't.

My deal is, I'm not going to give just any girl the full service VIP package. She'll have to earn it and convince me she is worth it before I give my best to the relationship. Its her job to impress me if she wants it all. I'm the prize, I'm the one that has to make the most sacrifice to be in a relationship, so she'll have to meet my conditions. Many times I've been accused of not caring about the relationship as much as they do and it always comes from girls that I'm not totally impressed by so I don't give it my all.

 

[sosousage]

I've been watching Jordan Peterson's videos lately and he to be attractive to multiple women, but only chose one. He thinks sex is dangerous because it reaches down to the soul of an individual, it involves emotions, pregnancy, disease, and much more complicated things that we cannot fathom (even though pregnancy and disease can be partially taken care of by protection). He says that we cannot divorce sex from other aspects of our lives such as family and emotions. If we want our lives to be of meaning, that cannot be possible when our sexual lives value diversity and quantity. When we have lots of casual partners, we turn ourselves into casual partners. This can have an impact on the psyche that can damage our future ability to form stable relationships with a partner and potential children.

The example he uses is Tiger Woods cheating on his wife, so I am not sure what he thinks before someone finds a good partner.

So my main question is does having a lot of casual partners affect my future ability to form a stable relationship and family???

yes it affects your personality and emotions POSITIVELY, as for soul, no one yet found proof of soul existence.