Jordan Peterson: "Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent."

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5069]

It is unnatural to be monogamous. They never were in the Old Testament…..and they had concubines.

[Branched offParticipant 10975]

Colin Combover in a Coma wrote:

It is unnatural to be monogamous. They never were in the Old Testament…..and they had concubines.

Quite right.

I know about polygamy. Its hard work, particularly in this day and age when women think it is not such a great deal for them. However it certainly does not make you violent in my experience. I find that a polygamist is extra doubly tired from running about to take care of two women who regard each other as rivals and so scheme and manipulate to get more of you than the other.

Women are likely to marry stable men (financially but also ideally emotionally stable too). Stable people who are happy in their significant relationships in life are less likely to be violent. Women also like to marry weak cucks who wouldn’t hurt a fly because they are at least stable in their weakness. These things are what is affecting the stats that he is reading as marriage makes you less violent. End of.

Peterson is just giving it the Christian spin (people like him can’t help it). Fact is queers happy in a pair bond are less likely to be violent and devout Christians who are miserable as sin in a pair bond are going to wish they could kill each other. Monogamy is just a fashion brought about by women being on top in society and so being able to call the shots. In the past practically all successful men had concubines or other wives and good for them too.

A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5069]

God wanted us to multiply. As women carry for 9months, men can/should spread their seed until a ripe age.

[Sky-OParticipant 18949]

And in other news –

‘Simply Put: The Circus Makes Lions Less Violent’

Researchers have found that extensive training and conditioning, along with the right amount of abuse and with the use of cages & occasional sedatives does in fact make lions less violent. Fatality rates among humans that encounter lions at the circus has been reported to be far lower than when in close proximity to lions in the wild.

[Silver FoxParticipant 2766]

“men who transition to a monogamous, or less competitive, mode of sexual behavior (fewer partners since last wave), reduce their risk for violence. The same results were not replicated for females. Further, results were not accounted for by marital status or other more readily accepted explanations of violence. Findings suggest that competition for sex be further examined as a potential cause of male violence.”

If male violence stems from sexual competition/frustration, then MGTOW is the perfect solution! If men no longer want the “prize” (women, or at least sex with women), then men will no longer fight among themselves to achieve this supposed prize.

Men can focus on their interests and can exist in harmony with each other because there won’t be this compulsion to outdo each other for the attention of females.

Of course, Peterson doesn’t actually want this (the reduction of male violence). All he wants is a return to the traditional plantation model. The big error is in thinking that this will reduce male violence. In all eras of human history, especially in those eras where patriarchy supposedly reigned supreme, there were bitter, bloody wars where thousands upon thousands died. If monogamy supposedly reduces male violence, then how do we explain this? Because certainly most societies have been built around monogamy or at least the around the idea of reducing competition for sex.

It’s all bulls~~~. If you want to sell the idea of reducing male violence, enforced monogamy i.e. the plantation is not your best advertisement.

"Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife." --Apostle Paul

[Anonymous 3]

“Simply put: monogamous pair bonding makes men less violent.”

And violent men are a major problem? In all history there has never been safer times. I guess the marriage rate is at an historical high! /sarc

Once again this works to favor women… you know… because they are so oppressed by male violence…

It all comes down to the male hard power (physical) and the female soft power (emotional). One is criminalized and the other is empowered.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Silver Fox wrote:

If male violence stems from sexual competition/frustration….

….it doesn’t. Violence has ZERO to do with sex or pair bonding or marriage or anything. It’s just Peterson fumbling, stretching, grasping for anything that will prove his narrative. Violence is a primal instinct developed over millions of years so we didn’t become dinner for lions. That’s what it is, where it came from and what it’s good for…. has ZERO to do with sex.

Silver Fox wrote:

All he wants is a return to the traditional plantation model

EXACTLY

Forget everything Peterson says, forget monogomy or polygyny…all of it. Get back to basics. You have the human ape, conditioned of millions of years. A sexually dimorphic species (weak female who births and raises offspring)(brute male who defends from predators and provides resources). <- those traits are not just role playing fun games, they’re genetic wiring, anatomical and psychological core instincts.

Women don’t just divorce men and bang Chad for fun and to p~~~ you off. They’re set up by nature to do this crap. She WILL drop prospective mates at the drop of a hate for a better resource/security. Sometimes that’s subjective emotional, sometimes its for an actual better deal. This makes women hypergamous and polygamous by nature.

This is the whole reason “marriage” and rituals like it were invented, to keep the female of the species from acting like total whores. Why do we care? Because we don’t want to fight off bears and feed children that we aren’t sure are ours. We want guarantees that the child is ours. We want loyalty and monogamy.

It has nothing to do with Violence, that is for fighting lions on the savannah. It has everything to do with how women have no virtues, no love and are born slutty.

Anyway that is my understanding. Don’t hate monogamy which is a desirable state of affairs. Hate how women can’t adhere to it. Its a fools errand and a bollocks system because of them. There is nothing wrong with traditionalism, it just doesn’t work. Wedding rings and marriage rituals do not negate million year old hypergamy instincts…women still cheat and screw you over.

[UntamedParticipant]

Sky-O wrote:

And in other news –

‘Simply Put: The Circus Makes Lions Less Violent’

Researchers have found that extensive training and conditioning, along with the right amount of abuse and with the use of cages & occasional sedatives does in fact make lions less violent. Fatality rates among humans that encounter lions at the circus has been reported to be far lower than when in close proximity to lions in the wild.

🍺
Ha haaaa!
Thanks for the laugh!

Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Gravel Pit wrote:

We want loyalty and monogamy.

I’ll just say now, all men want the loyalty and assurance of fidelity. The monogamy idea is mainly aimed at women to adhere to. Since men are in charge of the species, you have alpha men who want to put their sperm in all available females… though this is very annoying to the majority of men… (polygyny/polygamy)… but women are not in charge of the species, they do not get the luxury of polygyny/polygamy even though they want it… this is the problem because we let them have it… We don’t want polygamy/polygyny… its not good for anyone.

Anyway, this is why I’m ready for A Brave New World . Start raising kids in government camps, babies born in artificial wombs, breeding licenses….all of it! It would solve a lot of problems.

The 20th century let women off the hook, there is no way to vote them back into their natural order…(if there ever was a harmonious “order” to begin with). So now that they’re free range sluts again, and won’t be mothers anymore I say fine, the toothpaste will not go back in the tube. Utopian ideas about the 1960’s were a delusion and they’re gone anyway. We need a sexual liberation movement for men and we need to disconnect sex from reproduction permanently.

Of course we’ll still have natural born children, its just that they will be contracted surrogates, hired to do it. We can also diminish undesriable statistics due to irresponsible parenting, by having children born and raised by the state. We can also start increasing IQ and eliminating bad genes like hereditary diseases. Sex goes back to being a recreational act like everyone wants it. Make prostitution legal…all of it.

But we can’t reach escape velocity because the Left wont accept biology or reason (gave women the vote) and the Right wont abandon silly religious ideals and traditionalism. This is why we’re seeing a true dead end here as a species. A Fermi paradox filter… a perfect barrier to progress.

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5069]

Good posts Mr Pit.

[TwistParticipant]

SH3LLZ wrote:

Now with the 3rd wave of lunatic feminism, women have lost their values completely. Therefore that have NO VALUE AT ALL.

Exactly. Why would invest in something that is worthless? And depreciating…

Solid wrote:

I’ve seen a lot of BPs that have that “I just want to die” face

“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things..”

― Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays

[TwistParticipant]

Colin Combover in a Coma wrote:

Good posts Mr Pit.

Particularly the first one. Keep writing.

[Sky-OParticipant 18949]

‘Simply Put: Monogamous Pair Bonding Makes Women Less Happy’

Researchers have concluded that monogamous pair bonding makes women less happy.

Due to a woman’s need for multiple c~~~s, in the event she finds herself in a situation where there is some expectation that she be monogamous, it makes her unhappy.

Therefore, in addition to securing a primary male provider under the guise and illusion of monogamous pair bonding, members of the species Pumpkinius Clitorium will seek out additional sexual partners to satisfy any and all sexual needs.

The additional c~~~s (partners) offer much needed excitement and fun as opposed to a ‘one c~~~’ strategy.

As a result, and over thousands of years of evolution, women have developed an ingrained ability to manipulate and instinctual level of being able to deceive and lie due to the benefits of maintaining a
the illusion of a monogamous pair bonding arrangement with a primary male.

[Joey AlfioParticipant]

Gravel Pit wrote:

But we can’t reach escape velocity because the Left wont accept biology or reason (gave women the vote) and the Right wont abandon silly religious ideals and traditionalism. This is why we’re seeing a true dead end here as a species. A Fermi paradox filter… a perfect barrier to progress.

My hats off to you bro.

And I’ve said it before too that the left and the right are two sides of the same coin — they just have a different input on how men should be enslaved.

Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος

[Eric LauderParticipant 12043]

Divorce make men more unstable and violent.

Case study: myself.
I’m divorced and I’m more violent than never married men.
I’m more violent than when I was married and than when I was single before marriage.

Let’s abolish divorce.

SUPREME LEADER KIM JONG-UN'S FASHION STYLIST - if you want a new look or if you're a very beautiful trans you can call me, phone number +85079255312 / mobile 01921421211. The worth of a man isn't the usefulness that women get from him. Avoiding living with a woman, a man isn't rejecting a lot of sex: he's rejecting sexual starvation. MGTOW IS TACKLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONVENTION OF ISTANBUL: http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168008482e --- Article 4, Section 4 "Special measures that are necessary to prevent and protect women from gender-based violence shall not be considered discrimination under the terms of this Convention". WHAT I LEARNT FROM A GENDER STUDIES CLASS IN LUND, SWEDEN: every time feminists accuses men of doing something, odds are likely either them or persons associated with them are doing the exact same thing but a lot worse. WHO I'M RIGHT NOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1okpAj7Fhw Basically my former life have been a conflict between this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_RQVkvke4 and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFIMeyTK-sU That's, more or less, all about me.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Twist wrote:

Particularly the first one. Keep writing.

Thanks. I can’t predict or advise what the future should be but I understand the past and current state of the species just fine.

I think “breeding licenses” is an approachable idea (maybe after we torch Congress in a 2nd Revolution or after WW3). Women don’t want to be mothers? Good, take it away from them, they were doing a lousy job and it shows. From now on, you have to meet many requirements to be a mother. Don’t like it? Think its unethical?…deport the f~~~ers whether they’re citizens or not. Send them to Antarctica.

What do we do with the inevitable orphans, stripped from their unlicensed mothers teet. Government camp. Raise them right, educate them, make them elites. That’s how you turn a person who would have normally ended up as a felon prisoner statistic….into a quantum rocketeer.

The whole raising kids in camps and artificial wombs is Brave New World 22nd or 23rd century. But how to best cope with the 21st is going to be rough. We’re in the Catch 22 Stardusk spoke about. We’re looking at rough times ahead, poverty, starvation and war.

[experiencedParticipant]

Then Jordan Peterson is welcome to monogamously pair bind.
Other than that, he can go f~~~ himself, and f~~~ himself again.

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[RomulusParticipant 4667]

Mr. Peterson mistakes a conclusion for an observation.

Men have a lot of positive (positive in terms of active and outward looking) energy. Boys and young men need older men to demonstrate or show boys how to employ that energy in useful, productive fashions.

That’s an observation. And as far as it goes, I believe that observation to be correct. To the degree boys/men’s energy can be put to positive usage, there will probably be less hooliganism and such.

However, the conclusion that the only way to do this is for boys/men is to get married, is not supported by evidence. Not one bit.

That’s just a socially prescribed or accepted path men have been conditioned to follow.

Multiple options exit for men to fashion a life that engages that energy in productive and fruitful enterprises, without violence toward others and without being married.

How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly normal human being.

[sidecarParticipant 35842]

Jordan Peterson is STILL a tradcuck hack.

Like a busted clock, he’s right twice a day, but wrong for the other 1438 minutes.

[TwistParticipant]

Sky-O wrote:

Researchers have concluded that monogamous pair bonding makes women less happy.

Hence their rebranding it as “control” “oppression” “The evil Patriarchy” To me – these are positive ideals in practice.

Eric Lauder wrote:

Divorce make men more unstable and violent.

Case study: myself.
I’m divorced and I’m more violent than never married men.
I’m more violent than when I was married and than when I was single before marriage.

Let’s abolish divorce.

Exactly. Never expected I would dream the dreams of violence that I do. The last person I struck in anger was my brother when I was around 8 (blindsided the bastard and ran like hell). Dreams… like from a horror movie.

[Author]

Posts