Incels:

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

The only social -- and LEGAL -- enforcement of monogamy is for WOMEN.  Punishing women is how it is done.  There is nothing else to say about 'enforced monogamy'.

That is kinda the thing.

Strict Monogamy was only seen particularly important for women.

Hench slut-shaming women while men were/are applauded for having as many sexual partners as possible before marriage,

Even repercussions  for adultery tend  to be less hostile towards husbands who cheat on their wives as opposed to wives.

 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Please enforce a monogamous relationship on me so that you and I will both be safer.

Most romantic proposal ever!  

[Derfel Cadarn]

16 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That is kinda the thing.

Strict Monogamy was only seen particularly important for women.

Hench slut-shaming women while men were/are applauded for having as many sexual partners as possible before marriage,

Even repercussions  for adultery tend  to be less hostile towards husbands who cheat on their wives as opposed to wives.

 

Yep. There are still countries today where married women who are the victim of rape are punished as the culprit. But hey, monogamy makes women safer...

[Zorral]

But-but-but these words are sooooooooooooo confusing. Whatever does 'only monogamy for women is socially and legally enforced meaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan?

[Zorral]

It's necessary to include what actually happened with surplus males at home in these 17th, 18th and 19th centuries of European imperialism -- they were sent out to the colonies, as criminal punishment,  or to either make it rich or die of disease -- but the compensation was unlimited opportunity to abuse the Others and Rape Their Women.  As Greg Grandin puts it in his brilliant history of this, it's called the 'safety valve.'  In the US our eternal frontier was the safety valve.  Until there was no more frontier.

The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall In the Mind of America (2019) by Greg Grandin; Pulitzer Prize winner.

It always helps to really know history, political-cultural-social, when making declarations such as socially enforced monogamy keeps a society safe.

 

 

[Heartofice]

Right so I guess nobody on this page has the first clue what was meant by ‘enforced  monogamy’ it seems.

As for the above post... 

[A wilding]

So in that case would you care to attempt a definition of what it means?

[Heartofice]

 

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Right so I guess nobody on this page has the first clue what was meant by ‘enforced  monogamy’ it seems.

As for the above post... 

The dictionary definitions of both words seem pretty clear. What’s your definition (which you keep dodging).

And how the fuck does monogamy make men less violent?? I’ve worked for the police for almost 20 years (as staff), eight of which I was also a volunteer officer. I’ve attended domestics. I’ve had training inputs where we got to watch a man beat the shit out of his partner, pick their toddler up and move to another room, and then return to leather his partner some more (not knowing her phone was recording it).

I’ve seen crime scene photos of a woman’s headless body and a soco holding her head. She was killed by her partner.

Part of my job for seven years was typing up domestic incidents, everything from for non-crime arguements to rape to serious assault to murder. 

What a load of bullshit and misogyny-apologism. 

[BigFatCoward]

I think there may be at least a few people not getting any in this thread. 

[A True Kaniggit]

6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think there may be at least a few people not getting any in this thread. 

Ouch.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think there may be at least a few people not getting any in this thread. 

Well I’m married so yeah, hands up to that one.

[Liffguard]

57 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The dictionary definitions of both words seem pretty clear. What’s your definition (which you keep dodging).

I'm not super clued-in on Peterson's work (and am in no particular rush to remedy that). That said, I think his word choice of "enforced" monogamy doesn't communicate his point very well. My understanding is that he's talking about enforcement through cultural norms creating an environment wherein there's a great deal of expectation and pressure to conform to a single, lifelong monogamous relationship. Not enforcement in the legal sense per se.

That said, I absolutely disagree with him that this is a good solution for male violence, for exactly the reason that you yourself point out. Let's say for the sake of argument that it does help to prevent the extravagent, showy, mass-shooter-type violence (though he doesn't actually demonstrate that it will). It would also just push a huge amount of violence back behind closed doors.

[Zorral]

39 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

his word choice of "enforced" monogamy doesn't communicate his point very well. My understanding is that he's talking about enforcement through cultural norms creating an environment wherein there's a great deal of expectation and pressure to conform to a single, lifelong monogamous relationship. Not enforcement in the legal sense per se.

Show me a single country with that kind of 'socially enforced monogamy' that isn't deep benched in the legal system, with divorce, keeping women from running and owning businesses, kept out higher education, blaming the woman for being raped, with no investigation or punishment for the criminal man who does it -- even often the case with high born rich white women when her attacked is white and rich and / or high born too.  Show me such a nation where the males do not repeatedly prey on less well-born, well-off women as a matter of course and privilege.  Show me one of those countries in which a husband is prosecuted for marital rape and physical abuse? Show me such country in which a husband never murders his wife and is allowed to go free and marry someone else -- crime of passion! Show me a country of 'socially mandated monogamy' -- which again WE ALL KNOW MEANS WOMEN, not men -- which doesn't have the backing of the state religion like England or France, or religion at least in general as was the case in the US.

To even think there is such a thing as 'socially mandated monogamy' without that legal and often religious bench, which survives only without dependable safe birth control and women's reproductive rights and health -- i.e. utter coercion, for the women -- is preposterous.  For there is NO SUCH COUNTRY and never has been.
 

So just admit it -- the entire blather around abortion is really about women controlling their own bodies, without which all other control weakens and goes flaccid.  

And the  Mens Rights sock puppets/'bots STEEEEEEEEEEEEEERike again! 

[Liffguard]

42 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Show me a single country with that kind of 'socially enforced monogamy' that isn't deep benched in the legal system, with divorce, keeping women from running and owning businesses, kept out higher education, blaming the woman for being raped, with no investigation or punishment for the criminal man who does it -- even often the case with high born rich white women when her attacked is white and rich and / or high born too.  Show me such a nation where the males do not repeatedly prey on less well-born, well-off women as a matter of course and privilege.  Show me one of those countries in which a husband is prosecuted for marital rape and physical abuse? Show me such country in which a husband never murders his wife and is allowed to go free and marry someone else -- crime of passion! Show me a country of 'socially mandated monogamy' -- which again WE ALL KNOW MEANS WOMEN, not men -- which doesn't have the backing of the state religion like England or France, or religion at least in general as was the case in the US.

To even think there is such a thing as 'socially mandated monogamy' without that legal and often religious bench, which survives only without dependable safe birth control and women's reproductive rights and health -- i.e. utter coercion, for the women -- is preposterous.  For there is NO SUCH COUNTRY and never has been.
 

So just admit it -- the entire blather around abortion is really about women controlling their own bodies, without which all other control weakens and goes flaccid.  

And the  Mens Rights sock puppets/'bots STEEEEEEEEEEEEEERike again! 

Dude, I agree with you. I'm just describing what his position is. I agree that it's incoherent and harmful.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Dude, I agree with you. I'm just describing what his position is. I agree that it's incoherent and harmful.

That is so correct!

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Right so I guess nobody on this page has the first clue what was meant by ‘enforced  monogamy’ it seems.

As for the above post... 

People can know what it means and likely entail and see Peterson as doing something dangerous.

It should be noted you haven’t a given a hard stance to your position on enforced monogamy, if you’re for, or against it.

Just insist people are misunderstanding it’s meaning—even if they’re not—and at times insist Peterson isn’t even promoting the concept—when he clearly is.

I can summarily say I’m against it.

Because it would entail mostly end with  slut-shaming, women being made to be made economically subservient to the men in their lives, pressure women into shackling themselves to men they do not love out of fear of social ridicule, or poverty.

If a woman desires to have two male partners I would not chastise her so long as everyone involved was aware of the dynamic thus avoiding the prospect of cheating.

I do not see it as the best solution to address male-violence or hostility especially in regards to women.

What could help is clamping down on any idea that women are prizes should get to prove their maturity.

Now what is your position on enforced monogamy?

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Liffguard said:

That said, I absolutely disagree with him that this is a good solution for male violence, for exactly the reason that you yourself point out. Let's say for the sake of argument that it does help to prevent the extravagent, showy, mass-shooter-type violence (though he doesn't actually demonstrate that it will). It would also just push a huge amount of violence back behind closed doors.

True. There was a reason the divorce rate skyrocketed in the 80s while tittering down over the decades. Many Women were not happy with their husbands. Many—including those who faced emotional and physical abuse—simply had little to no recourse to completely get away from their husbands.

And it’s been declining as women were allowed to pick partners that they weren’t primarily socially and economically pressured into being with.

If incels actually had a girlfriend or wife, it’s probable they’d simply unleash their sense of inadequacy on the femoids in their life.

[Guy Kilmore]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

 

 

How does "enforced monogamy" = "Stable Pair Bonding"?  What does he mean by stable pair ponding?   How would you define these two terms?  Is there a decline in monogamy in the western world?  If there is a decline, how significant is that decline?  Again, if there is a decline, when did that decline start?

[Heartofice]

6 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Now what is your position on enforced monogamy?

Well I don't know why you continuously want to know my opinions on subjects. Is it so you can go on another long, unintelligible rant with zero content and try and strawman me again? 

Ok well, if it reduces your blood pressure I'll tell you.

Enforced monogamy, in the way that Peterson describes it, as in a socially reinforced encouragement of monogamous relationships.. is mostly a good thing. It is what we pretty much have right now. We encourage couples to stay together, we discourage couples from cheating (we use the term cheating as an example of that). I think it's real importance is bring up children, because I think two parents is probably preferable to one for the child's sake and also in terms of sharing the load of raising children.

I also don't believe that the automatic consequence of encouraging monogamy is all the things you keep ranting about. Slut shaming, domestic violence are not the end point or the predictable outcome of encouraging couples to stay together. There are clearly gradations  of things, and you have automatically jumped to a Handmaids tale extreme as soon as the term came up. There doesn't have to be a connection between those things, some people have just jumped to those conclusions.

The point is, we already have enforced monogamy in many situations , so I'm not seeing what difference is. If people want to have kids then they should do their best to stay together and we should encourage families to work through their problems, we shouldn't let absent fathers run away from their responsibilities. 

As for Peterson, he wasn't suggesting that enforced monogamy was the solution to the incel problem. He identified it as one of the causes, and there is an element of truth in that I believe, though it's not anything like the complete picture. There are a number of reasons why monogamy is seen as less of a requirement these days (the pill, the sexual revolution, dating patterns, career changes) and that just means that whole dating market has become a lot more capitalist, with a few young men having a monopoly,  tending to get laid with a snap of their fingers and the rest of the male population desperately working to get just one girl to like them. 

That changes over the course of a person's life, but certainly in my own past, I could see that the 6'5 good looking rugby team lads were shagging like rabbits and everyone else was just trying to pick up the pieces. I can see how that can drive some guy to bitterness and anger, because it doesn't look fair. But then the dating market isn't fair, and life isn't fair. 

As for incels, the best way to deal with the situation is to work with them to make them more attractive to women, and to help them understand the world a bit better, instead of leaving them to stew in some toxic circle jerk.