At the lowest level. And you can’t broadbrush the entire society with that brush. I know many people in their twenties who are making sound moral choices for their spouses.
@@cheesygal @mcorbitt didn't say that current day society is at this level of degeneracy, nor the opposite -- Society does seem to be more becoming of this way, though.
It’s about finding the least unattractive partner rather than the most attractive. When society is degenerate, there are no 10s. There are 1s-5s, so if you find you a 5, it feels like a miracle.
As a woman who's lived around a lot of girls and women for almost 30 years now, I can attest to the findings of the researches that Peterson mentioned. Women like competence and reliability. I can't remember women swooning over a man over his pnis size or shoulder length, but rather how good he is at something, and how sweet he is toward us. That's why you see beautiful women all around fall for guys who are questionably attractive physically Edit: Guys, I'm not saying women don't like good looks. What I'm saying is it's less of a priority for us. We like competence and reliability much more than pnis size and shoulder length. Which is more or less what Peterson mentioned and to which I am supporting. Cheers
Naomi Wolf seems to admit that this is the case in the full talk, but she claims that men seek these exact same things in women. To be fair, a lot of women think like this, probably because men are typically not very picky. If a large enough number of men are choosing women who have higher socioeconomic status than them, then surely they can make the conclusion that men follow the same pattern of attraction? That's probably their line of thinking. But, as a man, I really dont think that this is the case. Men arent picky, but that doesnt mean that these are the traits that are attractive to them.
I could see these assessments she made as a 20 year old girls fantasy and certainly women love men in uniform for those reasons of shoulders. And I enjoy the research on women time of month and what they prefer in mates, facial symmetry etc it’s so fascinating. But I agree that the superficial things aren’t long term solutions for these women and not a good strategy which is why women want competence. Exactly. Thanks for sharing.
I sense that you’re a classy lady who would be shocked to know how boorish and masculine many modern women have become. They sit around and openly discuss the men they’ve slept with the night before and every detail of their penises. A masculine woman is a huge turnoff to a masculine man, but that’s what society has done
On some level I didn't understand what that conversation was really about. I recognize perfectly well attractive men just as I recognize attractive women. I don't think anyone would deny that men and women both like attractive people. However your desires sum up to 1, the moment you desire something else as well you have to balance it. I guess you can be super picky, but you could be super picky about just one thing also. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this, so at some level I don't understand the nuance of what they were really arguing about.
The majority follows standards of the environment they grew up in. Then there're the minority who's well qualified to know what their true self actually desire.
Physical attractiveness gets attention and draws you to someone, but as you get older you are more willing to look at all types of people and have a more open mind, and mental chemistry means a lot
I watched a wheat waffle video he showed research and stats about how like 70% of women even consider a guy dateable if he is shorter than her so you guys do care about appearance a lot
@@madhavmathur4008 It has to do with procreating. You will find in the animal kingdom, the females tend to want to mate with the strongest and physically most aesthetic (in the case of birds) male because she wants strong (beautiful) offspring. The case can be said for humans too. They want taller guys so their offspring have a physical advantage over others. There is the odd occasion where a tall woman will be with a shorter guy but you'll find that he's affluent most of the time.
@Ashtarot77 that is probably true for the most part. I am close to 6 feet. I have never gone out with a man taller than I am, at best 1 inch under and at worst 6 inches shorter. I have found that if I feel the man's protectiveness and his masculine traits and kindness I have little problem with the disparity but there's truth in your statement. Who knows what people have thought of me with certain men ...
I am a woman. I have never, at any age during my adult life, counted the things this woman describes as important, as important. Honestly, she speaks like a person with an agenda, not focused on what is true, but focused on making a point that is intellectually important to her.
I feel you may be correct, we are a function of our biology and that needs to be factored into understand what drives us. In Victorian England many men would attempt to deny their biological reality to their own detriment, which is why they could display such bizarre behaviour, at least in the upper middle class. I suspect people do not like to acknowledge that they often behave according to the biology rather than their intellectually driven will. On this subject I have no opinion, but I do find it fascinating.
She is right about looks… long term women want resources coz obviously family but short term women consider looks about all else. All studies show sexual and romantic attraction is 100% triggered by looks not by personality or wealth and the facial aesthetic and your looks influence how people receive perceive certain personality traits. A man who is shy but highly facially aesthetic and physically attractive will be seen as mysterious and stoic, while a man man who is average and below will be seen as just that, shy. Your looks IS your personality in other people’s perceptions but I disagree with her evolutionary psychology denialism.Women do consider looks but we do it subsconsciously
She 100% has an agenda. She also has multiple misstatements and evasions. For instance, She repeatedly says, "I have never seen" as a cover for her lack of rigor in research.
Prime example of how little a repetitive usage of the word “respectfully” adds to showing respect. Especially when compared to somebody who listens and answer according to what they’ve just heard, not according to their own bias.
It’s not that finding a man we find handsome doesn’t matter to women, it’s that finding a competent, generous, caring man matters far more. We literally rely on you guys. Thanks for what you do 🙏🏼❤
This seems to match my experience. How many people reading this have been to a party where a guy who is fairly unattractive and unimpressive physically, but has a ton of personality and is confident and hilarious and makes people talking to him feel important has women fawning over him all night?
My husband is my best friend. Makes me laugh everyday. A wonderful provider and protector. A fabulous father to our kids (our first is mine from a previous tryst) Is great in bed! He also has a double chin and a beer-gut. But he has kind eyes and a winning smile. He is everything I never knew I needed. His handsomeness grows because he is such a good man and an awesome partner. Looks aren’t everything
Jordan Peterson is an intimidating person to disagree with, even if you respect him. I don't blame her. She did overuse the word, yes, but she was thinking about what to say. (Where "respectfully" became the filler word.)
@@jacobshirley3457 That's a good point. I'd be a little nervous myself. You had really better have your ducks in a row if you're going to disagree with him. He really does think things all the way down to the bottom.
I raised my daughter as a single mother, but there is no way I was able to do that on my own. My sisters and father were pivotal! I had to put my pride aside for their help, and my daughter is a well rounded, successful adult because of them.
It takes a village I always said. I have always tried my best to help my daughter, who was a single mom. My granddaughter is amazing. We all stepped up and helped.
I do agree. I do believe women have a higher threshold for attractiveness in men, but men value attractiveness more. Women take into account many other things that thank god a man can work on making better.
If men and women would be the same, act the same, think the same, feel the same... there would be no balance in society. Its like there would be only one weather season, the winter the whole year. the nature wouldnt grow. Men would feel like they fall in love with a man, the exact "picture" of himself. But men and women may have lot in common, for example sense of humor, humility, compassion, love for sports and hobbies. Man and women create a balance for each other, she brings him down in loving way, down to earth, to his natural state, makes him smile, and he as stronger human, lifts her up, gently, as nice flower, he is making her more confident by lifting her up, or inspiring her. Because testosterone makes men more calm and problemsolving and focused. while estrogen may make women stressful and anxious, which is healthy in some situations. estrogen makes women to notice some stuff, whether the baby is healthy. He is embracing her vulnerability, the things that she isnt as strong or experienced. She should embrace his vulnerabilities and together transform them in healthy way. There are two types of vulnerabilty, healthy and unhealthy. Its seems woman represents mother nature, she is supposed to support him in some way, gently, and he is representing some rock, or creative individual, and together they craete a couple. Both are creative in different way. Men are technical, mathematical, women are intuitive. Buth both are intuitive in different way. Men also can be sensitive. Because for example men musicians, or guitair players use to have very easy peronality, and sensitive personality too, because music is emotional thing...So it seems like men musicians are as sensitive as women, but at the same time masculine. Maybe therefore some women fall in love with musicians, becuse they are able to be sensitive and react properly in the right way, but at the same time to be masculine. Some men musicians havea lso very good relationship with theoir mother.... and with parents. So teh women react to his very natural state of personality and sensitivity. while men who work in other jobs, dont want to be very sensitive,, or they were not growing up to be sensitive
Jordan, you are the reason I got myself in school to continue my education, and am now pursuing my PsyD in Clinical Psychology 😌 Thank you for all that you and contribute.
That’s awesome! Not sure what area of the country you live in, but mental health is such an underserved area of our society. I work in a busy ER and we struggle to find placement. Please go out and make a difference! We need you.
Respectfully, they do list those attraction markers i.e. height, broad shoulders in men in the evolutionary psychology literature. It's literally in the authors book she said she's very familiar with, The Evolution of Desire by David M Buss.
Yes. She picks and chooses which traits and facts fit into her feminist/ analyst indoctrination- then fabricate extra “facts” such as, respectfully, youth and fertility are “out of date, respectfully” - respectfully
@@dll7658 I listened to the full length podcast yesterday- twice- looking for sympathy for her. She’s very well read on the subject of evolutionary biology, however that doesn’t mean she accepts science. Instead, she tries to “mansplain” how biology and the vast majority of the research is sexist and distorted. So she rewrote history and science to further empower her readers
You can tell Dr. Peterson is confident in his beliefs and arguing in good faith by the fact he invited someone who disagrees with his conclusions into a discussion
I was a bit disappointed tbh, I wanted to hear some actual counter-argument, but there were none. Not even in the full talk, she just disregarded statistics and made claims based on her own anecdotal evidence about "young men now wanting older, wealthy women" and that "men are just as attracted to competent and wealthy women, look: they appreciate it when women pay the bill".
She has a point. No matter how logically sound and reasoned the theory's conclusions are, you have to look at the data. Your theory does not exist in a vacuum. Now explain the scale of current transgenderism to me, from an evolutionary biology standpoint please. You can't. It's a business thing. An unconscionable business thing.
it's so refreshing to hear a feminist being so kind and respectful to someone she disagrees with! no screaming or throwing names. Very well done on both parts! enjoyed watching
@luciasaunders9736 she did present arguments, she said that vision is outdated and not accurate because they don't ask the right questions. She can't present data from studies that haven't been done. She gave examples of aspects should be analyzed but aren't.
@@Dreamin995 because she is a feminist, she can see where the problem is. "Valid arguments " means here that she presents the same type of argument that he presents. Since those don't exist, her answer is not vewed as " valid" even though it is. "True" comunism? What's that? What makes it true? A theory is not a truth. Anything actually taking place IS a truth. There has been different kinds of comunism. There still are, 5 of them. They are true and 1/4 of the world population recognizes them as such.
I read her book back in the day, and I thought it was great. Fast forward a few decades and I am exposed to evolutionary biology/psychology and behavior genetics/personality, and now I realize arguments based on claiming that people are socialized to behave certain ways are bunk. Of course women find certain things attractive. Both parties want an attractive partner (preferentially slightly more attractive than they are), but that’s mutually exclusive without some sort of subjectivity. You both can’t be the better looking partner. Somebody has to trade down. And the person who has more to lose if things go sideways is more willing to lighten up on the looks thing if she can get someone with good character who treats her well and will be there for her and the baby. The fact that modern women have been brainwashed to think casual sex with hot guys is the way to direct your life are being fed a bunch of crap that is leaving them feeling that they are missing something. Because they are.
John Gray says estrogen makes women more emotional... When woman is under stress estrogen makes her 10 times more notice problems in her environment, and talk about the problems. I wonder whether estrogen can be the reason women are so critical about men´s appearance. Maybe when she doesn´t feel stressed out, she is more willing to overlook problems and be less critical. Maybe they should do a study about women who practice yoga, meditation, metacognition. Maybe calm women find everybody beautiful, caring, nice. maybe the hormonal aspects of body create the delusion about other people appearance and also addiction to negative emotions is distracting to people´s thinking process.
No swooning here, never been attracted to hot guys; for some reason they are a total turn-off. ick. I like cleanliness, and easy going guys with excellent self control - no temper tantrums or retaliatory get-even types. ugh.
My parents were born 1917 and 1920 - and they raised me to know what an idiot looks like - sexual abandon is not only morally going to wreck you, but on a mathematical basis by hump ing those who hump others who already humped others, you will wake up in your 50s with HPV-16 sparking head and neck cancer, and the cancer treatment will kill your immune system - you now live in horrific agony. That simple. I know of a surgeon who shagged around in med school and got dead at 56. He was in a rage at the hospital he helped run but of course, all too late.
“But I’ll wait for you to finish” AFTER she already interrupted him mid sentence. People need to learn how to have a conversation and listen to everything someone says and then respond in stead of thinking of your response while the person is still talking.
That’s a really nice way to put it, you are right she’s entitled to her opinion regardless of whether we agree with her or not and JP didn’t seem to have any issues with her disagreeing with him.
I've studied economics, one of the social sciences he refers to when he talks about one of the most robust and powerful findings in the social sciences. It's an excellent example because cognitive ability and grades are looked at as so correlated that it sets the whole basis of the education system and our judgement of whether or not someone is smart. We take it for granted but they are so close that they have become synonymous. It just makes so much sense to assume someone is smart if they have good grades. We even measure smartness/intelligence/cognitive (which is something impossible to gauge) using grades as the proxy (cause we can measure grades) and it's the most used proxy for cognitive ability. Now to know all that and then learn that correlation between male attractiveness in the eyes of women and socioeconomic status is higher than the correlation that makes us assume someone is smart from their academic performance is mad just mad😂😂😂 basically there is a stronger connection between male attractiveness and socioeconomic status than the connection between grades and intelligence statistically speaking 0:16
Is there really an evolutionary basis for mate selection? After a nasty divorce, I looked for advice in the Bible and found this in the New Testament: “Treat the older women as mothers and the younger women as sisters.” So I decided to test this. I got to know several women as sisters/friends without any hint of sexuality. The relationships, as people first and women second, were surprisingly satisfying. It helped me to understand women a whole lot better. When it was time to remarry, friendship was near the top of the list. Of course, physical attractiveness was a strong element as well. This seems like a much better foundation for lifelong commitment and, so far, so good. 37 years and counting.
@@segueoyuri Errr…that needs some major caveats to be a valid postulate. Some of my (male) friends would happily get into a fight with me just for the hell of it if we ever wanted to! I would avoid ever thinking of treating my wife like that! xD
@@kooldudematt1 that's not a postulate, friend. It's not a pronouncement made with philosophical thought and analysis and proper logic. It's just a rule of thumb. And I've met some women that have told me word for word they liked to talk to me because I made arguments fun. They just got in fights with me just for the hell of it, to use your expression lol maybe your wife would have fun too if you get into an argument with her (obviously not fist fighting like you do with your mechanic friends) just because.
That's a very nice statement. It sounds like you rose above any resentments you might have carried following your experience (which you describe as nasty, so it would be natural that both parties would have carried resentments; which can be very overpowering) and did some work on inner reflection which takes some control over our human intuition to "bite back", or "lash out" metaphorically. That's great, and I'm glad it has worked out well for you! Treating women like sisters is a good practice. However, when sexual attraction and/or looking for a mate comes into play, I'm not sure about how one might segue behaviors for the former into the latter! I haven't given that one much thought yet! With regards to one of the replies about using humor the same way to female friends as to male friends. This is of course not the same as how one would treat one's sister. However I feel it is important to concur with the cautionary element here from my own personal anecdotal experience. While in trusted circles being included within male circles has been both insightful and enriching, a small handful of experiences within circles of people I had not gotten to know and had assumed trust have landed me into some very unfortunate consequences
Yes, and whoever this woman is, she comes across as thoughtful and relaxed. Other women I've seen debate JP just seem hell bent on aggressively outsmarting him for the sport of it, more about their own egos rather than addressing the issues at hand. Those interviews leave me wondering why JP exposes himself to that.
That’s what intelligent people do. The ones that aren’t so intelligent, as can be seen in the comment section of this video, devolve into personal vent sessions.
She was definitely peeved and on the defense. Even just the way she SAID she was disagreeing with him and “NO OFFENSE” was rife with her emotions being triggered by what he had said so calmly…..
@@edithtierce8209 Also her constant interjection of "Respectfully...." and then being unable to actually refute what Peterson had just side (while being unwilling to accept it) was insufferable.
He's just equipped with a sharper sword than most I guess, the way he slices through to the gist and gives us an inside look behind his technique of slicing. See how hard that was 😂😂
Except climate change (which has been a constant thing but which risks changing for good because of CO2-emissions), and overpopulation (the fish in the oceans do not multiply, the amount of fresh water does not increase (there are problems with over-salination near de-salination plans, so it might not be the perfect cure), and arable lands do not expand just because world population explodes. He loves people so much that he does not wish to see the dangers "people" pose.
Regardless of their ideas and opinions, I am pleasantly surprised to see that they can have this conversation like adults. They were polite and respectful and they both probably learned something because of it.
Sadly, the only thing I learned from her were her ideas and feelings. Unfortunately, she did not tie these to any facts. I listened to her opinion, but she taught me nothing and did not engage my mental curiosity. I found her failure to produce intellectual interaction disappointing.
For the record, would feminist analysts be on board with a study delving into labial size as a marker for female attractiveness? Or would this produce potentially undesirable conclusions?
Feminism + any science seems to be incompatible. Her entire argument was " I don't believe in the validity of any science that contradicts me, and "I don't look at any science that contradicts me."
@@ranna6738 then go on to completely poo-poo the argument to showcase her own ignorance - on top of her non-existant conversation skills. How can a woman her age be this awkward
Haha yes exactly, or the tightness of the female vagina… it’s an absurd objection from her. Imagine the outrage. She’s almost proving his point. Another issue is that what a woman says (or even thinks) she finds attractive and what she actually finds attractive are two completely different things, which makes it extremely hard to measure. She proves this point with how she can sit there with a straight face and say that women aren’t attracted to men who are of high competence and social status. It’s just absolutely baffling. This stuff has been known for hundreds of years..
Well that would be absurd because I doubt it is a marker of attraction 🤣 But she was comparing to the fact that breast size is included. I'm not saying I agree with her though. Physical attraction to me personally was always less important than intellectual and emotional attraction. I had my choice of mate. Men have found me more attractive than I thought myself to be. But I would not have dated a muscle man who was arrogant and immoral. Moral virtues loyalty competence and intelligence are all more attractive. And I didn't try to find a rich man. Only a man with initiative and sense of responsibility. I am in my early 50s and have been married to the same man for 26 years. Things have changed I realize. But I believe people would have an easier time finding a suitable mate if they would go back to traditional ways. Don't be shallow and fickle. And stop being so promiscuous.
JP your too logical and smart for them. keep doing your thing : ) You've helped so many people. Thanks for your time and dedication in this crazy crazy world
Even though seemly many people on this comment section didn't realise this... but Kudos for this specific video for having people with different perspectives actually respectfully having an actual conversation on the matter in a way that we can learn and collect knowledge on both sides. We have never needed that so much than nowadays, because putting things into 0-1 perspectives sound really popular and brings attention for being easy and flat to mentally digest, but reality and science is more based on continuing questioning than on answering. 👏👍 That's how we evolve, life's too complex to cheers for things as if everything was a soccer game dispute between two teams.
@@alaricgoldkuhl155 No - the problem with this clip is that it is not the entire conversation. You've only been shown the section where it appears so - after all it's Jordan Peterson's clip - and I do like him, so no partiality there. We never got to hear the part, where she was actually saying what she meant to say!
It may be teaching those under fire in the ragged landscape of dating and living hell of marriage. (Potentially). To the rest, it's old ground ... and well understood. Naomi carries on but is an observer in the science not a participant - so that she "reads everything" hardly matters if she only wants to make ideological responses. Her attempt to reply was cut off, when I wanted to see her outline what a non-scientist makes of what was a very much science-based inquiry by J.P. She went for what she hoped was a shock tactic - dick size. And in J.P.'s eyes I could see "oh, no, don't derail what I mean to be a serious talk".
2:33 "The ironmaiden straightjacket that's placed on women in terms of the ideal of their sexual self-presentation" that is the best description of how it feels to be constantly subjected to beauty standards and constantly judged and percieved by attractiveness.
But that's everyone. That's not just women. And it's not just for women and men. Animals also are beholden by their own set of beauty markers. of course it's not fiar but that's life.
@@jeremiahnoar7504 Yeah I don’t doubt it, but those standards are drilled even more into women. We’re told our attractiveness is our most value asset and therefore a measure of our worth. Women face objectification in their daily lives, cat calls and fleeting comments from friends and family. You see this evidence on Instagram, commercials and advertising everywhere you go, beauty pageants, magazines, and then how porn and media is so oriented towards the male gaze (less so now, thankfully)… just to name a few. Women are saturated with it, and yet it’s so normalised it goes unnoticed. I understand attractiveness is never going to stop being a natural factor, but to the degree women experience it in our modern society and in terms of a measure of worth is extremely unnecessary and can be improved.
@minaaries I'm not sure how much can or even should be done about that. Attractiveness isn't the highest value but it is a pretty high value in general. That same emphasis on female Attractiveness is also why Onlyfans is so profitable for women. Attractive women also make more tips than men. Attractive women score free drinks. A large percentage of art would disappear if we didn't value feminine beauty. Are we going to dispense with all of that because it's all influenced by our appreciation for beauty.
@@divisadero8859 She criticized the studies and that even though arguments sound logical from a study standpoint, it doesnt mean they apply in real life and that studies might be biased towards conclusion that men want to find.
My doctor told me when i said that i am the common denominator in three failed marriages and i have to face that. He said my problem is that i have not found my intellectual equal and that you need that for real happiness. I have come to believe that it is the absolute truth. You can not be happy if you can not talk to the other person. No matter what their attractiveness is.
Communication is ultimately key - we are intelligent being, is what sets us apart from other animals - so it makes sense that connecting intellectually is just as important if not even more important than the physical aspect.
I know in my own experience i have been extremely unattracted to men who are wealthy, successful, and extremely handsome. I have been unattracted to men who are respectful and kind. I HAVE been attracted to men who have a heart, who are not attractive, who have a passion for something, who want to help the world, and have genuine masculine qualities. My point is, just because you are good on paper doesnt mean a woman cant see through and pick up on subconscious queues that you dont have the best intentions. That is number one, above all else. You must be a genuine person.
Attraction is such a fleeting thing. We are like computers in the sense, we scan people, and our subconscious computes their characteristics, qualities, and then makes an emotional judgment, the higher order intellect then rationalized this process to itself, after it has occurred. Of course it's on going, and we revise our judgments with every new piece of the jigsaw, we collate a mental model.
Women, in my personal experience as a woman, have 2 categories of partners: 1) guys we find attractive and want to date as teens or young adults 2) men capable of providing the stability we desire to build a future and have children We might adore the men in category 1 but we will always prefer category 2 if given a choice. Category number 2 in my experience as a woman covers the following points: A) Economic dependability - the wealthier the better as long as we consider this wealth to be stable and socially acceptable (as an example: some would consider a rich drug lord a good choice while others would not) B) Social dependability - is he responsible and caring? If so then he would be a good partner to have children with. Different women in different societies look for different qualities though so you can't generalise other traits. A brave man in an oppressive dictatorship might get himself killed by speaking out against the government, so even traits that are otherwise considered admirable might make someone less desirable as a potential partner. C) Health - you have to have some very significant advantages to make a woman consider having a serious relationship with a very sick man D) Lifestyle and Culture - women want a man they can spend many years with while raising children and we have certain views of how our children should grow up and what kind of life they should lead. If a man fulfills certain things we would prefer to see in our children - be it talent, manners, hobbies or social norms - he will be desirable. Again, this is subjective. Also: just because a woman prefers something in a man that doesn't mean she'll fulfill that same requirement. As an example: a woman from Poland would absolutely raise children with a French man, actively encouraging her children to be culturally French. That doesn't mean she has to be French. She might not wish to raise her children as Russians with a Russian man however as her polish culture has historical reasons for being less accepting. None of the factors above are absolute, of course. A woman simply pays attention to and feels drawn towards those whom she considers to be potential partners because they fulfill enough prerequisites. That's where attraction starts. A man can be ugly or poor or mean, as long as he fulfills enough desirable requirements a woman will consider him as a partner. To a 30 year old woman in a war torn region whose family hardly ever has anything but grain and vegetables to eat a 50 year old cashier from Spain might check enough marks to be desirable enough for her to fall for him simply because with him her kids would be able to grow up in a peaceful country and go to school. With women it's all about what ifs and potential dangers. Why is a guy like Andrew Tate desirable? Well, what if he impregnates her? He'll pay child support, giving her economic security. What if he (inevitably) finds another girl? Well, then she doesn't have to deal with his arrogant butt anymore and she is free to find a more dependable man, with more money in her pocket than before after having a lot of fun holidays and parties she didn't have to pay for. So for a lot of women there is no unacceptable what if scenario. Why is the electrician from the same town a woman grew up with in a similar age group desirable? She knows him well, considers him to be a good person, he has a stable income and likely the same or very similar cultural background. That makes him a safe option to have a family with. The same woman could consider both of these men potential partners for very different reasons.
once you being to desire the second type of man, you're already out of your physical prime, and your opinion starts to become more irrelevant. another problem is that the second type of partner will never elicit the same genuine raw passion and lust as the first kind. and, above all, it's this what the male ego desires, together with providing and offering safety. so it's a long regurgitation of what everyone already knows
@@gottmttunsk3502They’ll marry the second type then go cheat on their husbands with the first bunch. Mandatory paternity testing and getting rid of no-fault divorce would be a good start.
No so-called "woman" thinks this logically, except if she's excessively masculinized through experience OR she's too old to be active in the dating market
@@alexislinehan9561 Their irrational to alot of these men, getting educated in your early 20s only to start settling down in your late 20s to early 30s makes u undesirable
Jordon, you really are incredible. I agree 100% with your analysis of what a woman is looking for in a mate. I basically ticked off every quality you listed as traits I looked for in my husband. Feminists don’t speak for all women. They feel the need to stand out.. 🙄
I feel like many feminists, like Naomi Wolf here, actually agree with the analysis. The difference is that they incorrectly (in my opinion) assume that men are equally attracted to the same things. As evidenced by their full talk.
In this particular case I truly stand for this "adversary" of Jordan. I was always accepting handsome men only despite their socioeconomic status. Actually this is something what always flabbergasted me - these "researchers" always perpetuate this myth about women going supposedly for high socioeconomic status, while the real life evidence says the opposite. Just talk to handsome guys: the more outspoken of them say it upfront: it is women who push themselves onto them, not necessarily these guys picking up those women. And handsome guys not necessarily know how to politely say "no" to women, not to undermine their own image of a good and socioeconomically high-status person in their own eyes! I also agree with her when she says why there is no academia research whether women find only certain penis size attractive or not? I have never had huge disappointment with regards to this, but my female colleagues unfortunately had such occurrences and this is really a no-go and a highly awkward feeling. Even if nobody knows how to handle such a situation, such a disappointment. Anyways, as long as I like JP, he is great in case of motivational and societal speeches, but he fell prey to this gibberish "women don't fall for men attractiveness, they fall for high socioeconomic status" nonsense. I am truly happy he invites to talk people who think differently than him. It opens all minds. Thanks to both of them.
@@nalianalianalia It seems like you lower the resolution on the discussion. Jordan Peterson's arguments about the 0.6 correlation and your real life experiences about some handsome men being chased by women can exist at the same time without being contradictary.
@@Jordy_NL Sure, they are not contradictary. What I mean is I have watched this video three times to grasp every time more nuances in what they were discussing. And their discussion is far beyond the initial "0.6" remark by JP only. Feel free to watch it again
@@nalianalianalia I don't dispute your knowledge or nuance on this topic in general. Also I think there is much value in real life evidence, so I believe you in the points that you made. I just couldn't find the arguments in that specific comment that would make Jordan Peterson's argument nonsense.
You’re absolutely spot on. How many times have you heard a girl say she just wants a nice sweet guy and then completely shuns a guy just like that who is just far to weak/incompetent to hold his own (and I wouldn’t blame her, but don’t pretend that’s what you want). The fact this lady is claiming that women aren’t attracted to men of high competence and social status is just proof of your point.
@Andrew well yeah, how many times have I heard women say "I don't care about looks" but your bf just happens to be good looking. As if him being good looking wasn't the cause....or "I want a nice, sweet, caring guy" but you always reject then and choose the loud, assertive, dominant one
@@manuelpanisse5991 You and andrewaar both write as if being nice, sweet and caring would be mutually exclusive with being assertive and basically not a doormat! Guess what - men believe that women just put "nice guys" into the friend zone and that they are hypocritical because of this perception. But that's not the case. We WANT a nice and genuine guy but we NEED someone who's not a push over to feel secure and respect that man. Unfortunately many men simply fall either into the "nice doormat" or the "dominant assh*le" cathegorie so that women feel the need to pick between two bad options and in that scenario a need is more important thant a want. The thing is a nice guy who can't speak up for themselves or his partner is not actually nice out of kindness. He's showcasing nice gestures because of his weakness to step up when necessary. What women really want and need would be the golden middle that is a rare find of someone who is assertive, can take leadership and yet is willing to compromise and show kindness and compassion.
During my youth, we were partial to the nerdy guys or at least those who were academically competent. Those are the ones who would be good providers and fathers. Not that we don't admire physical beauty but stability of character is first. In college the men go for more modest women to marry instead of the more more flirty, openly sexy ones they prefer in HS. Bizarre to me that universities here promote a party culture. In Asia, the University is where you lay the foundation for the rest of your life. We didn't date, we courted.
Also, I forgot to mention. Questionnaires are the wors method to gather data in any scientific research, especially in direct confrontation - meaning you ask specifically what you want to her back. Because that relies on people: a) answering honestly, b) being able to answer hoenstly, c) having the capacity to articulate their thoughts on complex topics, d) being able to understand themselves fully and articulate that so that other person understands it, e) not having agenda - because if I know X is the more morally or socially acceptable answer, why would I answer Y? Next, women go based on feelings, proven many times, no reason to debate that. Actually, sorry. HUMANS do. We all do. Logic and rationality plays into deciding things but we are making decisions based on emotions. So for a woman, to tell, what she finds attractive will be miles appart based on how she feels. If she is in love with an ugly short dude who has comic level wit and humor, she will say that. OR ... she will say the socially understandable factors like height, hair etc. Because of reasons a,b,e I listed above.
If a woman is striving to be more attractive to men, perhaps making the investment in her health and beauty is very wise. Far more beneficial than attaining wealth, say.
Yeah this seems true for sure. Loads of what women spend a lot of time worrying about is imposed by other women, men don't even care about some things (like certain makeup)
@@big_red_machine3547 Because life is about more than physical beauty. I, of course, want my husband to find me attractive. I also want to be healthy and intelligent. Why would one have to choose between being beautiful or educated? I'm married. We have children. I love being a homemaker. I spent most of my day today doing laundry and cooking. Spending time with my husband and children. I also took the time to do yoga and work on calculus homework.I have been slowly taking classes over the years because I am working towards a PhD.
I'm glad to see the majority of these comments being respectful. Dr. Peterson doesn't have this kind of discourse with anyone he feels doesn't have a merited position. It was a good conversation even If I'm not sure I really follow her points.
I very rarely see a guy on the street and think, "he's cute!" But growing up when I had a crush on a boy, it was always how he treated me that made me like him. With one guy, it took me a year and a half before i thought he was handsome. It's not that I thought he was ugly, it's just that intense physical attraction is not high on my list of priorities. Do any other women relate?
5:31 FACT CHECK There are studies that ask women if they find penis size a marker for sexual attractiveness. A 2013 study published in the journal PLOS ONE surveyed 75 women and found that they rated larger penis size as more physically attractive, but only up to a certain point. Beyond a certain size, women tended to rate larger penises as less attractive. A 2015 study published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior surveyed 2,121 women and found that penis size was not a significant factor in overall sexual satisfaction, but women who reported having vaginal orgasms were more likely to rate their partner's penis size as above average. A 2019 study published in the journal Sexual Medicine surveyed 2,121 women and found that penis size was not significantly correlated with overall sexual satisfaction, but women who reported having more frequent and more intense vaginal orgasms tended to rate their partner's penis size as above average. 9:41 So basically the reason she wants to disagree is because she discounts the entire field of evolutionary biology. And the reason she discounts it is because of its possible problematic relationship with contemporary 21st century gender roles and norms.
I think it would be good for everyone if more researchers would pinpoint why the size "does(n't) matter. It seems nobody wants to mention that female reproductive tract is not a bottomless pit but a finite organ which can be literally torn apart by inconsiderate, violent pounding by a hard object. That uteres may dislodge and vagina may bleed etc. etc. Perhaps at least women could start being honest about how and why sex is often so unplyand then something could finally be done about it.
Attachment styles play a big part in who we are attracted to. The book attached explained why I was making bad choices and helped me land in the best relationship of my life
@@KyleCox404 I don't know how you red my comment and got from there to school shootings. To me there is no connection whatsoever between your & my comment.
@@C.C.369 I'm sorry, I guess I've must have replied under the wrong section. But there were no adults in this conversation, so there is no pleasure. Jordan is a little whiny child that always blames woke mob for everything that doesn't go his way.
To rebuttal Wolf's criticism of evo psych, it's not that women don't care about physical attributes in men when seeking a mate, it's that women prioritize resources or a man's potential to accumulate resources in the future much more than physical beauty because women carry a much higher burden with respect to childbearing and rearing. Height, symmetrical face, broad shoulders, fitness, these are all important but can be compensated with status/wealth. The same is not true for women. Men evaluate women principally on looks and fertility because women don't share their resources with their partner to the same degree that men do, and obviously men don't have to worry about the risk of pregnancy during intercourse, so the burden of raising a child is not as heavily engrained.
This isn’t true at least on the men’s side and when it comes to marriage. When men look for a wife looks fall lower than most people realize, men often sacrifice looks for other traits like kindness and compatibility. Ironically for the same reason your saying they look for youth and fertility, basically when men are looking for a wife they care most about whether she’ll be a good human being to his children. He doesn’t care as much about how attractive she may be. On the female side, when women look for a husband looks fall higher on their list than most people assume. As in they’ll be more willing to put up with a jerk if they find him really attractive. Now this doesn’t indicate if the couples will make it long term just the original reasons why men and women get married
The most abysmal thing of it all to me is that people keep trying to pretend evolution and instinct don't play a role in reproduction. Like anything in modern society has changed how women feed kids and how kids are taken care of and how people are fed and so on and so forth. They pretend 200 years of modernity will be somehow stronger in reproduction than literally millions of years of transmitted behavior patterns lol
@@bigred1293 oh it does lol a woman is aroused by a lot of different things, sometimes opposite things, sometimes opposite things at the same time. Women also can be aroused and repelled by the same man and they also can mate without feeling any arousal whatsover, just focusing on the 'strategy' part lol I highly recommend the book "Why women have sex", by Cindy Meston.
In the event they find two men equal in their character attributes, they'll invariably select one physically more attractive with regards to height, shoulder width, penis size, build, which, as Dr. Peterson mentions are markers of health, just as wealth is a marker of competence. Male scientists don't need to run a cock size study. We all know what and how women would choose if given a choice.
And then she says "But keep going." Geez! Talk about dishonest debate strategies. She seems to use mostly emotional manipulation tactics to try to score points, and she seems to believe she's scientific and intellectual.
0:07|4:44|5:08 it’s about perceived competence/ability not about the money. Why posturing increases short-term success, not the thing itself but the marker/peacocking that displays that they are fit as a partner to go through life with. But don’t posture, actually work and be that person (and only then display/advertise/make-known your competence/ability/marker) to find that person for the long term. 6:42|7:11 must have high standards for yourself (work to meet them) then set the standard only slightly lower when picking
When women are asked what’s important, they downplay a man’s looks, yet when scanning pictures on dating apps, women reject a greater percentage of men based on the picture than men reject women. Women are more concerned with a man’s appearance than they admit.
Yes, you are so right. I am a woman and wonder why women lie about not noticing a man's looks. Of course women notice their looks, that is how we all determine what we find attractive.
I'll tell you something, on dating apps, we also see the environment, if they're in nice houses, cars, restaurants or trips, their demeanor and how they dress says a lot, for example, a man in a suit (says good job), a man who shows photos of the places he visits (who can afford them and travels a lot XD), actually in apps it's the same I would say, we see other things other than just being handsome, and in apps men seem to show off their stuff XD.
@@charmelizabeth8584They r not lying , its about setting your priorities , as a species what's most important for a women is survival of her & her baby , so a handsome face will help to survive her baby or give her support during pregnancy no ,a face will not give emotional stability - the man will give , its the economically secure man , emotionally mature man who will provide all these things , Looks r short term attraction , u someone is visionary & thinks for future she will definitely not value face that much , that's why atleast what i know in my society, small aged girls r more into this looks & hairs & etc... , Ofcourse they r attraction. Its not just true for women even for men also , i myself ofcourse get attracted to a beautiful girl , but since i am not a guy who is getting into relationship for fun etc. , I value a mature , intelligent average looking girl way more than a good-looking immature girl. Ultimately the goal of life is peace happiness , economic security , a happy family :- & all these things will happen due to the social skills & competence etc , the jaw line of a man will not do all these things , & Ofcourse if he has both than he is a dream boy 😂✨
Yes, we women have a lot of traits that we find attractive in men: blue eyes, tall, tanned, good muscular structure, nice teeth and on BUT if the guy is all of this and a poor loser we would definitely prefere the short nice guy that has a great career. Men dont. They would still go for the beautiful woman. That's something that lady tries not to acknowledge.
She refers to circumstances that no longer exist however those are the real circumstances. Contemporary society is almost 100% socially constructed therefore artificial therefore fragile. In a grid down situation, those circumstances have always and will always be here so the evolutionary psychologists are correct about nature and nature doesn’t change. So the one being anti intellectual is her.
I think Jordan is king .. and he is so well read that actually he just asks very precise questions.. that end up making the other party shoot themselves in the foot .. it’s really really smart and comical if people understand how hard and how Crazy this
As a woman I can tell you that money is not attractive to me. From my experience in life, I have met incredible people without much and horrid people who have wealth. If I were to choose a mate, I would not be choosing based on wealth, I would prioritise character and physical attractiveness. I think social factors are just as important as biological ones, but it doesn't really feel like you consider this when speaking about attractiveness. So although this lady doesn't present much of an argument, I do agree that women are not really asked about what they find physically attractive and social factors aren't really considered either. Those superheroes that you speak about are how men idealise other men, not how women perceive attractiveness.
Dr Peterson's point isn't specifically that women are attracted to money per se. Having a lot of money in many circumstances is a marker that the man is competent, productive and healthy (otherwise he wouldn't be able to compete with other men to make money). You say you would prioritize character. Well, how do you know what a person's character is? You have to base your perspective on something, i.e. observable, verifiable evidence, markers, whatever.
@@truongsinh9955 To get to know their character I would speak to them... You can't decide a life partner at a glance, nobody does that. I think wealth and showing that they are productive individuals is important, but if there is bad character nothing can make up for that
@@AISHALVSMJ Yea, speaking to them is one way to know their character, or at least a part of it, but not necessarily the entire thing. For example, from speaking to them, they can tell you that they are or give you the impression of being capable, competent enough to lead a successful life, but unless you see the actual eventual results or products of their labour, which money is one of the possibilities, then you may not necessarily know what kind of person they actually are. You only know his words. Wealth can show a lot of things, competent, productive, hard working, intelligent, driven, healthy, creative. Furthermore, it opens the door for the man to actually have time to be with you, spending time with you to do things and show you his character traits. As far as a relationship is concerned, there's little merit in a man having excellent character traits but he's so lacking in resource that he has to work 60-80 hours week just to make ends meet and come home exhausted, not having the energy to show his partner his character traits.
I would say education, competence and emotional intelligence. Someone who is able to get a good job and keep it. You want a stable and resilient personality, someone who can deal with setbacks. Avoid narcissists at all costs. If you go for a super attractive waiter with a beautiful personality and a drug problem, you're just going to end up with another child. It's hard enough as it is to raise children, even if you're educated yourself and have a good job. I suppose it can be different if you're extremely wealthy yourself.
I also agree with what JP said about wealth, it's not that women chase wealth but it's a marker of competence. Because I don't care how much money someone makes, what I care about is if he is good with his money and if he will be able to use what he gets (even if it's little) wisely. I dont think most women chase luxury, but rather, are looking for men who can be good stewards of what the Lord entrust to them, that competence is stable and safe, and very attractive to ladies, especially as the lady gets older
Wow, this transcript really got me thinking about a few things! I find it fascinating how it brings together evolutionary psychology and feminist perspectives for an engaging debate. It makes me wonder how much our rapidly changing society, with its evolving gender roles and expectations, challenges the applicability of evolutionary explanations. Also, it's interesting to see the concerns raised about the methodology in some studies conducted by evolutionary biologists, reminding us how crucial it is to maintain rigor and objectivity in research. The whole conversation definitely highlights the importance of considering both biological and cultural factors when trying to understand human behavior, attractiveness, and gender roles. What a thought-provoking discussion!
The intellectuals leading the French revolution thought pure logic would lead to utopia. Instead, we got head chopping Jacobins. The revolution ended with Napoleon becoming emperor and dictator. Leading wars of aggression against most of Europe. Rapid societal evolution won't change our biology in a hundred years.
Evolving gender roles have 50% of women 30 years old childless. Some men are dropping out of society all together. I hope you don't think these things are good.
Ignoring the actual mechanisms within us gets us nowhere. This woman believes we can simply ignore the chemicals that literally create the reflexes that we see cross culturally. Every time a trait is seen across cultures, it is nature, not nurture. That is the entire point of doing that investigation. Jordan is able to integrate both nature and nurture into his view. As an openly biased (feminist) researcher, she willingly admits that she sees no use for nature. Absolutely nuts that she's credible at all.
Jordan Peterson (A male), understands women way more than this female does. lol. "It's in the interest of a woman to find a partner who's as competent as she is, or more competent." (HE NAILED IT) ... yes, A caring and protective man who is more mentally and physically competent than I am.
Annoying when someone disagrees and then doesn't offer any evidence to support that claim. She seems to be disagreeing constantly, but doesn't offer any statistical backing for her claims.
From the point of view of a woman , I know that a woman in a man is looking for trust , respect and generally for support in life . Sexual attraction is just a part of whole picture because the truth is that we do not live wit the image of man but with his personality . How someone looks on the outside not always goes hand in hand with what is inside . What we call the human soul .
Does she realise that biologically we haven’t changed substantially in thousands of years…how is that no longer relevant? Unless she’s implying we can just hire nanny’s and synthetically nurse babies…with synthetic milk… I hope she goes outside and touches a leaf or something to remember where she is
"Respectfully" "Respectfully" "Let me concede" "Respectfully" "Respectfully" "Respectfully" "Im sorry. I don't mean to be rude." He's presenting data and she thinks she's attacking his personal beliefs because that's what she's using to attack the data.
There are several studies based on muscle tone and penis size.. what makes men attractive is not a new study...and she is letting her "enviroment" dictate her perspective without including reason.....her political perspective.
Yes, the situations the evolutionary biologists allude to may not exist in the modern Western world, but your primal genetics do, and they may take decades or centuries to adapt
Competence and reliability, as many women have said in the comments, are high markers for myself, and for the women I know when looking for a partner (if they are heterosexual). Knowing you can rely on a partner and build a life together is much more valuable than looking for the most stereotypically attractive man. x
I highly recommend listening to the whole interview. This clip doesn't do her justice. I agree with Peterson but Naomi does top notch at actually listening and presenting her arguments. So great to listen to intelligent and respectful dispute
The psychology of where someone is at, how they grew up, seems to be more important than looks. If you grew up feeling safe, not watching a parent struggle to feed and shelter you, then appearances might be more important than being a good provider. Was the person's mother and or father present and engaging with you as you grew up, is also and indicator of the wounded child needing to be healed.
I don't think it serves society in general or women specifically, to just dismiss the evolutionary history of the human species. It seems to me the same rules apply now as they did from the beginning. Women seek men of higher status. Now I can grant that what constitutes "higher status" is not the same today as it was a thousand years ago, but the principles certainly still apply. Also of note, when it comes to how women define physical attractiveness in men varies culturally. For example, many American women would find a man who is muscular and tanned attractive, yet in countries like China or Japan such men are not seen as attractive. The difference is because in those cultures, men of high value do not do physical labor outdoors. Men with fit but not too muscular bodies, pale skin and soft hands are viewed as high value men who work in some sort of business where they used their intellect instead of brawn. Muscular men with tanned skin and rough hands are looked down on as farmers or fishermen or some sort of common laborer. These are vastly different physical traits but in principle, women are looking for whatever physical traits suggest a high status man in their culture. I also find it strange that she mentions penis size. What was the point of that? Men don't walk around naked so women can see their penises. Even if the woman has had multiple sexual partners, how could she have chosen the ones she chose by penis size? Obviously, penis size is not a factor initially. There are a lot of things that cause attraction before discovery of penis size. For her to say penis size was not considered because it is bad for men, is ludicrous. It isn't considered because it can't possibly be something women can use to decide if some guy they see or meet is attractive. It is as ludicrous as saying men find women attractive according to vaginal smell. You can't tell what a woman's vagina smells like just by looking at her! Jeez!
I can usually make a fairly accurate guess about how a woman’s vagina would smell- or how bad it would smell, based on her appearance, level of cleanliness and markers of health. That being said, on a “vaginal smell scale” of 1-10, I’d choose as close to 1 as possible and pray for the best! 😅😅😅
Sure standards might be different in culture but generally speaking, standards for dating and sex are 2 different things. If a man and women would meet naked in the forest, what would make them want to have sex with eachother? Thats attractivness. Sure women might want to date high status man, but they always will rather get fucked by tall jacked and good looking man, than some older short guy with beer belly, even if he has way more status. Women often date men and treat them like a wallet
You cant boil beauty down to an itemized listed definition because it’s created. It transcends consciousness. It wont sit still to be defined intellectually.
This is the best debate I’ve seen in years. The decorum, generosity, ability to highlight aspects of the other perspective while replying to multiple layers. Fantastic work on both their parts. I wish more conversations were like this in this medium. My only issue is with her constantly using ‘respectfully’ as it can, ironically, denote a lack of respect either to the speaker or the viewpoint.
As a woman...jordan peterson is spot on COMPETENCY is the number 1 attractiveness quality to me. A man needs to match me or better...i found him too. 😊
He is totally right. I think she is referring to today’s American family dynamic. The absence of fathers in the home and women or girls having children out of “wed lock”. Just because this society’s values have drastically lapsed ( for a high percentage of our population), does not suggest that the single parent household should continue to prevail. Why continue to “dumb down” our country? Accepting a low standard or Having no standards in regards to parenthood is unacceptable.
It is true that in modern day things are very different but that doesn't change how human biology works. We still have the same genes and structure as our ancestors did and that's why we still work like them even if the reasons aren't relevant in modern society. That's why we get the fight and flight response when nervous about giving a presentation.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
There’s a difference between sexual attractiveness and desiring a life partner. When your society is degenerate, it’s all about lust.
Unfortunately these delusional feminists will learn the hard way that men don’t care about their PhD, assets or power. Quite the contrary.
At the lowest level. And you can’t broadbrush the entire society with that brush. I know many people in their twenties who are making sound moral choices for their spouses.
@@VodPJ24uEgkkZT for those that still have values and morals, that’s not the case. Maybe you’re watching the wrong crowd.
@@cheesygal @mcorbitt didn't say that current day society is at this level of degeneracy, nor the opposite -- Society does seem to be more becoming of this way, though.
It’s about finding the least unattractive partner rather than the most attractive. When society is degenerate, there are no 10s. There are 1s-5s, so if you find you a 5, it feels like a miracle.
As a woman who's lived around a lot of girls and women for almost 30 years now, I can attest to the findings of the researches that Peterson mentioned. Women like competence and reliability. I can't remember women swooning over a man over his pnis size or shoulder length, but rather how good he is at something, and how sweet he is toward us. That's why you see beautiful women all around fall for guys who are questionably attractive physically
Edit: Guys, I'm not saying women don't like good looks. What I'm saying is it's less of a priority for us. We like competence and reliability much more than pnis size and shoulder length. Which is more or less what Peterson mentioned and to which I am supporting. Cheers
Naomi Wolf seems to admit that this is the case in the full talk, but she claims that men seek these exact same things in women. To be fair, a lot of women think like this, probably because men are typically not very picky. If a large enough number of men are choosing women who have higher socioeconomic status than them, then surely they can make the conclusion that men follow the same pattern of attraction? That's probably their line of thinking. But, as a man, I really dont think that this is the case. Men arent picky, but that doesnt mean that these are the traits that are attractive to them.
I could see these assessments she made as a 20 year old girls fantasy and certainly women love men in uniform for those reasons of shoulders. And I enjoy the research on women time of month and what they prefer in mates, facial symmetry etc it’s so fascinating. But I agree that the superficial things aren’t long term solutions for these women and not a good strategy which is why women want competence. Exactly. Thanks for sharing.
I sense that you’re a classy lady who would be shocked to know how boorish and masculine many modern women have become. They sit around and openly discuss the men they’ve slept with the night before and every detail of their penises. A masculine woman is a huge turnoff to a masculine man, but that’s what society has done
On some level I didn't understand what that conversation was really about. I recognize perfectly well attractive men just as I recognize attractive women. I don't think anyone would deny that men and women both like attractive people.
However your desires sum up to 1, the moment you desire something else as well you have to balance it. I guess you can be super picky, but you could be super picky about just one thing also.
I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with this, so at some level I don't understand the nuance of what they were really arguing about.
The majority follows standards of the environment they grew up in. Then there're the minority who's well qualified to know what their true self actually desire.
Physical attractiveness gets attention and draws you to someone, but as you get older you are more willing to look at all types of people and have a more open mind, and mental chemistry means a lot
I watched a wheat waffle video he showed research and stats about how like 70% of women even consider a guy dateable if he is shorter than her so you guys do care about appearance a lot
@@madhavmathur4008 It has to do with procreating. You will find in the animal kingdom, the females tend to want to mate with the strongest and physically most aesthetic (in the case of birds) male because she wants strong (beautiful) offspring. The case can be said for humans too. They want taller guys so their offspring have a physical advantage over others. There is the odd occasion where a tall woman will be with a shorter guy but you'll find that he's affluent most of the time.
@Ashtarot77 that is probably true for the most part. I am close to 6 feet. I have never gone out with a man taller than I am, at best 1 inch under and at worst 6 inches shorter. I have found that if I feel the man's protectiveness and his masculine traits and kindness I have little problem with the disparity but there's truth in your statement. Who knows what people have thought of me with certain men ...
You have no choice dear Laura! to do so because your "market value", as a woman, decreases dramatically with age.
Yeah because you no longer can get the attractive person
I am a woman. I have never, at any age during my adult life, counted the things this woman describes as important, as important. Honestly, she speaks like a person with an agenda, not focused on what is true, but focused on making a point that is intellectually important to her.
I feel you may be correct, we are a function of our biology and that needs to be factored into understand what drives us. In Victorian England many men would attempt to deny their biological reality to their own detriment, which is why they could display such bizarre behaviour, at least in the upper middle class. I suspect people do not like to acknowledge that they often behave according to the biology rather than their intellectually driven will. On this subject I have no opinion, but I do find it fascinating.
She is right about looks… long term women want resources coz obviously family but short term women consider looks about all else. All studies show sexual and romantic attraction is 100% triggered by looks not by personality or wealth and the facial aesthetic and your looks influence how people receive perceive certain personality traits. A man who is shy but highly facially aesthetic and physically attractive will be seen as mysterious and stoic, while a man man who is average and below will be seen as just that, shy. Your looks IS your personality in other people’s perceptions but I disagree with her evolutionary psychology denialism.Women do consider looks but we do it subsconsciously
She's a feminist of course she has an agenda.
She 100% has an agenda. She also has multiple misstatements and evasions. For instance, She repeatedly says, "I have never seen" as a cover for her lack of rigor in research.
You're lying.
Prime example of how little a repetitive usage of the word “respectfully” adds to showing respect. Especially when compared to somebody who listens and answer according to what they’ve just heard, not according to their own bias.
she understands his audience will see her pushing back on his crackpot evolutionary science will be seen as disrespect.
i am glad you picked up on that, it is a teenager speak use of words,
It’s not that finding a man we find handsome doesn’t matter to women, it’s that finding a competent, generous, caring man matters far more. We literally rely on you guys. Thanks for what you do 🙏🏼❤
Aweosme comment, encouraging to hear as a man.
This seems to match my experience. How many people reading this have been to a party where a guy who is fairly unattractive and unimpressive physically, but has a ton of personality and is confident and hilarious and makes people talking to him feel important has women fawning over him all night?
thank you for your comment its quiet uplifting.
My husband is my best friend. Makes me laugh everyday. A wonderful provider and protector. A fabulous father to our kids (our first is mine from a previous tryst) Is great in bed! He also has a double chin and a beer-gut. But he has kind eyes and a winning smile. He is everything I never knew I needed. His handsomeness grows because he is such a good man and an awesome partner. Looks aren’t everything
@@danihoney7087 perfect catch!
When someone says "respectfully" three or four times in a sentence prepare to be disrespected.
😂😂😂
Exactly!
Jordan Peterson is an intimidating person to disagree with, even if you respect him. I don't blame her.
She did overuse the word, yes, but she was thinking about what to say. (Where "respectfully" became the filler word.)
@@jacobshirley3457 That's a good point. I'd be a little nervous myself. You had really better have your ducks in a row if you're going to disagree with him. He really does think things all the way down to the bottom.
😂😂😂😂
I raised my daughter as a single mother, but there is no way I was able to do that on my own. My sisters and father were pivotal! I had to put my pride aside for their help, and my daughter is a well rounded, successful adult because of them.
I believe she meant to say she was a single mother who raised her child with the help of family
It takes a village I always said. I have always tried my best to help my daughter, who was a single mom. My granddaughter is amazing. We all stepped up and helped.
@user-zz5je1ry1oshe was a single mother 😂
Single mother households are not ok
@@alexgreen6678tell us something we dont know
It's the overall package: certain level of physical attractiveness, confidence, genuineness, competence, character, and compatibility
I do agree. I do believe women have a higher threshold for attractiveness in men, but men value attractiveness more. Women take into account many other things that thank god a man can work on making better.
If men and women would be the same, act the same, think the same, feel the same...
there would be no balance in society.
Its like there would be only one weather season, the winter the whole year.
the nature wouldnt grow.
Men would feel like they fall in love with a man, the exact "picture" of himself.
But men and women may have lot in common, for example sense of humor, humility, compassion, love for sports and hobbies.
Man and women create a balance for each other,
she brings him down in loving way, down to earth, to his natural state, makes him smile,
and he as stronger human, lifts her up, gently, as nice flower, he is making her more confident by lifting her up, or inspiring her.
Because testosterone makes men more calm and problemsolving and focused.
while estrogen may make women stressful and anxious, which is healthy in some situations.
estrogen makes women to notice some stuff, whether the baby is healthy.
He is embracing her vulnerability, the things that she isnt as strong or experienced.
She should embrace his vulnerabilities and together transform them in healthy way.
There are two types of vulnerabilty, healthy and unhealthy.
Its seems woman represents mother nature, she is supposed to support him in some way, gently,
and he is representing some rock, or creative individual, and together they craete a couple.
Both are creative in different way. Men are technical, mathematical, women are intuitive.
Buth both are intuitive in different way. Men also can be sensitive.
Because for example men musicians, or guitair players use to have very easy peronality, and sensitive personality too,
because music is emotional thing...So it seems like men musicians are as sensitive as women,
but at the same time masculine.
Maybe therefore some women fall in love with musicians, becuse they are able to be sensitive and react properly in the right way,
but at the same time to be masculine. Some men musicians havea lso very good relationship with theoir mother.... and with parents.
So teh women react to his very natural state of personality and sensitivity.
while men who work in other jobs, dont want to be very sensitive,, or they were not growing up to be sensitive
guess what? everything else follows your looks...
Jordan, you are the reason I got myself in school to continue my education, and am now pursuing my PsyD in Clinical Psychology 😌 Thank you for all that you and contribute.
Same same. Nearly there too! Good on you 👍👍
That’s awesome! Not sure what area of the country you live in, but mental health is such an underserved area of our society. I work in a busy ER and we struggle to find placement. Please go out and make a difference! We need you.
Respectfully, they do list those attraction markers i.e. height, broad shoulders in men in the evolutionary psychology literature. It's literally in the authors book she said she's very familiar with, The Evolution of Desire by David M Buss.
Yes. She picks and chooses which traits and facts fit into her feminist/ analyst indoctrination- then fabricate extra “facts” such as, respectfully, youth and fertility are “out of date, respectfully” - respectfully
Oh that's interesting. So she's not so familiar with it after all
@@big_red_machine3547 😆
This are the most basic things taught in the subject lol
@@dll7658 I listened to the full length podcast yesterday- twice- looking for sympathy for her. She’s very well read on the subject of evolutionary biology, however that doesn’t mean she accepts science. Instead, she tries to “mansplain” how biology and the vast majority of the research is sexist and distorted. So she rewrote history and science to further empower her readers
You can tell Dr. Peterson is confident in his beliefs and arguing in good faith by the fact he invited someone who disagrees with his conclusions into a discussion
She literally presented no argument. Just disagreed based on her feelings 😂
Exactly😅 God, that was disappointing, respectfully
I was a bit disappointed tbh, I wanted to hear some actual counter-argument, but there were none. Not even in the full talk, she just disregarded statistics and made claims based on her own anecdotal evidence about "young men now wanting older, wealthy women" and that "men are just as attracted to competent and wealthy women, look: they appreciate it when women pay the bill".
She has a point.
No matter how logically sound and reasoned the theory's conclusions are, you have to look at the data.
Your theory does not exist in a vacuum.
Now explain the scale of current transgenderism to me, from an evolutionary biology standpoint please.
You can't. It's a business thing. An unconscionable business thing.
Yes, she “feels” that the science doesn’t concede with her elevated value as a 65 yr old in the sexual marketplace
@@_Lumiere_ you have to hand it to Jordan for not having a Channel 4 moment with her! He exercised immense restraint
Actual conversations and not fights! We need more of this in our interactions with other people~ Well done to both!
it's so refreshing to hear a feminist being so kind and respectful to someone she disagrees with! no screaming or throwing names. Very well done on both parts! enjoyed watching
indeed it was very unusual, most of them use irony and ad hominem attacks
But she didn't present any valid argument! What good is it that she's feminist???
@luciasaunders9736 she did present arguments, she said that vision is outdated and not accurate because they don't ask the right questions. She can't present data from studies that haven't been done. She gave examples of aspects should be analyzed but aren't.
@@milaycastillo5723this is a circular argument and very common with the left
True communism has never been tried etc
@@Dreamin995 because she is a feminist, she can see where the problem is. "Valid arguments " means here that she presents the same type of argument that he presents. Since those don't exist, her answer is not vewed as " valid" even though it is.
"True" comunism? What's that? What makes it true? A theory is not a truth. Anything actually taking place IS a truth. There has been different kinds of comunism. There still are, 5 of them. They are true and 1/4 of the world population recognizes them as such.
I read her book back in the day, and I thought it was great. Fast forward a few decades and I am exposed to evolutionary biology/psychology and behavior genetics/personality, and now I realize arguments based on claiming that people are socialized to behave certain ways are bunk.
Of course women find certain things attractive. Both parties want an attractive partner (preferentially slightly more attractive than they are), but that’s mutually exclusive without some sort of subjectivity. You both can’t be the better looking partner. Somebody has to trade down. And the person who has more to lose if things go sideways is more willing to lighten up on the looks thing if she can get someone with good character who treats her well and will be there for her and the baby.
The fact that modern women have been brainwashed to think casual sex with hot guys is the way to direct your life are being fed a bunch of crap that is leaving them feeling that they are missing something. Because they are.
Not go head to head, but heart to heart.
Heart has its own brain according scientists, but heart and love isn´t based on logic.
John Gray says estrogen makes women more emotional...
When woman is under stress estrogen makes her 10 times more notice problems in her environment, and talk about the problems.
I wonder whether estrogen can be the reason women are so critical about men´s appearance.
Maybe when she doesn´t feel stressed out, she is more willing to overlook problems and be less critical.
Maybe they should do a study about women who practice yoga, meditation, metacognition. Maybe calm women find everybody beautiful, caring, nice.
maybe the hormonal aspects of body create the delusion about other people appearance and also addiction to negative emotions is distracting to people´s thinking process.
No swooning here, never been attracted to hot guys; for some reason they are a total turn-off. ick. I like cleanliness, and easy going guys with excellent self control - no temper tantrums or retaliatory get-even types. ugh.
Yes and it is not a trivial something. It is the essence of life.
My parents were born 1917 and 1920 - and they raised me to know what an idiot looks like - sexual abandon is not only morally going to wreck you, but on a mathematical basis by hump ing those who hump others who already humped others, you will wake up in your 50s with HPV-16 sparking head and neck cancer, and the cancer treatment will kill your immune system - you now live in horrific agony. That simple. I know of a surgeon who shagged around in med school and got dead at 56. He was in a rage at the hospital he helped run but of course, all too late.
“But I’ll wait for you to finish” AFTER she already interrupted him mid sentence. People need to learn how to have a conversation and listen to everything someone says and then respond in stead of thinking of your response while the person is still talking.
Right, exactly.
Good catch dear.
She was interrupted by him 2 times before doing this
Let's not bash the respectful lady too much, she's engaging in honest debate with JP, he wouldn't want to see her insulted in the comments
Nah I wanna see somebody get bashed. Ya effin "Gallagher"....
She’s not being insulted, but critiqued. No one’s immune to criticism…
That’s a really nice way to put it, you are right she’s entitled to her opinion regardless of whether we agree with her or not and JP didn’t seem to have any issues with her disagreeing with him.
exactly. there are so many chlildren in the comments who hate her for having another opinion. people need to calm down
@@adtoxic3344 An opinion rather typical for the solipsistic fem1nine mind.
Every time she said "respectfully" i sipped a glass of whiskey. Now I am down 5 bottles
The number of times the word biology was uttered also was a lot
I've studied economics, one of the social sciences he refers to when he talks about one of the most robust and powerful findings in the social sciences. It's an excellent example because cognitive ability and grades are looked at as so correlated that it sets the whole basis of the education system and our judgement of whether or not someone is smart. We take it for granted but they are so close that they have become synonymous. It just makes so much sense to assume someone is smart if they have good grades. We even measure smartness/intelligence/cognitive (which is something impossible to gauge) using grades as the proxy (cause we can measure grades) and it's the most used proxy for cognitive ability. Now to know all that and then learn that correlation between male attractiveness in the eyes of women and socioeconomic status is higher than the correlation that makes us assume someone is smart from their academic performance is mad just mad😂😂😂 basically there is a stronger connection between male attractiveness and socioeconomic status than the connection between grades and intelligence statistically speaking 0:16
Is there really an evolutionary basis for mate selection? After a nasty divorce, I looked for advice in the Bible and found this in the New Testament: “Treat the older women as mothers and the younger women as sisters.” So I decided to test this. I got to know several women as sisters/friends without any hint of sexuality. The relationships, as people first and women second, were surprisingly satisfying. It helped me to understand women a whole lot better. When it was time to remarry, friendship was near the top of the list. Of course, physical attractiveness was a strong element as well. This seems like a much better foundation for lifelong commitment and, so far, so good. 37 years and counting.
I've heard a great advice: "Treat women as your male friends". It does seem to work lol
@@segueoyuri Makes me thing of the memes "When you used the same humor with the boys with a girl."*Shows Saul Goodman getting arrested.
@@segueoyuri Errr…that needs some major caveats to be a valid postulate. Some of my (male) friends would happily get into a fight with me just for the hell of it if we ever wanted to! I would avoid ever thinking of treating my wife like that! xD
@@kooldudematt1 that's not a postulate, friend. It's not a pronouncement made with philosophical thought and analysis and proper logic. It's just a rule of thumb.
And I've met some women that have told me word for word they liked to talk to me because I made arguments fun. They just got in fights with me just for the hell of it, to use your expression lol maybe your wife would have fun too if you get into an argument with her (obviously not fist fighting like you do with your mechanic friends) just because.
That's a very nice statement. It sounds like you rose above any resentments you might have carried following your experience (which you describe as nasty, so it would be natural that both parties would have carried resentments; which can be very overpowering) and did some work on inner reflection which takes some control over our human intuition to "bite back", or "lash out" metaphorically. That's great, and I'm glad it has worked out well for you!
Treating women like sisters is a good practice. However, when sexual attraction and/or looking for a mate comes into play, I'm not sure about how one might segue behaviors for the former into the latter! I haven't given that one much thought yet!
With regards to one of the replies about using humor the same way to female friends as to male friends. This is of course not the same as how one would treat one's sister. However I feel it is important to concur with the cautionary element here from my own personal anecdotal experience. While in trusted circles being included within male circles has been both insightful and enriching, a small handful of experiences within circles of people I had not gotten to know and had assumed trust have landed me into some very unfortunate consequences
I love this exchange! It's great to see people discuss important issues that actually disagree substantially on many elements!
Yes, and whoever this woman is, she comes across as thoughtful and relaxed. Other women I've seen debate JP just seem hell bent on aggressively outsmarting him for the sport of it, more about their own egos rather than addressing the issues at hand. Those interviews leave me wondering why JP exposes himself to that.
That’s what intelligent people do. The ones that aren’t so intelligent, as can be seen in the comment section of this video, devolve into personal vent sessions.
Loved the respectful discourse of opposing views. No one got mad, only engaged.
lol no need to be mad when the other party is wrong
@@21Kikoshi true
She was definitely peeved and on the defense. Even just the way she SAID she was disagreeing with him and “NO OFFENSE” was rife with her emotions being triggered by what he had said so calmly…..
@@edithtierce8209 Also her constant interjection of "Respectfully...." and then being unable to actually refute what Peterson had just side (while being unwilling to accept it) was insufferable.
the fact that she turned it into a debate when JP wasn't even debating and talking about something else💀💀💀
I'm convinced that Jordan Peterson is capable of explaining anything in a way that makes so much sense
He's just equipped with a sharper sword than most I guess, the way he slices through to the gist and gives us an inside look behind his technique of slicing.
See how hard that was 😂😂
Well, then I'm gonna wait for him to explain the reasoning behind Season 1 patch in Diablo 4
no maths and physics topics for sure
Except climate change (which has been a constant thing
but which risks changing for good because of CO2-emissions),
and overpopulation (the fish in the oceans do not multiply,
the amount of fresh water does not increase (there are problems
with over-salination near de-salination plans, so it might not be the perfect cure),
and arable lands do not expand just because world population explodes.
He loves people so much that he does not wish to see the dangers "people" pose.
I want to hear him explain fixing a toaster, because not even TED Talkers can.
Regardless of their ideas and opinions, I am pleasantly surprised to see that they can have this conversation like adults. They were polite and respectful and they both probably learned something because of it.
You are surprised? 🙄
Sadly, the only thing I learned from her were her ideas and feelings. Unfortunately, she did not tie these to any facts. I listened to her opinion, but she taught me nothing and did not engage my mental curiosity. I found her failure to produce intellectual interaction disappointing.
For the record, would feminist analysts be on board with a study delving into labial size as a marker for female attractiveness? Or would this produce potentially undesirable conclusions?
Feminism + any science seems to be incompatible. Her entire argument was " I don't believe in the validity of any science that contradicts me, and "I don't look at any science that contradicts me."
She would almost certainly interrupt you to disagree and say some fancy words like tangential.
@@ranna6738 then go on to completely poo-poo the argument to showcase her own ignorance - on top of her non-existant conversation skills.
How can a woman her age be this awkward
Haha yes exactly, or the tightness of the female vagina… it’s an absurd objection from her. Imagine the outrage. She’s almost proving his point.
Another issue is that what a woman says (or even thinks) she finds attractive and what she actually finds attractive are two completely different things, which makes it extremely hard to measure. She proves this point with how she can sit there with a straight face and say that women aren’t attracted to men who are of high competence and social status. It’s just absolutely baffling. This stuff has been known for hundreds of years..
Well that would be absurd because I doubt it is a marker of attraction 🤣
But she was comparing to the fact that breast size is included.
I'm not saying I agree with her though. Physical attraction to me personally was always less important than intellectual and emotional attraction.
I had my choice of mate. Men have found me more attractive than I thought myself to be. But I would not have dated a muscle man who was arrogant and immoral.
Moral virtues loyalty competence and intelligence are all more attractive. And I didn't try to find a rich man. Only a man with initiative and sense of responsibility.
I am in my early 50s and have been married to the same man for 26 years. Things have changed I realize. But I believe people would have an easier time finding a suitable mate if they would go back to traditional ways. Don't be shallow and fickle. And stop being so promiscuous.
JP your too logical and smart for them. keep doing your thing : ) You've helped so many people. Thanks for your time and dedication in this crazy crazy world
yeah was happy it was about 10 min longs ...
I hate being this guy, but:
"You're"
She tried to sound intelligent, but failed miserably. JP you're too smart for these clowns.
He is a sold out puppet. do your research
Define "these" or is it just all women..?
Even though seemly many people on this comment section didn't realise this... but Kudos for this specific video for having people with different perspectives actually respectfully having an actual conversation on the matter in a way that we can learn and collect knowledge on both sides.
We have never needed that so much than nowadays, because putting things into 0-1 perspectives sound really popular and brings attention for being easy and flat to mentally digest, but reality and science is more based on continuing questioning than on answering. 👏👍
That's how we evolve, life's too complex to cheers for things as if everything was a soccer game dispute between two teams.
Except that one side had nothing to offer but unsubstantiated opinion and ideology.
@@alaricgoldkuhl155 No - the problem with this clip is that it is not the entire conversation. You've only been shown the section where it appears so - after all it's Jordan Peterson's clip - and I do like him, so no partiality there. We never got to hear the part, where she was actually saying what she meant to say!
@@ssiegreen5292exactly!
It may be teaching those under fire in the ragged landscape of dating and living hell of marriage. (Potentially). To the rest, it's old ground ... and well understood.
Naomi carries on but is an observer in the science not a participant - so that she "reads everything" hardly matters if she only wants to make ideological responses. Her attempt to reply was cut off, when I wanted to see her outline what a non-scientist makes of what was a very much science-based inquiry by J.P. She went for what she hoped was a shock tactic - dick size. And in J.P.'s eyes I could see "oh, no, don't derail what I mean to be a serious talk".
2:33 "The ironmaiden straightjacket that's placed on women in terms of the ideal of their sexual self-presentation" that is the best description of how it feels to be constantly subjected to beauty standards and constantly judged and percieved by attractiveness.
But that's everyone. That's not just women. And it's not just for women and men. Animals also are beholden by their own set of beauty markers. of course it's not fiar but that's life.
@@jeremiahnoar7504 Yeah I don’t doubt it, but those standards are drilled even more into women. We’re told our attractiveness is our most value asset and therefore a measure of our worth. Women face objectification in their daily lives, cat calls and fleeting comments from friends and family. You see this evidence on Instagram, commercials and advertising everywhere you go, beauty pageants, magazines, and then how porn and media is so oriented towards the male gaze (less so now, thankfully)… just to name a few. Women are saturated with it, and yet it’s so normalised it goes unnoticed. I understand attractiveness is never going to stop being a natural factor, but to the degree women experience it in our modern society and in terms of a measure of worth is extremely unnecessary and can be improved.
@minaaries I'm not sure how much can or even should be done about that. Attractiveness isn't the highest value but it is a pretty high value in general. That same emphasis on female Attractiveness is also why Onlyfans is so profitable for women. Attractive women also make more tips than men. Attractive women score free drinks. A large percentage of art would disappear if we didn't value feminine beauty. Are we going to dispense with all of that because it's all influenced by our appreciation for beauty.
"Social" media.
We are all to blame.
I for myself do not use any.
*and do not seek dating someone who wants to harvest banal likes.
God bless you, good comment right here!
There's no conversation more valuable than one between two people who disagree but can respect each other. Great eye opening talk!
But she disagreed based on what? She provided no arguments at all.
@@divisadero8859 She criticized the studies and that even though arguments sound logical from a study standpoint, it doesnt mean they apply in real life and that studies might be biased towards conclusion that men want to find.
@@octoking9611 'I don't agree' is not criticism. Peterson even corrected her on her assumptions. She is a fraud and always have been.
The full video is in his description. Use timestamp 1:21:14 - 1:27:22 to hear the rest of her answer
thankyou
My doctor told me when i said that i am the common denominator in three failed marriages and i have to face that. He said my problem is that i have not found my intellectual equal and that you need that for real happiness. I have come to believe that it is the absolute truth. You can not be happy if you can not talk to the other person. No matter what their attractiveness is.
Communication is ultimately key - we are intelligent being, is what sets us apart from other animals - so it makes sense that connecting intellectually is just as important if not even more important than the physical aspect.
Women aren't looking for equals but superiors. And men aren't looking for intellect in women. It's a tertiary thing at best.
that's some giga cope
@@netaisarker4991exactly
@@netaisarker4991giga cope lol
I know in my own experience i have been extremely unattracted to men who are wealthy, successful, and extremely handsome. I have been unattracted to men who are respectful and kind. I HAVE been attracted to men who have a heart, who are not attractive, who have a passion for something, who want to help the world, and have genuine masculine qualities. My point is, just because you are good on paper doesnt mean a woman cant see through and pick up on subconscious queues that you dont have the best intentions. That is number one, above all else. You must be a genuine person.
Attraction is such a fleeting thing. We are like computers in the sense, we scan people, and our subconscious computes their characteristics, qualities, and then makes an emotional judgment, the higher order intellect then rationalized this process to itself, after it has occurred. Of course it's on going, and we revise our judgments with every new piece of the jigsaw, we collate a mental model.
I love how they debate and disagree in a respectful manner
Women, in my personal experience as a woman, have 2 categories of partners:
1) guys we find attractive and want to date as teens or young adults
2) men capable of providing the stability we desire to build a future and have children
We might adore the men in category 1 but we will always prefer category 2 if given a choice.
Category number 2 in my experience as a woman covers the following points:
A) Economic dependability - the wealthier the better as long as we consider this wealth to be stable and socially acceptable (as an example: some would consider a rich drug lord a good choice while others would not)
B) Social dependability - is he responsible and caring? If so then he would be a good partner to have children with. Different women in different societies look for different qualities though so you can't generalise other traits. A brave man in an oppressive dictatorship might get himself killed by speaking out against the government, so even traits that are otherwise considered admirable might make someone less desirable as a potential partner.
C) Health - you have to have some very significant advantages to make a woman consider having a serious relationship with a very sick man
D) Lifestyle and Culture - women want a man they can spend many years with while raising children and we have certain views of how our children should grow up and what kind of life they should lead. If a man fulfills certain things we would prefer to see in our children - be it talent, manners, hobbies or social norms - he will be desirable. Again, this is subjective. Also: just because a woman prefers something in a man that doesn't mean she'll fulfill that same requirement.
As an example: a woman from Poland would absolutely raise children with a French man, actively encouraging her children to be culturally French. That doesn't mean she has to be French. She might not wish to raise her children as Russians with a Russian man however as her polish culture has historical reasons for being less accepting.
None of the factors above are absolute, of course. A woman simply pays attention to and feels drawn towards those whom she considers to be potential partners because they fulfill enough prerequisites. That's where attraction starts.
A man can be ugly or poor or mean, as long as he fulfills enough desirable requirements a woman will consider him as a partner.
To a 30 year old woman in a war torn region whose family hardly ever has anything but grain and vegetables to eat a 50 year old cashier from Spain might check enough marks to be desirable enough for her to fall for him simply because with him her kids would be able to grow up in a peaceful country and go to school.
With women it's all about what ifs and potential dangers.
Why is a guy like Andrew Tate desirable? Well, what if he impregnates her? He'll pay child support, giving her economic security. What if he (inevitably) finds another girl? Well, then she doesn't have to deal with his arrogant butt anymore and she is free to find a more dependable man, with more money in her pocket than before after having a lot of fun holidays and parties she didn't have to pay for. So for a lot of women there is no unacceptable what if scenario.
Why is the electrician from the same town a woman grew up with in a similar age group desirable? She knows him well, considers him to be a good person, he has a stable income and likely the same or very similar cultural background. That makes him a safe option to have a family with.
The same woman could consider both of these men potential partners for very different reasons.
once you being to desire the second type of man, you're already out of your physical prime, and your opinion starts to become more irrelevant. another problem is that the second type of partner will never elicit the same genuine raw passion and lust as the first kind. and, above all, it's this what the male ego desires, together with providing and offering safety. so it's a long regurgitation of what everyone already knows
@@gottmttunsk3502They’ll marry the second type then go cheat on their husbands with the first bunch. Mandatory paternity testing and getting rid of no-fault divorce would be a good start.
No so-called "woman" thinks this logically, except if she's excessively masculinized through experience OR she's too old to be active in the dating market
@@gottmttunsk3502I am 25 and I desire the second type OP described lol am I out of my “physical prime”? 😂
@@alexislinehan9561 Their irrational to alot of these men, getting educated in your early 20s only to start settling down in your late 20s to early 30s makes u undesirable
Jordon, you really are incredible. I agree 100% with your analysis of what a woman is looking for in a mate. I basically ticked off every quality you listed as traits I looked for in my husband. Feminists don’t speak for all women. They feel the need to stand out.. 🙄
I feel like many feminists, like Naomi Wolf here, actually agree with the analysis. The difference is that they incorrectly (in my opinion) assume that men are equally attracted to the same things. As evidenced by their full talk.
In this particular case I truly stand for this "adversary" of Jordan. I was always accepting handsome men only despite their socioeconomic status. Actually this is something what always flabbergasted me - these "researchers" always perpetuate this myth about women going supposedly for high socioeconomic status, while the real life evidence says the opposite. Just talk to handsome guys: the more outspoken of them say it upfront: it is women who push themselves onto them, not necessarily these guys picking up those women. And handsome guys not necessarily know how to politely say "no" to women, not to undermine their own image of a good and socioeconomically high-status person in their own eyes!
I also agree with her when she says why there is no academia research whether women find only certain penis size attractive or not? I have never had huge disappointment with regards to this, but my female colleagues unfortunately had such occurrences and this is really a no-go and a highly awkward feeling. Even if nobody knows how to handle such a situation, such a disappointment.
Anyways, as long as I like JP, he is great in case of motivational and societal speeches, but he fell prey to this gibberish "women don't fall for men attractiveness, they fall for high socioeconomic status" nonsense.
I am truly happy he invites to talk people who think differently than him. It opens all minds. Thanks to both of them.
@@nalianalianalia It seems like you lower the resolution on the discussion. Jordan Peterson's arguments about the 0.6 correlation and your real life experiences about some handsome men being chased by women can exist at the same time without being contradictary.
@@Jordy_NL Sure, they are not contradictary. What I mean is I have watched this video three times to grasp every time more nuances in what they were discussing. And their discussion is far beyond the initial "0.6" remark by JP only. Feel free to watch it again
@@nalianalianalia I don't dispute your knowledge or nuance on this topic in general.
Also I think there is much value in real life evidence, so I believe you in the points that you made.
I just couldn't find the arguments in that specific comment that would make Jordan Peterson's argument nonsense.
what women actually find attractive and what women say they find attractive are worlds apart.
Don't believe what a women say believe what they do.
Maybe for brainwashed feminists, but not for normal women that have no reason to hide what they are attracted to.
You’re absolutely spot on. How many times have you heard a girl say she just wants a nice sweet guy and then completely shuns a guy just like that who is just far to weak/incompetent to hold his own (and I wouldn’t blame her, but don’t pretend that’s what you want). The fact this lady is claiming that women aren’t attracted to men of high competence and social status is just proof of your point.
@Andrew well yeah, how many times have I heard women say "I don't care about looks" but your bf just happens to be good looking. As if him being good looking wasn't the cause....or "I want a nice, sweet, caring guy" but you always reject then and choose the loud, assertive, dominant one
@@manuelpanisse5991 You and andrewaar both write as if being nice, sweet and caring would be mutually exclusive with being assertive and basically not a doormat!
Guess what - men believe that women just put "nice guys" into the friend zone and that they are hypocritical because of this perception. But that's not the case. We WANT a nice and genuine guy but we NEED someone who's not a push over to feel secure and respect that man.
Unfortunately many men simply fall either into the "nice doormat" or the "dominant assh*le" cathegorie so that women feel the need to pick between two bad options and in that scenario a need is more important thant a want.
The thing is a nice guy who can't speak up for themselves or his partner is not actually nice out of kindness. He's showcasing nice gestures because of his weakness to step up when necessary.
What women really want and need would be the golden middle that is a rare find of someone who is assertive, can take leadership and yet is willing to compromise and show kindness and compassion.
I heard enough "always'" and "nevers'" from her to put me on guard.
You forgot "respectfully"
For me it was “respectively” about 100 times in the full podcast
During my youth, we were partial to the nerdy guys or at least those who were academically competent. Those are the ones who would be good providers and fathers.
Not that we don't admire physical beauty but stability of character is first. In college the men go for more modest women to marry instead of the more more flirty, openly sexy ones they prefer in HS.
Bizarre to me that universities here promote a party culture. In Asia, the University is where you lay the foundation for the rest of your life. We didn't date, we courted.
👌
Good comment.
Also, I forgot to mention. Questionnaires are the wors method to gather data in any scientific research, especially in direct confrontation - meaning you ask specifically what you want to her back. Because that relies on people: a) answering honestly, b) being able to answer hoenstly, c) having the capacity to articulate their thoughts on complex topics, d) being able to understand themselves fully and articulate that so that other person understands it, e) not having agenda - because if I know X is the more morally or socially acceptable answer, why would I answer Y?
Next, women go based on feelings, proven many times, no reason to debate that. Actually, sorry. HUMANS do. We all do. Logic and rationality plays into deciding things but we are making decisions based on emotions. So for a woman, to tell, what she finds attractive will be miles appart based on how she feels. If she is in love with an ugly short dude who has comic level wit and humor, she will say that. OR ... she will say the socially understandable factors like height, hair etc. Because of reasons a,b,e I listed above.
Aren't most people just looking for the best possible match emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and physically?
yes most secure people
yes
no, women just view me as a sex toy.
Lol, I would say so too. It's the whole package
Exactly, that's why beautiful girls are in demand😂
It appears to me that women are also harder on women, including ourselves, on attractiveness than men are on us. We're not just hard on the men.😉
This is definitely true in my experience. Women tend to worry about physical traits that men barely even notice.
Excellent point.
If a woman is striving to be more attractive to men, perhaps making the investment in her health and beauty is very wise. Far more beneficial than attaining wealth, say.
Yeah this seems true for sure. Loads of what women spend a lot of time worrying about is imposed by other women, men don't even care about some things (like certain makeup)
@@big_red_machine3547 Because life is about more than physical beauty. I, of course, want my husband to find me attractive. I also want to be healthy and intelligent. Why would one have to choose between being beautiful or educated? I'm married. We have children. I love being a homemaker. I spent most of my day today doing laundry and cooking. Spending time with my husband and children. I also took the time to do yoga and work on calculus homework.I have been slowly taking classes over the years because I am working towards a PhD.
" I wanna do something. Just for her!"
-Beast
Disney's 'Beauty and the Beast'(1992)
My favorite Disney movie growing up
I'm glad to see the majority of these comments being respectful. Dr. Peterson doesn't have this kind of discourse with anyone he feels doesn't have a merited position. It was a good conversation even If I'm not sure I really follow her points.
I very rarely see a guy on the street and think, "he's cute!" But growing up when I had a crush on a boy, it was always how he treated me that made me like him. With one guy, it took me a year and a half before i thought he was handsome. It's not that I thought he was ugly, it's just that intense physical attraction is not high on my list of priorities. Do any other women relate?
Oh I go for he is cute for sure. You do not know him so it is looks first
😢I wouldn't read her books if someone gave me one
LMFAO
Nope, he would be friend zoned
This was such a great discussion. Both let each other talk and only interjected when necessary and respectfully
5:31 FACT CHECK There are studies that ask women if they find penis size a marker for sexual attractiveness. A 2013 study published in the journal PLOS ONE surveyed 75 women and found that they rated larger penis size as more physically attractive, but only up to a certain point. Beyond a certain size, women tended to rate larger penises as less attractive. A 2015 study published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior surveyed 2,121 women and found that penis size was not a significant factor in overall sexual satisfaction, but women who reported having vaginal orgasms were more likely to rate their partner's penis size as above average. A 2019 study published in the journal Sexual Medicine surveyed 2,121 women and found that penis size was not significantly correlated with overall sexual satisfaction, but women who reported having more frequent and more intense vaginal orgasms tended to rate their partner's penis size as above average.
9:41 So basically the reason she wants to disagree is because she discounts the entire field of evolutionary biology. And the reason she discounts it is because of its possible problematic relationship with contemporary 21st century gender roles and norms.
I think it would be good for everyone if more researchers would pinpoint why the size "does(n't) matter. It seems nobody wants to mention that female reproductive tract is not a bottomless pit but a finite organ which can be literally torn apart by inconsiderate, violent pounding by a hard object. That uteres may dislodge and vagina may bleed etc. etc. Perhaps at least women could start being honest about how and why sex is often so unplyand then something could finally be done about it.
Sorry about the typos - no clue how to correct them yet on my phone...
How can penis size be an attractiveness marker if I can’t see a man’s penis when I first see them ?!
Yes women are definitely on display even if dressed modestly while men remain a mystery
I guess I have to flash women on the bus now. Gosh dating is hard.
Lol exactly😂😂
@@DeCapitanOG 😂😂
@@elmamotley7887 imagine accidentally seeing his flaccid penis and being turned off lmao
Where can I find the rest of this conversation!
2:41 Side-note that camera quality difference is night and day.
Love ya man, keep on trucking on jordan
Yeah, just watched a video of him talking about the importance of beauty in art and the reaching of a higher point. Nobody desires an ugly city💁🏽♂️
Why does the video cut her at the end? We want to hear more of her arguments, not just JP opinion
Understanding phenomena from the root cause vs fitting reality into your ideology.
Attachment styles play a big part in who we are attracted to. The book attached explained why I was making bad choices and helped me land in the best relationship of my life
I'm a woman and I completely agree with Dr Peterson.
... isn't it a pleasure to see *two adults who disagree but are polite still?!?*
@@KyleCox404 I don't know how you red my comment and got from there to school shootings. To me there is no connection whatsoever between your & my comment.
@@C.C.369 I'm sorry, I guess I've must have replied under the wrong section. But there were no adults in this conversation, so there is no pleasure. Jordan is a little whiny child that always blames woke mob for everything that doesn't go his way.
To rebuttal Wolf's criticism of evo psych, it's not that women don't care about physical attributes in men when seeking a mate, it's that women prioritize resources or a man's potential to accumulate resources in the future much more than physical beauty because women carry a much higher burden with respect to childbearing and rearing. Height, symmetrical face, broad shoulders, fitness, these are all important but can be compensated with status/wealth. The same is not true for women. Men evaluate women principally on looks and fertility because women don't share their resources with their partner to the same degree that men do, and obviously men don't have to worry about the risk of pregnancy during intercourse, so the burden of raising a child is not as heavily engrained.
This isn’t true at least on the men’s side and when it comes to marriage. When men look for a wife looks fall lower than most people realize, men often sacrifice looks for other traits like kindness and compatibility. Ironically for the same reason your saying they look for youth and fertility, basically when men are looking for a wife they care most about whether she’ll be a good human being to his children. He doesn’t care as much about how attractive she may be. On the female side, when women look for a husband looks fall higher on their list than most people assume. As in they’ll be more willing to put up with a jerk if they find him really attractive. Now this doesn’t indicate if the couples will make it long term just the original reasons why men and women get married
The most abysmal thing of it all to me is that people keep trying to pretend evolution and instinct don't play a role in reproduction. Like anything in modern society has changed how women feed kids and how kids are taken care of and how people are fed and so on and so forth. They pretend 200 years of modernity will be somehow stronger in reproduction than literally millions of years of transmitted behavior patterns lol
You can compensate for lack of physical attraction as a man, but that compensation doesn't trigger the arousal side of a woman's mating strategy.
@@bigred1293 oh it does lol a woman is aroused by a lot of different things, sometimes opposite things, sometimes opposite things at the same time. Women also can be aroused and repelled by the same man and they also can mate without feeling any arousal whatsover, just focusing on the 'strategy' part lol
I highly recommend the book "Why women have sex", by Cindy Meston.
In the event they find two men equal in their character attributes, they'll invariably select one physically more attractive with regards to height, shoulder width, penis size, build, which, as Dr. Peterson mentions are markers of health, just as wealth is a marker of competence.
Male scientists don't need to run a cock size study. We all know what and how women would choose if given a choice.
This woman interrupts Jordan and claims what he's saying is out of date!
Lady, the truth is never out of date.
Exactly
Yikes, it was really difficult for me to observe the fool trying to correct the sage. And I say this respectfully.
And then she says "But keep going." Geez! Talk about dishonest debate strategies. She seems to use mostly emotional manipulation tactics to try to score points, and she seems to believe she's scientific and intellectual.
Being a degenerate is out of date as well !
U do know science changes literally every day?
0:07|4:44|5:08 it’s about perceived competence/ability not about the money.
Why posturing increases short-term success, not the thing itself but the marker/peacocking that displays that they are fit as a partner to go through life with.
But don’t posture, actually work and be that person (and only then display/advertise/make-known your competence/ability/marker) to find that person for the long term.
6:42|7:11 must have high standards for yourself (work to meet them) then set the standard only slightly lower when picking
the advantage of watching such videos is that the comment sections are more informative and diverse, it is indeed a true contributive research
When women are asked what’s important, they downplay a man’s looks, yet when scanning pictures on dating apps, women reject a greater percentage of men based on the picture than men reject women. Women are more concerned with a man’s appearance than they admit.
Things worked out better when people weren't feeling like they need a dating app.
Yes, you are so right. I am a woman and wonder why women lie about not noticing a man's looks. Of course women notice their looks, that is how we all determine what we find attractive.
I happily admit to being concerned with it!
I'll tell you something, on dating apps, we also see the environment, if they're in nice houses, cars, restaurants or trips, their demeanor and how they dress says a lot, for example, a man in a suit (says good job), a man who shows photos of the places he visits (who can afford them and travels a lot XD), actually in apps it's the same I would say, we see other things other than just being handsome, and in apps men seem to show off their stuff XD.
@@charmelizabeth8584They r not lying , its about setting your priorities , as a species what's most important for a women is survival of her & her baby , so a handsome face will help to survive her baby or give her support during pregnancy no ,a face will not give emotional stability - the man will give , its the economically secure man , emotionally mature man who will provide all these things ,
Looks r short term attraction , u someone is visionary & thinks for future she will definitely not value face that much , that's why atleast what i know in my society, small aged girls r more into this looks & hairs & etc... , Ofcourse they r attraction. Its not just true for women even for men also , i myself ofcourse get attracted to a beautiful girl , but since i am not a guy who is getting into relationship for fun etc. , I value a mature , intelligent average looking girl way more than a good-looking immature girl.
Ultimately the goal of life is peace happiness , economic security , a happy family :- & all these things will happen due to the social skills & competence etc , the jaw line of a man will not do all these things ,
& Ofcourse if he has both than he is a dream boy 😂✨
Yes, we women have a lot of traits that we find attractive in men: blue eyes, tall, tanned, good muscular structure, nice teeth and on BUT if the guy is all of this and a poor loser we would definitely prefere the short nice guy that has a great career. Men dont. They would still go for the beautiful woman. That's something that lady tries not to acknowledge.
She refers to circumstances that no longer exist however those are the real circumstances. Contemporary society is almost 100% socially constructed therefore artificial therefore fragile. In a grid down situation, those circumstances have always and will always be here so the evolutionary psychologists are correct about nature and nature doesn’t change. So the one being anti intellectual is her.
In a grid down situation, she plans on hiring strong capable men to protect her. Oops, but her fiat currency would be worthless
Exactly this. One can't reasonably expect that 300yrs of wealth and social fashion are going to override 200,000+yrs of biological evolution.
how can I watch the rest of this conversation?
I think Jordan is king .. and he is so well read that actually he just asks very precise questions.. that end up making the other party shoot themselves in the foot .. it’s really really smart and comical if people understand how hard and how Crazy this
As a woman I can tell you that money is not attractive to me. From my experience in life, I have met incredible people without much and horrid people who have wealth. If I were to choose a mate, I would not be choosing based on wealth, I would prioritise character and physical attractiveness. I think social factors are just as important as biological ones, but it doesn't really feel like you consider this when speaking about attractiveness. So although this lady doesn't present much of an argument, I do agree that women are not really asked about what they find physically attractive and social factors aren't really considered either. Those superheroes that you speak about are how men idealise other men, not how women perceive attractiveness.
Dr Peterson's point isn't specifically that women are attracted to money per se. Having a lot of money in many circumstances is a marker that the man is competent, productive and healthy (otherwise he wouldn't be able to compete with other men to make money). You say you would prioritize character. Well, how do you know what a person's character is? You have to base your perspective on something, i.e. observable, verifiable evidence, markers, whatever.
@@truongsinh9955 To get to know their character I would speak to them... You can't decide a life partner at a glance, nobody does that. I think wealth and showing that they are productive individuals is important, but if there is bad character nothing can make up for that
@@AISHALVSMJ Yea, speaking to them is one way to know their character, or at least a part of it, but not necessarily the entire thing. For example, from speaking to them, they can tell you that they are or give you the impression of being capable, competent enough to lead a successful life, but unless you see the actual eventual results or products of their labour, which money is one of the possibilities, then you may not necessarily know what kind of person they actually are. You only know his words.
Wealth can show a lot of things, competent, productive, hard working, intelligent, driven, healthy, creative. Furthermore, it opens the door for the man to actually have time to be with you, spending time with you to do things and show you his character traits. As far as a relationship is concerned, there's little merit in a man having excellent character traits but he's so lacking in resource that he has to work 60-80 hours week just to make ends meet and come home exhausted, not having the energy to show his partner his character traits.
I would say education, competence and emotional intelligence. Someone who is able to get a good job and keep it. You want a stable and resilient personality, someone who can deal with setbacks. Avoid narcissists at all costs. If you go for a super attractive waiter with a beautiful personality and a drug problem, you're just going to end up with another child. It's hard enough as it is to raise children, even if you're educated yourself and have a good job. I suppose it can be different if you're extremely wealthy yourself.
I also agree with what JP said about wealth, it's not that women chase wealth but it's a marker of competence. Because I don't care how much money someone makes, what I care about is if he is good with his money and if he will be able to use what he gets (even if it's little) wisely.
I dont think most women chase luxury, but rather, are looking for men who can be good stewards of what the Lord entrust to them, that competence is stable and safe, and very attractive to ladies, especially as the lady gets older
Wow, this transcript really got me thinking about a few things! I find it fascinating how it brings together evolutionary psychology and feminist perspectives for an engaging debate. It makes me wonder how much our rapidly changing society, with its evolving gender roles and expectations, challenges the applicability of evolutionary explanations. Also, it's interesting to see the concerns raised about the methodology in some studies conducted by evolutionary biologists, reminding us how crucial it is to maintain rigor and objectivity in research. The whole conversation definitely highlights the importance of considering both biological and cultural factors when trying to understand human behavior, attractiveness, and gender roles. What a thought-provoking discussion!
Your rapidly evolving society does not change the applicability of evolutionary explanations AT ALL.
The intellectuals leading the French revolution thought pure logic would lead to utopia. Instead, we got head chopping Jacobins. The revolution ended with Napoleon becoming emperor and dictator. Leading wars of aggression against most of Europe. Rapid societal evolution won't change our biology in a hundred years.
Evolving gender roles have 50% of women 30 years old childless. Some men are dropping out of society all together. I hope you don't think these things are good.
Ignoring the actual mechanisms within us gets us nowhere. This woman believes we can simply ignore the chemicals that literally create the reflexes that we see cross culturally.
Every time a trait is seen across cultures, it is nature, not nurture. That is the entire point of doing that investigation.
Jordan is able to integrate both nature and nurture into his view. As an openly biased (feminist) researcher, she willingly admits that she sees no use for nature. Absolutely nuts that she's credible at all.
This reads like an ChatGP generated comment 😂
Ms. Woolf is a delightful adversary. Great hearing two adults disagreeing "respectfully."
Jordan Peterson (A male), understands women way more than this female does. lol. "It's in the interest of a woman to find a partner who's as competent as she is, or more competent." (HE NAILED IT) ... yes, A caring and protective man who is more mentally and physically competent than I am.
Annoying when someone disagrees and then doesn't offer any evidence to support that claim. She seems to be disagreeing constantly, but doesn't offer any statistical backing for her claims.
Yep, while at the same time making her own claims which she didn't/couldn't back up as well
That’s disagreement in the form of accusation.
From the point of view of a woman , I know that a woman in a man is looking for trust , respect and generally for support in life .
Sexual attraction is just a part of whole picture because the truth is that we do not live wit the image of
man but with his personality .
How someone looks on the outside
not always goes hand in hand with what is inside .
What we call the human soul .
I love your suit!! 😍
I love how they argue. Its so respectful.
Shame the clip was cut at the moment she was about to explain her position! Is there a full length version of this?
Does she realise that biologically we haven’t changed substantially in thousands of years…how is that no longer relevant? Unless she’s implying we can just hire nanny’s and synthetically nurse babies…with synthetic milk… I hope she goes outside and touches a leaf or something to remember where she is
She’s confusing choice with science 😂
"Respectfully"
"Respectfully"
"Let me concede"
"Respectfully"
"Respectfully"
"Respectfully"
"Im sorry. I don't mean to be rude."
He's presenting data and she thinks she's attacking his personal beliefs because that's what she's using to attack the data.
Exactly. It made this a tad cringy. Hard to bear hearing her take it *_as if this was about Jordan's favoured opinion._*
There are several studies based on muscle tone and penis size.. what makes men attractive is not a new study...and she is letting her "enviroment" dictate her perspective without including reason.....her political perspective.
Howcome it just ended? Where's the rest of it? Was pretty good.
does anyone know what episode of the podcast this is, I really wish I could listen to the whole thing
Refreshing to hear a high level intelligent discussion.
Yes, the situations the evolutionary biologists allude to may not exist in the modern Western world, but your primal genetics do, and they may take decades or centuries to adapt
Competence and reliability, as many women have said in the comments, are high markers for myself, and for the women I know when looking for a partner (if they are heterosexual). Knowing you can rely on a partner and build a life together is much more valuable than looking for the most stereotypically attractive man. x
I highly recommend listening to the whole interview. This clip doesn't do her justice. I agree with Peterson but Naomi does top notch at actually listening and presenting her arguments. So great to listen to intelligent and respectful dispute
The psychology of where someone is at, how they grew up, seems to be more important than looks. If you grew up feeling safe, not watching a parent struggle to feed and shelter you, then appearances might be more important than being a good provider. Was the person's mother and or father present and engaging with you as you grew up, is also and indicator of the wounded child needing to be healed.
She said "I don't mean to be rude" while being rude. 😂
Leftist 101, saying you don't MEAN to do something absolves you of the responsibility for doing it...
She didn't say anything rude nor present her feelings in a rude manner. Disagreement != rude.
I don't think it serves society in general or women specifically, to just dismiss the evolutionary history of the human species. It seems to me the same rules apply now as they did from the beginning. Women seek men of higher status. Now I can grant that what constitutes "higher status" is not the same today as it was a thousand years ago, but the principles certainly still apply. Also of note, when it comes to how women define physical attractiveness in men varies culturally. For example, many American women would find a man who is muscular and tanned attractive, yet in countries like China or Japan such men are not seen as attractive. The difference is because in those cultures, men of high value do not do physical labor outdoors. Men with fit but not too muscular bodies, pale skin and soft hands are viewed as high value men who work in some sort of business where they used their intellect instead of brawn. Muscular men with tanned skin and rough hands are looked down on as farmers or fishermen or some sort of common laborer. These are vastly different physical traits but in principle, women are looking for whatever physical traits suggest a high status man in their culture. I also find it strange that she mentions penis size. What was the point of that? Men don't walk around naked so women can see their penises. Even if the woman has had multiple sexual partners, how could she have chosen the ones she chose by penis size? Obviously, penis size is not a factor initially. There are a lot of things that cause attraction before discovery of penis size. For her to say penis size was not considered because it is bad for men, is ludicrous. It isn't considered because it can't possibly be something women can use to decide if some guy they see or meet is attractive. It is as ludicrous as saying men find women attractive according to vaginal smell. You can't tell what a woman's vagina smells like just by looking at her! Jeez!
I can usually make a fairly accurate guess about how a woman’s vagina would smell- or how bad it would smell, based on her appearance, level of cleanliness and markers of health. That being said, on a “vaginal smell scale” of 1-10, I’d choose as close to 1 as possible and pray for the best! 😅😅😅
Also Japan's birth rate is dropping hard. And China is banning "sissy men".
Sure standards might be different in culture but generally speaking, standards for dating and sex are 2 different things. If a man and women would meet naked in the forest, what would make them want to have sex with eachother? Thats attractivness. Sure women might want to date high status man, but they always will rather get fucked by tall jacked and good looking man, than some older short guy with beer belly, even if he has way more status. Women often date men and treat them like a wallet
As soon as I heard her say "I concede" and "respectfully", I knew how this was going to play out.
Where can we find the whole video, full length?
In description
Great and respectful communication. Regardless of differences we need more of this between men and women
You cant boil beauty down to an itemized listed definition because it’s created. It transcends consciousness. It wont sit still to be defined intellectually.
What an epic photo! Is that you?
@@Jan-xo3kn No, LOL. I wish. A dream Someday.
This is the best debate I’ve seen in years. The decorum, generosity, ability to highlight aspects of the other perspective while replying to multiple layers. Fantastic work on both their parts. I wish more conversations were like this in this medium.
My only issue is with her constantly using ‘respectfully’ as it can, ironically, denote a lack of respect either to the speaker or the viewpoint.
As a woman...jordan peterson is spot on COMPETENCY is the number 1 attractiveness quality to me. A man needs to match me or better...i found him too. 😊
I also found and married mine… life is good 😎
Why they cut the vid when it was getting better, besides we couldn't hear her reasons, nor JP's answer to that last statement. :0|
Where's the full discussion?
I love the way Jordan addresses the disagreement.
"I don't understand why you think that based on all this evidence"
“There is what woman want, what women say they want and what women respond to - which is never what they say they want”
9:27 When Jordan Peterson realizes this was a waste of time all along.
In the 20th century humans conquered evolution according to this woman.
@@darbyheavey406 More specifically, women conquered it. Or at least those who could afford to hire nanny’s and or surrogates
Hey, at least he’s getting his reps in. If he talked only to people attracted to his words it would be kinda lame🙆🏽♂️🍿
He is totally right. I think she is referring to today’s American family dynamic. The absence of fathers in the home and women or girls having children out of “wed lock”. Just because this society’s values have drastically lapsed ( for a high percentage of our population), does not suggest that the single parent household should continue to prevail. Why continue to “dumb down” our country? Accepting a low standard or
Having no standards in regards to parenthood is unacceptable.
*single mother homes
It is true that in modern day things are very different but that doesn't change how human biology works. We still have the same genes and structure as our ancestors did and that's why we still work like them even if the reasons aren't relevant in modern society. That's why we get the fight and flight response when nervous about giving a presentation.