Sexual Boredom is running rampant with Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro (Update)

Does the readership contain a person, strong of heart and stomach, who will watch the video all the way through? YouTube’s auto-transcript-bot isn’t great and is probably baffled by the gibberish these clowns emit. I did see several references to the Bible mixed with evolutionary psychology coated sexism.

I will make a $50 donation to The Black Women’s Health Imperative in honor of the first person who gives us their full report on this thing. 200 words or so ought to be enough. (You can skip what seems to be a lengthy ad in the middle of the thing.)

Sorry, the words can’t be “Barf” written 200 times. Or “Please, kill me now,” written 50 times. Or “Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro will cause chronic vaginal dryness” written 20 times, or similar.

Thanks or blame to Commentarion majeff for bringing this up.

Update: Many of you decided to stay in the boat. A couple of you are trying to hasten the end of humanity by torturing chatbots with this crap. So far I count three people who boldly went through the whole thing and one who got out of the boat, remembered that mangoes give them hives and got back in the boat. Thank you all for your service.

johndoheny

Well, Benji begins very “articulately” by demonstrating he has no understanding of Freud. And he seems to think we live in an imaginary libtard paradise where there are “no taboos.” (Which makes me wonder how those computer geniuses who send me e-mails threatening to expose my browsing history unless I send them $5000 in bitcoin make a living). Then he hands it over to Peterson who says the absence of a “higher purpose” removes all goals from sex beyond “satiation.” Because god knows the last thing we want for ourselves and our partners is to be satisfied.

Then he starts babbling about “constraint of the anxiety response” being the “calculation of the entropic distance to a given destination.”

Now I’m a pretty well educated person. I hold two undergraduate degrees and an MA, and I’ve seen some opaque academese in my time. But at this point I’m pretty sure both Jodan and Benji are just throwing high sounding words and phrases at each other that even they have no idea what they mean.

Anyway, “multiplicity of aims….some optimization function…unifying overarching theme…”blah blah blah pie mambo dogface to the banana patch.

Oh, and Israelites in the desert.

In summary and in conclusion, what I think these two jamokes are trying to say is that if you get too much wild, exciting, satiating sex (I’d wager this state of affairs is entirely academic to both of them) then you’ll be like stuffed as if you ate too much candy and will never do sex again. And that for the continued survival of the species, sex should be dull and routine, like scrubbing hard water stains out of a toilet.

The end.

Edison Carter

Opening ad: burn your belly fat. Seems appropriate

Shapiro opens by talking about how licentiousness is unmatched in human history. Well, licentious is too big a word for the little fella, but he can’t believe how much choice there is and that no scolds exist to tell you to stop. And if your turn on is the taboo, you’re sol right now because there’s no taboo.

Peterson agrees.

Per Shapiro, mostly men are turned on by variety. I think he’s telling too much. Then it’s on to Freud and what he may or may not have said. Apparently you have to sublimate desire.

Peterson: “If there’s no uniting narrative, there’s no higher order aim. That means motivation on the positive side takes a hit.”

I think he’s saying that slatternly sluts who slut around doing one night stands can’t “move forward” — I assume he means grow as a self-actualized person — because there’s no positive aim and they’re only satiating their immediate wants. He then suggests that having too many aims is negative because it makes you anxious you haven’t reached any aims. I mean, sure! That seems right. Here’s how he puts it though:

“If you produce a multiplicity of aims, then you increase anxiety proportionally. Now, there’s probably some optimization function, so like a choice between 3 aims is great, and a choice between 100 is devastating. Okay, so that’s two things that happen when the overarching, unifying theme disappears. But there’s a third thing, which is something you pointed to, so there’s a relationship between scarcity and depravation and value. So if you are surfeited by a stimulus or a resource: you’re over fed, as soon as you are fed, you have no interest. If you’re stuffed, food is nauseating.”

Awkard transition to a quick parable from the Old Testament book of Exodus. Apparently “the Israelites are wandering around the desert like demented slaves and bitching about the fact they have no tyrant, they start complaining about the fact that they don’t have enough to eat.” Ben knows this story and fills in some blanks. God over fed the Israelites or something and I guess they didn’t make it the Promised Land? It’s unclear what conclusion we’re supposed to draw.

Quick break so we can talk about how to move your 401k into gold and other precious metals! Diversification is just good investment philosophy. Text Ben to some number and he’ll tell you more. Followed by an ad for the Economist and then some guy who wants to tell me how to get closer to God. It wasn’t Al Green so I skipped that ad.

Back to that weird Canadian. “We actually don’t know how much deprivation is necessary for proper sexual function to make itself manifest.” Is this one of those No Nut November pitches? We’re going to a weird place. Peterson then talks about how we prep for Thanksgiving — not that a Canadian knows much about True and Good American Thanksgiving — and how doing a short fast is how we should prepare. Then back to the sex talk. “I read this interesting article yesterday that says women are more likely to lose romantic interest as the relationship progresses than a man. I don’t think that’s surprising. They’re higher in trait neuroticism [sic] so they’re more likely to experience negative emotion. And then women.. they’re more… [does something weird with jazz hands] their response to sexuality is more multi-dimensional than men because their risks are higher.”

Not at all sure where he was going with that.

Now a pitch for marital celibacy for at least a few hours a day. If you’re not feeling the lovin’ then don’t see each other for an entire workday then come home, throw on the Barry White, and let nature take over.
Let’s talk about novelty! How do we keep that alive asks someone who has never bought an issue of Cosmo. Instead it’s about a spiritual pursuit? Apparently women want a different type of novelty that is “multi-dimensional and performative”. Man, I am learning so much! “Women are hypergamus and they like men who are above them in the hierarchy of status, or ability. What women want are hypergamus displays of that capacity.”

I am so glad I’m taking notes.

Super excited Ben: “Now for some obscure Jewish Law, I mean it’s in the Bible, but one week out of every month, men and women are not supposed to have sex. One of the purposes, presumably, would be to create the scarcity and novelty that you’re talking about. Because if you’re married, there’s plenty of availability.” After some back and forth about received wisdom, “Not knowing why you do the thing but you do the thing and then it works, in some ways is much of what we’re talking about.”

And like that, it’s done.

FeralServal

Taboos are sexy; in a world with no more sexual taboos people get sexually bored. Also, women need to deny men sex in the name of virtue; otherwise men would not sublimate their sexual desires into creating civilization. Freud said so (Shapiro).

There also needs to be a uniting narrative about sex and some ultimate aim. Without an ultimate aim, somehow sex stops being pleasurable and the reward center of our brain malfunctions. Also things that are scarce are seen as valuable – if you are not hungry, you don’t want food. Then somehow the ancient Israelites in the desert complaining about food (Peterson). Discussion over the Biblical story between the two of them.

There’s rising global instability. You should buy gold; cut to Shapiro advertising the Birch Gold Group.
Cut back to Peterson. We don’t know how much deprivation is necessary for proper sexual function. More food metaphors. Peterson cites an article about how women are more likely to lose romantic interest in men and blames this on women being inherently more neurotic. He then brings up the concept of novelty and then men chase sexual novelty. Married people need to figure out how to keep that novelty alive and tying sex to a spiritual pursuit. Some gibberish about women’s hypergamy and desire to be with a dominant men.

Shapiro pivots to Jewish law and how one week a month married couples can’t have sex. He doesn’t say why, probably because he can’t bring himself to say ‘period’ or ‘menstruation’. But this supports sexual novelty because abstaining from something makes you want it more.

TL;DR: Women should stop having so much sex. Finishes with a short promo for Shapiro’s show.

Eric Riley

At about thirty seconds in, we get the their full thesis which seems to be, the permissiveness of our society has rendered nothing taboo; without taboo, men won’t get boners; because men are turned on by sexual novelty; so sex is boring.

Ummm – what turns on men is not nearly so mysterious. That’s why most porn is incredibly boring (in terms of story). Also, our society (US and Canadian society, I assume they are talking about) are not nearly so permissive as they think. Really, I would describe our society (in regards to sexual mores) as more than a little dysfunctional given the bizarre public hatred of anything remotely sexual by some 40% of our population a reasonably fraction of which engages in behavior that they would condemn in others.

Of course, worth noting also is that this is two men talking about sex in general, but only mentioning how men feel about it, because to them, I guess, women don’t have an opinion at all.

Something about Freud said by the guy who thinks WAP is a medical condition.

Jordan spews forth a word salad about sublimation and goals. I think he is trying to push the idea that we cannot have any ‘higher’ goals if we are all too busy getting it on in ways that cannot be taboo because there aren’t any taboos anymore. This prevents… Frankly, I am not really sure what he is getting at here, like Constable Dogberry, this learned gentleman is too cunning to be understood.

I am not sure if I hit 200 words, but that is about all of their nonsense I can take – I made it to about 3 minutes in.