originally posted by Benjamina the Vagina
Wow you are mad, and no I’m not going to read of all of that, at the very least don’t mispresent mine and Joker’s argument if you want me to debate your sophistic crap.
If you're not going to respond fine, you're being either deliberately obtuse or intellectually dishonest so you're doing me a favor by saving me a headache.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Dear lord you blithering idiot, he is not saying women shouldn't wear make-up you ****ing moron, and he's certainly not saying that women who wear make-up deserve to be raped or sexually assaulted, he made that much clear at the end of the video, and he certainly made it clear in the video that people have a responsibility to behave sexually in a way that isn't reprehensible and has in this interview and in other statements advised people to be more responsible sexually.Like shit, he clarified that the overall he was making was that there should ideally be some allowed two-way sexual provocativeness and tension in the workplace to an extent that isn't reprehensible, while still maintaining the freedom of individuals within the workplace rather than completely restricting their style of dress and behavior. He also said that authoritarian rules in the work place like Maoist dress codes were a worse alternative than our current paradigm than where people can dress however they want.
That makes it pretty clear that the point he was making was that it's unreasonable to expect a completely sexually devoid work environment unless you're willing to completely restrict people from dressing in a provocative manner.
He was criticizing the "no hugging rule" one company had, the rule a company had that you have to report on your coworkers if they're in a romantic relationship, he said authoritarian dress codes were undesirable, and that he doesn't agree with the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to wear make-up. And at the end he very clearly agreed that provocative clothing was no excuse for sexual assault, so he's clearly not saying "it's okay to sexually assault someone based on what they're wearing."
He even said at the very end that he thinks a proper work environment would allow for people's freedom to dress how they want with people not behaving sexually in a reprehensible manner, so clearly he doesn't find the mutual existence of make-up/high heels and an environment where behavior that is sexually reprehensible by his standards is an unreasonable request, but he does find it unreasonable to wear make-up/high heels and have some puritanical expectation of no sexual tension or interaction in the workplace whatsoever. The former of those two proposals which is his stance is internally consistent, the latter of the two which is what his statements are clearly meant to criticize via the context Vice completely cut from the initial video is not internally consistent at all.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect no sexual assault or just blatantly abusive statements in the workplace regardless of what you're wearing, but if you are going to enforce a work environment where hugging, any form of flirtation, any consensual relationships between coworkers is considered inappropriate then it makes no sense to allow women to dress in a way that accentuates their sexual characteristics.
That's basically exactly in line with what I said:
Like ****, you're taking a statement from the video where the context provided by the rest of his statements suggests that he was referring to women who consider any sexual atmosphere in the workplace to be sexual harassment. What you are taking away from that single part of the video you are obsessed with completely contradicts his statements earlier that sexual harassment is bad, rules like no hugging in the workplace are ridiculous, and that he's not saying women shouldn't wear make-up in the workplace, and contradicts his fleshed out and stated as his conclusive stance that there should be some element of sexual tension and liberty with clothing in the workplace with people relegating their sexual interaction with each other to being not reprehensible.
Like I suspected this before the full unedited video was released, but holy **** now that it is released it should be obvious that that short statement you keep referring to was a lack of precision in what he was saying, rather than what you're trying to take from it which would suggest Jordan Peterson doesn't actually believe what he ultimately concluded at the end of that discussion (which is that an element of sexual display/tension/interaction in the workplace is reasonable while expecting people not to behave in a reprehensible manner) or with the initial premise he held at the beginning of the discussion which was that companies are being too authoritarian with the ways they are regulating sexual behavior in the workplace.
Let me repeat, the discussion starts with Jordan Peterson saying companies are too authoritarian with these issues (such as banning hugging), and concludes that the most reasonable solution is a work environment with some sexuality where people restrain themselves from acting in a reprehensible manner. It's so obvious from all of the context that you seem content with ignoring that the entire point of the discussion is criticism of the notion of dressing in a way that accentuates sexual characteristics and expecting a workplace devoid of any sexual atmosphere, rather than criticizing the notion of dressing in such a way and expecting not to be inappropriately touched or groped or raped. And the next discussion they have is how people should exercise sexual responsibility even in consensual relationships when they're dating someone. The suggestion that he's saying it's justifiable to behave sexually in a reprehensible manner towards someone based on their clothing is incongruent with how he concluded the discussion, and the notion that he's saying men bare no ethical responsibility for their sexual behavior is completely at odds with how he concluded the discussion and with his stance in the next discussion.
You're acting like I'm pulling shit out of my ass to try and hear what I want to hear when I'm holistically looking at the context of the entire conversation (the initial premise that sparked the discussion and Peterson's own concluding statements on the matter of how to resolve the issue of sexual harassment), whereas you are obtusely ignoring literally everything else in the conversation that contradicts the point of view you are trying to paint Peterson with because you don't like him or me and want to extract the most damning perspective you possibly can on him. Well sorry, you're weighing your view on one statement (that could plausibly have been an error in precision with a much more innocent interpretation actually in line with everything else he said) against an orgy of evidence in the same video that contradicts the view you are trying to paint Peterson with.
I gave the benefit of the doubt because when only the edited video was present your view seemed plausible enough, but now that the full length video has been released with things that completely contradict your interpretation of his statement, this is just really sad, disingenuous and pathetic.
If you disagree that make-up and high-heels are sexually provocative then that's you're prerogative, I don't think thinking those things are sexually provocative is a particularly morally damning stance even if incorrect, but if you still think that Peterson is saying men can't and shouldn't be expected to control their sexual behavior (which not only contradicts the rest of this video, but literally every other statement Peterson has made in regards to sexuality and responsibility), and that clothing style is justification for reprehensible sexual behavior (which he said it wasn't at the end of the video), then you're either being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous.
Damn, dude, you could have compressed your response down to fewer than 2000 characters and still had a very poignant and verbose point.
BBB, this is basically what DMB was saying:
JP does not think women should stop wearing make-up, dressing sexy, etc. He thinks the ultra strict rules are stupid and if they want the ultra-strict rules then they need to put ultra-strict rules on women to not sexualize themselves with things such as make-up (both things, JP disagrees with). In other words, JP thinks the stupid draconian codes of conduct are asinine. And JP doesn't really know what a successful multi-gendered work environment looks like in 40 years but he knows what failure looks like.
And I did not have to watch the extended cut to understand that. But watching it might help clear up some confusion on the weird transition JP goes through between normal and irritation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Damn, dude, you could have compressed your response down to fewer than 2000 characters and still had a very poignant and verbose point.
Originally posted by dadudemon
BBB, this is basically what DMB was saying:JP does not think women should stop wearing make-up, dressing sexy, etc. He thinks the ultra strict rules are stupid and if they want the ultra-strict rules then they need to put ultra-strict rules on women to not sexualize themselves with things such as make-up (both things, JP disagrees with). In other words, JP thinks the stupid draconian codes of conduct are asinine. And JP doesn't really know what a successful multi-gendered work environment looks like in 40 years but he knows what failure looks like.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Wearing make-up isn't a sexual display. Some women like to look good, even at work. That doesn't mean they're sexualising themselves or are being hypocritical for not wanting to be sexually harassed, jc.
You're a layman. You know jack shit about this. This post of yours indicates that. I do not mean this offensively: I'm a layman, too.
I find human sexology quite interesting but it gets weird when you dig into it.
Here's what you're missing: humans are animals. We are a hypersexual species compared to other Terran species. Very hypersexual. You call it "wanting to look good" but that actually means "looking more sexually attractive" and that can be translated further into, "increasing my chances of socioeconomic mobility by improving my sexual attractiveness." It's peacocking. It's for "spreading them damn genes" and creating an environment, through success (food, shelter, status), to increase the chances of successful reproduction. And it doesn't just stop during the reproductive cycles: it continues even into the elderly as there is evidence that menopause is necessary to assist in the success of raising offspring (menopause is very rare and occurs in very few species...but it occurs in highly social species that have, predictably, multi-generational units (troops, clans, tribes, pods, etc...what have you)).
It's difficult to grasp this concept. I agree that it is absurdly abstract and even insulting to consider humans this way. That we are a sexual species and we are motivated in our behaviors very similarly, but in a much more complex way, to other animals.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Wearing make-up isn't a sexual display. Some women like to look good, even at work. That doesn't mean they're sexualising themselves or are being hypocritical for not wanting to be sexually harassed, jc.
Honesty, wearing make-up is a sexual display, iirc, lipstick has it's roots in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia (forget) where prostitutes flagged themselves as such to their 'johns' by wearing excessive lipstick. Either way, wearing makeup isn't an invitation to be sexually harassed just because it's sexual in nature, no more than wearing a dress that shows and accentuates all the right curves of a woman is.
Said it before, a woman has the right to walk down the street wearing nothing cept a string bikini and not be sexually harassed.
edit: Did this Peterson really call women who wear makeup and are against sexual harassment hypocrites? If so, what a retarded thing to claim.
Originally posted by dadudemonI know exactly what DMB said, and I know exactly what Jordan Peterson said: that a woman who doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace yet wears makeup is a hypocrite, because wearing makeup is sexual provocation. And I think he is wrong. Nor am I prepared to accept the sophistic reading that when Peterson said sexual harassment he didn't actually mean sexual harassment.
BBB, this is basically what DMB was saying:JP does not think women should stop wearing make-up, dressing sexy, etc. He thinks the ultra strict rules are stupid and if they want the ultra-strict rules then they need to put ultra-strict rules on women to not sexualize themselves with things such as make-up (both things, JP disagrees with). In other words, JP thinks the stupid draconian codes of conduct are asinine. And JP doesn't really know what a successful multi-gendered work environment looks like in 40 years but he knows what failure looks like.
And I did not have to watch the extended cut to understand that. But watching it might help clear up some confusion on the weird transition JP goes through between normal and irritation.
I hope that clears things up for you on your end dadoodoo, because my efforts on this issue are about spent.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're a layman. You know jack shit about this. This post of yours indicates that. I do not mean this offensively: I'm a layman, too.I find human sexology quite interesting but it gets weird when you dig into it.
Here's what you're missing: humans are animals. We are a hypersexual species compared to other Terran species. Very hypersexual. You call it "wanting to look good" but that actually means "looking more sexually attractive" and that can be translated further into, "increasing my chances of socioeconomic mobility by improving my sexual attractiveness." It's peacocking. It's for "spreading them damn genes" and creating an environment, through success (food, shelter, status), to increase the chances of successful reproduction. And it doesn't just stop during the reproductive cycles: it continues even into the elderly as there is evidence that menopause is necessary to assist in the success of raising offspring (menopause is very rare and occurs in very few species...but it occurs in highly social species that have, predictably, multi-generational units (troops, clans, tribes, pods, etc...what have you).
It's difficult to grasp this concept. I agree that it is absurdly abstract and even insulting to consider humans this way. That we are a sexual species and we are motivated in our behaviors very similarly, but in a much more complex way, to other animals.
I find this to be an incredibly idiotic post, even by your standards. Humans are not animals, our intellect allows us to act in ways and have desires separate or even counter to a base breeding urge. I don't dress in nice clothes because I subconsciously want random men and women on the street or at work to start sexually harassing me. Just like women can wear makeup so that they look good in front of their work friends or so that they look presentable or for whatever reason they damn well want. Furthermore, asexuals exist and they like to look good too. So do homosexuals, in which case looking good definitely isn't an invitation for a member of the opposite sex to start harassing you. Even outside of that people constantly make choices that lower their chances of passing on their genes. I mean, by talking on this forum you sure as shit are.
The simple fact of the matter is that even if your hogwash about the human psyche being preoccupied by sex is accurate, the truth is that our ability to make informed, independent decisions makes that irrelevant.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I know exactly what DMB said, and I know exactly what Jordan Peterson said: that a woman who doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace yet wears makeup is a hypocrite, because wearing makeup is sexual provocation. And I think he is wrong. Nor am I prepared to accept the sophistic reading that when Peterson said sexual harassment he didn't actually mean sexual harassment.
You're accusing me of sophistry when you're completely ignoring the statement he made later in the video that contradicts what you think his stance is.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I hope that clears things up for you on your end dadoodoo, because my efforts on this issue are about spent.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I find this to be an incredibly idiotic post, even by your standards. Humans are not animals,
That's where you're wrong. I think you're trolling me.
Originally posted by Nephthys
...our intellect allows us to act in ways and have desires separate or even counter to a base breeding urge.
You clearly didn't read my post if you think this is the argument I made. Other animals are more complex than just a "breeding urge" so why would humans? If you read my post, you'd take away that it's not just a breeding urge.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't dress in nice clothes because I subconsciously want random men and women on the street or at work to start sexually harassing me.
This is a stupid strawman. No one said that. And it isn't even a good rhetorical technique to mischaracterize my point, either. It's just dumb.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Just like women can wear makeup so that they look good in front of their work friends or so that they look presentable or for whatever reason they damn well want.
I already outlined a significant portion of those reasons. Very basic reason: human sexuality. Hint: it's not just about sex or making babies.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Furthermore, asexuals exist and they like to look good too. So do homosexuals, in which case looking good [b]definitely isn't an invitation for a member of the opposite sex to start harassing you. Even outside of that people constantly make choices that lower their chances of passing on their genes. I mean, by talking on this forum you sure as shit are. [/B]
Oh? So you just made a nice case for why humans, even when abnormal sexual preferences (or lack thereof) exist, there are still the underlying behavioral influences.
Originally posted by Nephthys
The simple fact of the matter is that even if your hogwash about the human psyche being preoccupied by sex is accurate,
Again, that's a strawman.
Originally posted by Nephthys
the truth is that our ability to make informed, independent decisions makes that irrelevant.
Then look like shit the next time you go out in public. Do not style your hair. Do not wear trendy clothes. Do not worry about facial hair, eyebrows, or anything that would improve your physical appearance. You have control over your genes and how they influence your behavior so you show them whose boss. Only let your sexual encounters be purely and rawly directed by intellect.
Oh, wait, intelligence in humans also seems to be linked to sexuality, too, loool:
"Researchers from the University of Mexico have found a connection between a man’s virility and his intelligence.
The study tested the sperm of 400 men after putting them through intense mental testing."
https://www.elitedaily.com/life/attracted-to-intelligence/1036285
There's no escaping it.
When I get out of this next meeting, I'll provide a citation for literally every main point I made. We already crossed intelligence off the list. Next up is homosexuality, asexuality, cosmetology, and menopause.
Here's the deal: what you assumed was a stupid post was a post that was all about sexology. The problem is not my post, the problem is your preconceived notions of human sexuality and boxing it strictly into "making babies."