@Black Knight Fool you're completely misunderstanding Esther. She's one of the most supportive figures out there when it comes to men. She talks all the time about how men suffer in today's society. She's a mother of two men.

@@IEVAKambarovaite I dont know what comment was censored (typical no room for discussion) but Esther is not supportive of men at all. Esther and women like her define for themselves how men suffer in todays society regardless of whether men actually agree and then they say they're helping men by fixing the ways in which men "suffer" - all based on their own female point of view and all within the framework of womens vision of equality (which is based off womens wants not mens and so isnt real equality). If you cant see how arrogant that is then I dont know what to tell ya. Who is Esther (or you) to tell men how they suffer and arent aware of it or even to think it? Why would you think she would have a clue? - It's because what she says appeals to women and hence to you that you agree with her but if men dont then they are the ones you should listen to. Case in point - a comment from a man disagreeing with Esther supporting men is deleted while yours correcting him is allowed to stay. And this is Esthers and others like her idea of "being supportive of men"?😂

@@poocrayon4588 I agree there are women who control the narrative and think they understand men when they don't. I'm genuinely curious to know what Esther Perel has said to give you the idea that she doesn't support men? Why don't you think she's basing her ideas on what she's heard directly from men she's associated with and men she's worked with in her therapy practice?

​@@theprousteffect9717 Esther's basis for her viewpoint (as the video title suggests) is that masculinity is in crisis and is in need of change - it's something she has repeated elsewhere. I don't recall her exact words but the basic theme of her thoughts was that the current model of masculinity wasn't working in today's world and needed to change. Basically the general train of her thought was that women had escaped the confines of an old fashioned femininity and that in general the world which suited women (or women like herself), was the one which men and women would be better off if men evolved to fit within - and that they should become less influenced by rigid gendered behaviours - as she thought of women as being. This makes general sense if you accept the premise that women are now acting in an more ungendered way than men - or than women were in the past - or if you think that's even possible. And if you believe that the "gender equal" society which the likes of Esther see as appealing would be a good way for the world to proceed. If you believe these things then Esther could be seen as supporting men yes. If you don't then whether Esther believes she is supporting men or not is irrelevant. The idea that femininity - not the old fashioned kind - but the modern presentation on display in this conference isn't working in todays world didn't seem to occur to her as a possibility. In fact, she (and many women like her) operate on the assumption that it is either a good thing or else, that it doesn't exist at all and women have somehow become more free of gender specific behaviour and thinking than men (or women in the past) - despite the fact that as this conference and it's audience's gender ratio displays, that is far from the case. Again, look at the audience, look at the speaker. If this had mass appeal to men - even a large minority of men - you might be able to say Esther was onto something. But it doesn't. So why it this the case? Does she or the audience reflect on it and wonder whether they are missing something? No of course not - because as I say, she and they believe they are trailblazers who have freed themselves from gendered beahviours (or at least done so far more than men) and the world would be better off if men just followed their general model. And so they continue on this self absorbed path, far far, from the reality of most men's wants or thoughts on the world and themselves. To answer your last point, I'm sure Esther has based her ideas on what she's heard in practice. However this means little as you've got to realise that only a certain type (and minority of men) would ever see a therapist like Esther Perel and also that she has interpreted what she has heard from them according to her worldview (mentioned above), a world view on gender which is born in her own (strong) gendered bias which she is likely incapable of thinking of as such.

Why is it that women feel this is emotional labor with their partner but not with their female friends? As she says it's unnatractive when the woman feels she is being a parent to her husband. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Yes ... so tiresome. The game is rigged so we women get all the sympathy.

@@thisisntallowed9560 it's about accepting things as they are not what seems logical as they should be. It is like this throughout the world whether it's America, Europe or Africa. Men have to be masculine in behaviorand there is no other way

@@wisecounsel6135 Being masculine is not being a man-child. Men just get away with being uncaring, they're being taken care of like babies but no one takes care of the woman. Stop exploiting women

A man can be unemotional and not vulnerable but still exhibit decent, polite, even caring (in a superficial way) behavior. Meaning NO toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity: Cat calling. Sexual harrassment. Telling raunchy jokes in front of female teenager in order to see them cringe and feel embarrassed. Telling a coworker how they would like to rape her (yep a friend had that happen). The manager goes after the female that could be his daughter and will not give up his inappropriate advances after she tells him no and that she has a boyfiend (she left the company). It means certain domineering behavior at home or at the work place (in order to show women their place.

@Butterberg b not at all

Female supremacy served by "polyamory" -- easing the licentiousness of women under the "broad spectrum" of possible ways of loving -- is very much a political agenda. WAKE. UP.

She has a very delineated point of view. This is a political agenda. Some of her beliefs provoke strong emotion because they aren't inclusive. The person without an agenda is sitting in the audience, learning.

You don't need to desire your friends since you're not in a romantic relationship with them, so you can easily be parent figure to your friend without it destroying your relationship.

Basically lots of us women have become self-righteous, highly accusatory people. We think we can do no wrong but men are built wrong. When I challenge women, they simply stop speaking to me because they are enjoying the role of accuser. I am shocked at how women shut down the conversation if there is any suggestion that we might need to look at ourselves.

Dear simp, who cares what society thinks. Confidence and self control, independence, walking with a purpose will help you become a man.

@@johnjaso385 Backhanded advice from a tough guy, classic.

Maybe it reflects the fact the only women are actually agreeing with Esther (also a woman) about masculinity and what to “do” about it. So basically it’s a conference of women agreeing with a woman’s opinion on masculinity. Imagine women’s reaction to the same in reverse. It is truly laughable that these women think they or Esther have a clue and even more so that they can speak with authority on the subject.

@@poocrayon4588 Are there any women out there whose thoughts reflect how men truly feel, in your opinion? It sounds like you're subtly suggesting that women can't be true allies, which is not a healthy outlook. Men can be allies of women, even if neither of us can completely understand the unique battles that we each have to deal with.

​@@theprousteffect9717 I would certainly suggest that a conference full of women, listening to the theories and thoughts developed by a woman about men should reflect on the fact that that speaker, (Esther) and those thoughts and theories, resonate with a majority of women and not men - and at that point should realise they are not "true allies" (whatever that means), but have instead concocted a fantasy of what men feel and how they should be that appeals solely to them and (given the one sided nature of it's appeal) that appeal is largely based in a thinking which is squarely feminine. They are something akin to a male staff teaching at an old fashioned finishing school for women or something similar, and lecturing the opposite sex on the problems of their gender and their solutions - that is they are absurd in their arrogance and lack of self reflection. That is not a healthy outlook for them. Nor will it lead to anything good as they imagine. But sure women can understand men up to a point. However the reality is a woman who isn't into all this kind of feminist theory influenced new age psychology will have a far better chance of understanding men (or a specific man) than any woman who is - because she will be more likely to listen to the man's actual thoughts and feelings rather than superimpose her own idea of what they should be onto him. So basically the kind of woman who wouldn't be interested in this content are more likely to be able to "get" men. Ironic.

Social work is industry dominated by women. Women prefer to work with people, men prefer to work with things.

@@pdeezzel Because women are raised to think about people while men are discouraged from doing emotional work. People also tend to gravitate towards jobs they see themselves in, a job dominated by women will be more appealing to a woman compared to a job dominated by men in which she has to challenge the statu quo. A man will also avoid jobs/activities that are percieved as womanly. Which reinforce this fucking dumb stereotype

@Black Knight Fool Sounds more like women have the paradox, if they want a man who is both vulnerable and invulnerable.

@Black Knight Fool Have you examined your dependence on copy/paste?

@Rickie j it means we divorced and there's zero communication between us.

@Rickie j ditto

Well this thread went nowhere haha

18:00 can women be emasculated

Actually what guys "need to do" is absolutely nothing of the kind. What makes you think men have to change their "vunerability" to connect in a way which caters to women better?

@The Fool wdym?

19:00 the man child

@The Fool are you going to repost your propaganda on every comment?

This only leads to a problem with sexual attraction in women and that should be admitted instead of acting like this is something that happens for both sexes.

@@poocrayon4588 and you think this is not an issue?

​@@yanapopova4445 It's not an issue for men if they either take on a controlling role in an aspect of the relationship or if their partner does. It's only (some) women who start to feel uneasy and have feelings of their partner being like a child and then lose attraction. So yes it's an issue, but the issue is because of the way women react and think about it and solely a problem caused by this, that doesn't mean that it should be catered to, it means those women should realise it's based in their own neuroticism and if they ever want a long lasting relationship they need to get over it as it's impossible to have a long lasting relationship which is always 50/50 split right down the line with both partners taking on each role equally - in fact it doesn't even work well. Women who think this way are bound for divorce and a series of failed relationships which they blame others for.

@@poocrayon4588 I agree, no relationship is 50/50 and women are different than men. The thing is when the husband becomes too dependent it becomes a serious turn off, because the woman starts to look at him like he is her child. And you don't have sex with your child. In the long term this is very damaging to the relationship, because a very important aspect is missing. Both partners start to get resentful and eventually the separate or cheat.

Agreed. The mischaracterization and hatred towards Peterson is insane to me. The amount of people in the threads who are obvious Jordan Peterson fans should actually tell women (and men) how interested men (AND women) are in understanding both men and women to be coming here and it's extremely unfortunate that Esther is not more careful in her characterization of him. I have no problems with her actually commenting on disagreements she's had with his ideas to educate her class, but to use his name like a slur is unconscionable. I did however find it hilarious that then she goes into a rant on her audience about responsibility in sexual promiscuity that actually would be quite fitting for something Jordan Peterson might himself say.

@Rickie j I am confused by your assessment of JP and, to me, you seem to project your own internal conflict with religion onto him. Case in point his views also on children, where he explains that if you let your children trample on your own values (and unconsciously, no less), you will end up hating them, regretting your interaction with them, and ultimately hating yourself for not having the education and fortitude to deal with them. The classic 'spoiled child's syndrome where the parents become like children themselves, letting the bully rule the interaction so they don't have to assert/make decisions that potentially 'hurt' the bully. Every episode of any Dog Training video is a direct example if the dynamic JP speaks to about parents. If it has anything at all related to a 'vengeful god', it is the social recognition that all outcomes are not equal, and that some behavior can hurt the social order such that people will ultimately hate themselves for not putting their foot down on what behaviors go too far (consider the new levels of pedophilia being introduced as people 'living their Truth'). How you interpret JP as so preachy and forceful when the guy literally goes out of his way to say that he cannot PROFESS 'a god' is beyond me. I will have to assume you are someone who can only glean meanings and values from someone you see in your own camp, which is tribalism I don't myself ascribe to. I will admit that he gets too monorail for my own tastes at times, but I feel this way about most people who accept the responsibility of speaking in an open forum that gets to judge their ideas. It's a great example of what cancel-culture is, whereby people feel the need to vilify the person instead of actually disagree with a specific point and (at the very least) provide a viable solution/answer of their own. To me, I see your post as an example of negative feedback that attacks and provides no value. I'm sure there are others that emotionally attract to your hatred of JP, but this seems more projection of either writing him off due to not understanding him, or not willing to address his views, than actually calling him out for actual negative behavior. I know this is long and apologies for that, but want to add that I don't 'believe in God' myself. I see the interpretation of God as the highest authority as a tendency of humans to anthropomorphise the world. The father, and to extension, the King are recognized social powers that, when operating to a highest moral standard, allowed the societies to FOLLOW the same. This doesn't make their leadership TRUE in the scientific sense, but does in the JP TRUE/archery origin of the term. My impression of JPs anger comes from people being ignorant or unwilling to honestly address the reasons why humanity has authored itself the way it has (the whole lobster trope), and so misunderstanding WHY we act like we do. This leads to (ironically) vilifying what we don't deeply analyse and the adage of _history repeats itself_ .

@Rickie j @Rickie j you seem to have it all figured out. I don't see a question in your reply, so won't give an answer I expect you wouldn't credit listening to. Seems you wouldn't have JP on a platform you paid for people to listen to and it seems Jordan did the same to Faith Goldy? No? Not the same as deplatforming where you garner support to stop someone from speaking at an engagement you are not personally running or get them removed from a site that you are not a moderator of. If Jordan was running the conference, he did not 'deplatform' someone by not choosing them to participate or even 'cancelling' the engagement. Totally different than Cancel Culture that tries to control, force, coerce through protest or otherwise, someone's ability to speak. On principle, I would disagree with Jordan not letting her speak, as it would have been better switch it to engage in a debate to express loaded views that need to be addressed. On your horse perspective, do you speak to animals that way their own raising of offspring?🤪 I'm all for progression, but not at the expense of vilifying previous methods (as I laid out in my previous post).

@Rickie j thank you for taking the time as well. I looked up Faith Goldy and while I think her tactics are misplaced and lack foresight (as in, she identified negative group dynamics correctly, but then fails to reflect upon her own tribal behavior when combatting it...which removes any moral authority she tries to use through her religious affiliation). Two wrongs don't make a right is a moral saying for a reason. I don't think God punishes by earthquakes and I don't think it's fair to equate Peterson's personal struggles to a 'got what he deserves from stress' angle. I would expect the poor health of his wife played that part if has been attributable that way. Again, not the best look on your part to draw that conclusion. You're right that the public will cut you down notches off your _high horse_ , but people will also do that just to be entertained as well. Disappointing that you side with mob rule/public opinion to take someone down you disagree with (seems that's exactly what happened to Faith Goldy?). Do you present yourself in ways that all people at all times agree with? I also disagree with how generalized you are on child parenting. You can certainly have a valid point to say Jordans advice is too overgeneralized itself, but prove that you aren't any better at nuance with saying you've got it figured out from a more progressive view. If you do troubleshoot, you know there are methods and rules and structure that follows honing a technique and I can't believe you'd teach an apprentice without structured learning practices. My overall impression is that you fail to give Peterson a beneficial perspective because he differs from your intuitions, which a lot of people do....they stay in their own camps/lanes, but I think that's one of the main problems we face in this world. Reaching across the aisle and attempting to walk in another's moccasins (which is now assumed both appropriations AND racist!🤦‍♂️). The dynamic between structure and love is difficult for sure. I just think Peterson prioritizes structure methodologically over love in parent-child relationships and, as with animal relationships also, I tend towards agreeing with him. Even with things such as music or art this is plays out, where it's hard to fall in love with something without having put in the hard work as discipline and practice first. I guess I just see how you interpret Peterson as advocating corporal punishment vs strict rules of conduct/structured systematic learning...which are not the same thing. I know they CAN be interpreted that way, I just don't recall him advocating for that. That's the environment were in now though for sure....the left calling for Nazi's to get punched while simultaneously saying rules and conservative values are despicable and wrong. And the right vehemently claiming moral truth value while putting Trump in the White House. An asylum for sure. Wish you well. Thanks for the discussion.

@J H @Rickie j Probably the most polite disagreement AND the longest I have ever read in the UKposts comments. Both made good points and were well articulated, thanks for a good read.

I was thinking the same. I wanted Ester to go in on her, but notice how she didn't even touch it..

Any woman who says 'patriarchy' must be avoided. And men.

i was really annoyed by this whole "question" because it felt more like a statement than a question. I felt like she was trying to prove a point. for me jordan peterson and ester have a lot of the same values, they are two sides of one knife and I would love to see a conversation between these two. I think it would be a really enriching conversation between two people who know what they are talking about, who are vocal about their opinions and explain why they think this way and respect each other even though they might not agree on certain points. I would never know how this conversation would be. But I think it is in everyone's interest to not fight each other but try to find a common ground within this polarization.

What is she on!? Feminism is just so confused

@@snoesje95 couldn't have set it better myself so I won't, though I will add that at least Esther berated her audience in a similar way to Jordan Peterson in speaking to the responsibility of the audience to account for their lack of intimacy that has to do with them having a lack of responsibility for their sexual actions..... That they consider to be sexual freedom smdh, which is a childish position.

Totally agree!! They probably weren't listening to Jordan attentively enough.. I would love to see Esther and Jordan in one discussion! That would be priceless!!!

@Roxanne M. Main difference between JBP and Esther Perel... Is that JBP doesn't sugar coat... And Esther Perel does... That why JBP has a mixed set of viewers. Though there is one thing I hate about JBP is his obsession about Scandinavian countries and its egalitarianism... He has to understand that the entire world is not Scandinavia and the rest is different.

Jordan Peterson is so misunderstood 😔

Sadhanabrata Roy facts

Thank you for your comment- I was surprised to hear the negative comments about Jordan Peterson in an Esther Perel video. I think they are both brilliant, and I enjoy listening to them lecture as they are both great communicators and have such an amazing depth of knowledge in their field of study. As a man with traditional views and in alignment with most of Jordan Peterson's views, I also enjoy listening to the feminine point of view articulated by Esther. The women in her audience appear to believe a man like myself would not agree and appreciate Esther's opinions, and they are obviously wrong!

Is that what their objection is to Peterson? I believe that he has uttered the term "forced-monogomy" in a video and/or speech. But I have no doubt that he meant socially-enforced. It sounds like they are judging Peterson by their perceptions of his most radical followers and don't really understand what he represents.

Black Knight Fool interest

Yes, I was hoping that Perel or even one of the other speakers would have corrected that misconception about Peterson's thinking. The term forced monogamy is unfortunate

Rossana Motta well said. I think that many narcissistic men see sex as a masturbatory act. They don’t see it as an intimate connection with another human. It is quite transactional and in fact the other person is simply an extension of himself. The other person is there for his pleasure, how he wants it and when he wants it.

@Corrie I felt the same many times! I think most don't care to even learn. The lack of emotional intelligence (and motivation to gain it) is quite scary in a lot of the male population of western societies. I think many think "I have a job, a house, a car, and a penis, that should be enough for a woman, what more would she want?!"....

@Last Christmas I gave u my Fart It is not terrible in the least, just saying it has an ego boost component, in my experience far more often than a predatory fear component (which was Ester's interpretation of being eager to please in bed). Now that ego boost can be healthy, if there is mutual care and deep connection, or not healthy, as in people that are eager to please in bed but outside the bedroom, act like careless strangers that could not care less if you are dead or alive. I cannot comment on third world countries but I grew up in Italy, which is far less wealthy than the US (where I live now). I find in poorer countries, interpersonal connections are much tighter and less fake and relationships are given far more importance than here. Probably because you cannot derive your value from material stuff, since you do not have much, nor from jobs, which typically pay very very little. So I think in less wealthy countries, your value resides much more in the connection with others than in the connection with money / stuff / careers. That's, at least, my impression.

@Corrie Yes I can attest that tribalism, attachment traumas (particularly avoidance!!), fear and shame seem higher here in the US. Hard to generalize but in my personal experience (I lived in other countries of Europe too) they run much deeper in the fabric of US society rather than in the European societies I have seen.

@Corrie men's vulnerability vs. women's are completely different. However, men's vulnerability, to put it in Esthers perspective are seen as predatory. But because women's sexuality is highly narcissistic, it requires for the man to be generous, to be the caretaker, that of which is removed from women, therefore is desireable for both parties. For example, having a house, car, career. Etc. I dont understand why you will even remotely see that as predatory

It unfortunately shows the level to which her audience wants to figure out how to get their ideas backed up by the conference versus actually wrestling with the information given to them. How ironic given Jordan Peterson's constant stance on responsibility.

See the comment by Average Player above. JBP triggers feminists because he doesn't accept their ideology, so they have to misrepresent him. One is by overplaying his use of the term "enforced monogamy" as if he meant some kind of forced marriage arrangement, rather than a social agreement on monogamy, which is what has prevailed in most of the advanced world. Perel is I think avoiding the risk of alienating her feminist audience by sidestepping the question. I didn't learn much from the waffle of the 2 guys who spoke at that point.

@@markaurelius61 waffle of two guys lol!

The audience somewhat depicts what the Redpill community declares; the notion that woman cannot take responsibility for their part in battle of the sexes.

@@SCheco3 Other than the one (perhaps) critical question re JP fans, what evidence is there - from any of the other audience members, to support your statement?

Did I hear that correctly? @ 30:00 minute mark consensual and non-consensual sexual relations with your children ? 🤔

@@maricelaelizondo2482 Yep. And he was worried about the "phrase" predator. While "phrasing" his concerns with that mouthful. I hope it was just bad language. but still a therapist should be mindful of his language.

Alok Sen the one yammering about how sex work would support the patriarchy?

I'd love to see Jordan Peterson try to debate Esther Perel. She'd fisk him. I've never seen him debate another clinical psychologist. She's an exceptional genius with fantastic credentials and extremely articulate. She'd clean up the floor with him. His ideas are such old-fashioned, misogynistic, thinly veiled religion-based truisms as you be for all practical purposes dog-whistles did the reassertion of openly patriarchal values. Hers exploration of human experience is so humane, nuanced, and better informed by the best and most up to date science by comparison. She's on the cutting edge of psychology and he's still pounding the same podium with the same gavel as anyone might have done 40 or 50 years ago. When you listen to Esther Perel you're hearing the future of Clinical Psychology at it's best.

Really, nobody should watch any Dr Jordan Peterson videos for any reason. 😄

Jordan Peterson has mommy issues and is scared of the power women inherently are born with. He’s a fancy version of Trump.

Looser

Eric Matos ?

she probably doesn't want to align herself with a misogynist reactionary who is nowhere near empathy and understanding. She tackles the issues of masculinity within female emancipation not AGAINST it. Petersson has nothing to offer the women or men that find themselves confused in this paradigm shift. Esther wants to move forward and incorporate the progress done, not reverse it back to traditional oppressive gender roles. She does not confuse the individual capacity with the societal and external issues -like class, colour, gender. Nothing like that vile individual who doesn't miss a beat to degrade whomever doesn't fit his autarchic fantasy...

@@LoisKl What exactly is "female emancipation" tho? Are any females actually aiming for emancipation or is the goal intergration as a means of being provided for by men on a societal level in a way that better suits them? Because thats what I see. Esther is a feminist (or feminist influenced) - any opinion she has on masculinity is contained within that box and is ultimately formed by how well it serves those goals - which at best are implementing womens version of equality which suits women - which of course isnt real equality at all.

Esther has no interest in moralising and enforcing norms. Look up her views on non-monogamy and see for yourself how similar it is to Peterson's enforced monogamy.

VERY strange indeed. I'm surprised noone asked him to clarify WTF he was getting at. "Men are horrified their wives would think them capable of sexually abusing their children" OK. Makes sense. "Men are horrified their wives would think them capable of non-censual sexual acts with their children." WTF.

@@JukeJonathan Exactly. WTF indeed.

I expect everyone here is missing the point and that he's trying to formulate a line in the sand of Esther not using terms such as predatory. Predatory infers lack of self-control to the degree that the man will act on his instincts in such a way that his instincts supersede his ability to make a conscious decision. So the guy is trying to show Esther that by her use of using predatory behavior versus using language that allows for the male and female to navigate through a consent, leads the females to think of the males as people who might fall to the level of depraved behavior and that depraved behavior might include getting their sexual desires met no matter what is available, possibly including their children IF those women see their men as PREDATORY. He is not vilifying the men with his explanation and I think everyone in this thread is missing that. Complete opposite actually.

@@ephajanke3242 sorry, nope you're ABSOLUTELY right. I had to listen again and I'd agree that he _emphasizes_ consensual with children multiple times, so he for sure seems to be indicating allowability towards pedophilia. It is a huge problem when instead of teaching someone younger for the value of them experiencing joy for themselves, 'adults' twist that into believing they are 'sharing that joy' with a child...esp when they are masking by excusing their own trauma by allowing it to happen with others. You can see this behavior with parents frightening the living daylights out of their kids for fun on-line because they know that soon the child will grow up/out of the ability to be traumatized and they get a certain joy (like a horror/torture movie) to feel they 'experienced it WITH' their child. He really pushed that non-consensual too far and I very much question his intentions now. I would feel terrible if my previous post supported an actual child predator. Children cannot be consensual, as you said, and is why we have laws regarding it. If he would have explicitly stated that sex with children cannot be consensual and that it may say a lot towards why the woman expresses the concern (as in, does she feel approached or demanded for sex and if demanded may feel the man's desires would so override cognition that he may be 'overtaken' even with a child). I think my previous headspace was concern with the _toxic masculinity_ narrative around _Predatory_ and how this narrative promotes ideas such as male predatory behavior. Labeling masculinity toxic allows the scope to be focused on a negative expectation of reality, instead of interest in understanding behavior relationships. Complicated.

Totally agree! Sex with children is ALWAYS non-consensual.

Brendan Masterson Yes! Thank you. Also big Jordan Peterson fan as of late and this caught my attention as well. Both him an Esther are helping to bring enlightened info to the pool of common understanding, although some of their viewpoints may differ. Such strong presenters/lots of truth!

Thank you for this comment. Both Perel and Peterson are great educators, and after years of reading and listening to both of them, I have a conclusion that they have much less opposing points compared to those that are complementary. Not identical, but complementary.

@@a_l_e_k_sandra Shes not a great educator unless you want to hear what a woman thinks about how she thinks men think and are interested in a very female centric view of relationships between the sexes and very female centric solutions to problems with such (that dont take what men want or think into account at all)

i listened to Greta Beresaite on youtube when I had issues. It helped.

That lady clearly never watch his lectures/interviews and simply being a sheep of the mainstream media's propaganda of Dr. Peterson

The question doesn’t even make sense.

"I love my self and enjoy my sexuality" A lie ofc

It means she is a bloody Neo-Marxist postmodernist of course! Lol

Jim Beam there are plenty of straight male relationship therapists. Check Jayson Gaddis out. He has a podcast where he interviews plenty of male therapists.