He says it at the very end of the interview. After a long preamble and exchange with Joe about equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome and about biology and the question of what’s best for children, he finally defines EF (video bookmarked at the definition):
In a nutshell, it means we should encourage married people not to commit adultery.
If that’s really all it is, and if he’s so smart, why the f*** did he go around calling it enforced monogamy and then act all shocked and play the victim when a journalist insinuated that it had something to do with the concept of actual state enforcement of mating (as some “incels” have proposed)?
It’s like, if you despise Nazism, but you like socialism, and you like nationalism, you’d think twice before using the term national socialism to talk about something you do like, wouldn’t you? 
No, he contrasts monogamy with polygamy. Polyamory barely comes up. I see no evidence that he thinks they’re interchangeable.
To find out whether or not you’re saying the same thing, I think it’s important to maintain a clear distinction between polygamous reproduction and polygamous socioeconomic arrangements.
The GQ interview is interesting. I’ll mostly paraphrase.
-
For most of history, men and women co-operated!
When Helen compares that to saying slavery was really just people co-operating, JP dodges it by critiquing her theory of how women became emancipated, not by analyzing the fundamental question of what it means to have individual freedom. -
Don’t look at history when it comes to understanding why people believe patriarchy is a thing, but do look at history when it comes to understanding why equality of outcome is the most dangerous concept ever.
-
Men are dropping out of university because they’re oppressed by radical feminism! He later mentions that universities are overpriced and underdeliver in terms of quality (no argument from me), but he still makes radical feminism/Neo-Marxism the focal point, the Great Satan as it were.
He loves science, so where are the scientific studies proving that men are quitting university more for ideological than for economic reasons? -
Helen repeatedly tries to find common ground (despite JP’s claim in the follow-up interview with Joe that she was belligerent and “animus possessed”), but this sums it up: when she says western society is not purely a tyrannical patriarchy, he retorts that it’s purely not. That’s the problem in my opinion – he insists on absolutism, and then he projects that absolutism onto his adversaries, even those who want to agree with him.
-
Verbatim: …the preposterous Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of western civilization and free market economics… Strawmanning again. My Marx is rusty, but I can neither recall nor readily find this claim outside of Peterson. It’s certainly not what Engels wrote. Later JP changes it to the question of whether hierarchy is a social or a biological construction, which is obviously not the same question. When Helen expresses skepticism about the prevalence of this type of view, JP replies that 20% of social scientists identify as Marxist. What does that mean? It’s a broad subject. Is he even making a distinction between Marxism and Neo-Marxism? Either way, the specific doctrinal claim he makes is difficult to find – you won’t see it in The Communist Manifesto for instance. It’s a bit like complaining that everyone who identifies with a particular religion must support some particular, controversial dogma stated in some fatwa or bull or sermon that actually may have escaped most adherents’ attention. It also ignores the fact that if 20% identify with a certain label, that means 80% don’t.
-
I never said we should imitate lobsters. The part of the book about lobsters doesn’t say anything about using violence to assert yourself. Helen points out that geneticists and marine biologists have criticized him for misunderstanding or misrepresenting science on this one. JP insists in the interview that his only claim about lobsters is that we can see their hierarchical system as evidence that humans are biologically hierarchical as opposed to being infinitely malleable, which in his mind is the quintessence of Marxism. What did JP actually write? Apparently this: “Thus emboldened, you will embark on the voyage of your life. Let your light shine, so to speak, on the heavenly hill. And pursue your rightful destiny. Then the meaning of your life may be sufficient to keep the corrupting influence of mortal despair at bay. Then you may be able to accept the terrible burden of the world and find joy. Look for your inspiration to the victorious lobster with it’s 350 million years of practical wisdom. Stand up straight with your shoulders back.” And he really thinks it’s everyone else’s fault that this has become a meme prone to mockery?
-
In response to what Helen calls being in touch with his feminine side, plus his own agreement with the premise that a feminine mind finds fascist tyranny more attractive, he says it helps him to recognize the allure of fascist tyrants, as well as the allure of radical leftist tyrants. You need to recognize it and then learn to resist the temptation. No argument from me, but he spends so much time and energy ranting about leftist tyranny. I wish he would spend just a little more time reminding people that tyranny comes in many flavors.
-
Verbatim: "I’m not hearing what you think. I’m hearing how you’re able to represent the ideology you were taught, and it’s not that interesting, because I don’t know anything about you. I could replace you with someone else who thinks the same way, and that means you’re not here. That’s what it means. It’s not pleasant… That’s the pathology of ideological possession." That often happens in life, but he keeps telling her what she believes (you’re a social democrat so you believe X) instead of hearing her out. He underestimates his own susceptibility to the phenomenon.
-
His views about environmentalism are interesting, but I think that’s for another thread.
-
We don’t know if two parents are better than one, but we know one parent is worse than two. I had to rewind that part to make sure I hadn’t misheard. The context was gay parenting. He ends up basically saying he neither agrees nor disagrees with it because there aren’t enough studies. How much is enough?
-
I don’t feel oppressed. A minute later he gets worked up talking about how 200 of his fellow professors signed a petition to have him fired. Come on, JP. Take a page from @mad_masala and have the courage to be honest with yourself!
-
One of the things I’ve strived to do is not be resentful. Great, keep striving!
Yeah, it sounds dismissive of his relevance and insight, but her point in that sentence is not that he’s a fraud or a 
. It’s that he’s locked into an adversarial role, which affects his thinking.
The best part of the article imo:
How is it that that’s how she remembers the moment before the interview started, while he remembers it as her being “animus possessed” and destabilizing him by announcing right at the start that she was his enemy? I don’t think either of them is lying, but they’re not on the same page at all.
Ask an acting coach about typecasting. You may get an explanation like this: If you play the same kind of role over and over, your ability to play a different type of role diminishes. It’s not just public perception of what kind of person you’re supposed to be; it’s also your brain rewiring itself.
Maybe his adversarial role is affecting him more deeply than he realizes. 
That’s a bit like the way JP dismisses the existence of patriarchal culture. The laws have changed, so women have nothing to complain about now (but men have lots to complain about). He refuses to consider that culture is a complex interaction of different elements that can’t just be added and removed through legislation, and therefore, he fails to understand the strength and persistence of aspects of the culture that are not overtly trendy.
To illustrate, suppose the topic is not patriarchy but racism, and we’re talking about a country that had legal apartheid of some sort for X amount of time.
Now that’s not to say there are no annoying people who scream racism! every time they don’t get what they want, regardless of what’s actually going on, but the people who scream false accusation! every time they hear about racism are just as annoying imo.
The point being, culture takes time to evolve, and people who make a good living thanks to a combination of talent and cultural trends don’t suddenly lose their livelihood when a change starts to happen, or even once the change has thoroughly happened, unless they only know how to do one thing and don’t even do that one thing very well. Those who get famous doing one thing very well are generally still able to make a living even after their superstardom expires, if they accept performing at smaller venues in Vegas instead of selling out stadiums worldwide. Ask Britney. 
Or ask religious leaders. Belief persists, even when doubt seems more popular.