 Self-styled experts, including and especially, I would say, experts with academic degrees, irrelevant degrees, but still have created a god-awful confusion between psychopaths and narcissists, psychopathy and narcissism. They conflated the two and they had misled all of you, led you astray. I've dedicated a series of videos to the distinctions between the two, the two conditions, psychopathy and narcissism, and this is, well, would be the latest addition to my attempts to disentangle the gordic knot of the geniuses online. Today, I'm going to discuss sexuality, sociosexuality and other aspects of relationships, involving psychopaths and narcissists. I'm going to introduce a few suggested new concepts, but I'm going to make use of older concepts, some of them as old as 80 years. It seems that very little had changed when it comes to sex, sexuality, human relationships, the human body and other eternal truths. Okay, Shoshaneem, we delve right right in and this time the pun is intended. My name is Sanbhakneem. I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited and many other books which I have written but never read and I'm also a professor of psychology to the great sorrow, regret and detriment of all my students throughout the world, corrupting a new generation one at a time. That's me and now from Sanbhakneem to psychopathy. Not such a big stretch, mind you. Okay. Psychopaths are hyper-sexed, they're hyper-sexual and they're hyper-sexual because sex is an instrument. It's a tool. They weaponize sex. They use sex as a form of control within a power play. Everything to the psychopath is about power. It's about who is on top, who is winning. The psychopath, as far as the psychopath is concerned, the world out there is a hostile jungle. Eat or be eaten, do it first, lest it be done to you. The psychopaths use sex. So if you look at settings where psychopaths rampant, where there's a high prevalence and high incidence of psychopathy, for example, in prisons Robert Hare conducted most of his studies in prisons. Corporate settings, baby I can hear conducted some studies in corporate settings. If you look at these you see that there is a lot of sex going on, but this sex does not reflect sexual orientation, sexual preferences. This sex is about power. In prisons, sex is used to establish a strict hierarchy among the prisoners, all of them, by the way, same sex. And in corporate settings, sex is used to lubricate, sorry for the pun, to lubricate promotion and career parts. Where psychopaths rule, sex is weaponized. But not so with the narcissists. Both cerebral and somatic narcissists are actually, at heart, asexual. They're not interested in sex at all. The cerebral narcissist prides himself on his superior ability to resist sexual advances. He considers himself above the fray, above the medding crowd. The next stage in evolution is presumably sexualized evolution. The cerebral renders his dysfunction as an ideology. He converts it into an ideology and he encrusts it with his grandiosity. He is in a way trapped in his own narrative. Sometimes he wants to have sex or is attracted, but he can't act on it because that would negate the very foundations and pillars of his grandiosity and the ideology attendant upon it. People are animals. They're beasts. And sexuality is for the low brow, is for the hoipoloid, is for the proletariat. I belong to the elite. I don't have sex. I can resist this impulse because I'm strong and resilient and godlike. That's the cerebral in his ultimate idiocy. The somatic narcissist instrumentalizes sex. He uses it as a form of instant narcissistic supply. The sole purpose of sex, as far as the somatic narcissist is concerned, is to reaffirm the somatic's irresistibility through an endless stream of conquest, to demonstrate the pyrotechnic sexual prowess that he possesses. He is very concerned with statistics. How many times did you come was I the best. Both types, the cerebral and the somatic, are actually predatory. Both of them use sex as a form of false advertising intended to acquire partners for their shared fantasies. So at the beginning, there's a burst of sexuality. Both the cerebral and the somatic are hypersexed at the beginning of every relationship. Mission accomplished. Intimate partner acquired. Or overt. Both types go sexless within the diet, within the couple. Both the somatic and the cerebral usually go sexless. The cerebral becomes abstinent and the somatic cheats on the partner profusely, extramaritally, outside the confine, extradiatically, outside the confine of the couple. And so you could say, yeah, but I'm married to somatic narcissist and he wants to have sex all the time. First of all, you may be married to a psychopath. The second answer is maybe he is afraid to lose you. So that would be a kind of reclaim sex, maintenance sex. There's a problem with all this, because we usually tackle human sexuality using a term, using a concept invented by Kinsey in 1948. And that's the concept of social sexuality. Now 1948, some of you may recall, has been very different to today. There are major differences between 1948 and 2018, let alone 2021. It's not the same period. So concepts that were perfectly applicable and captured the totality of experiences in 1948 may have to be somewhat updated, mind you, as time goes by. Yet social sexuality, the concept, had never been updated. Recently, recently, when I say recently in terms of science, it's 10, 20 years. There's been a break. There's been a kind of deconstruction of social sexuality. And today we discuss social sexual attitude, social sexual behavior, and social sexual desire. There are three components to social sexuality. That's the development of the concept. But there are only two types of social sexuality, the restricted and the unrestricted. The taxonomy of social sexual orientation is very lacking and very antiquated. People with restricted social sexuality crave sex only with committed, emotionally meaningful people. In other words, only within committed, emotionally meaningful relationships. So restricted social sexuality characterizes people who are unable to have sex, unless they also have emotions or some form of bonding or attachment. The unrestricted kind, they are turned on by casual and stranger sex, but they have difficulties with intimacy and with fidelity in long-term relationships. So the unrestricted kind, unrestricted social sexuality, is much closer to how we perceive, for example, the social sexuality of the psychopath. But there's a third category missing, in my view. I want to propose a third category, restricted, unrestricted, and dysregulated social sexuality. Dysregulated social sexuals are people who are exhibitionistic, sadomasochistic, and otherwise paraffiliac. They tend to prefer kinky sex, group sex, extreme stranger sex, like dogging and glory holes. They like live-coming and they self-objectify in sexual encounters. Their social sexuality far exceeds the unrestricted kind. It has to do, again, critically, with self-justification or bordering on self-trash. Psychopathy and extra version are highly correlated with unrestricted social sexuality. Actually, psychopathy is the single component which accounts for all the different dimensions and manifestations of unrestricted social sexuality. We may as well say that people who are sociosexually unrestricted, people who like casual sex, who prefer stranger sex, and have difficulties in committed long-term relationships, sexually speaking, these kinds of people are subclinical psychopaths. Psychopathy and extra version seem to be the dark triad drivers of the unrestricted kind, and it tends to reason that they are also at the heart, at the core of dysregulated social sexuality, the third category that I'm here by proposing. So I think the dysregulated sociosexuals are actually full-fledged, factor one psychopaths. While unrestricted sociosexuals are subclinical psychopaths and factor two psychopaths. For example, people with borderline personality disorder. At any rate, dark triad, dark personalities, Machiavellian, narcissistic, psychopathic are closely associated with unrestricted social sexuality. And unrestricted social sexuality is a very long way of saying promiscuity. Promiscuity is one kind of behavior which is indicative of a relaxed approach to sex not insisting on having emotions, bonding or attachment before having sex. And so female and male promiscuity and male poaching are examples or manifestations or expressions of unrestricted sexuality. And we see the female promiscuity and male poaching under rise in societies and environments with adverse sex ratios where there are more women than men. Countries such as the Baltic states or Russia. Environments, for example, colleges. In these locales, there are more women than men and then female promiscuity is a strategy of attracting and keeping a man. Female promiscuity becomes the main lifestyle choice, the main sexual strategy and sexual script. Made poaching also explodes in societies where there's a dearth, a shortage of men. But the same applies. Not only when there's a physical shortage of men because of war or because of disease or because of a shorter life expectancy. Men die years before women do. Men commit more suicide. Men die much more of aggressive and violent acts. And all this creates an imbalance between men and women in some societies, a critical severe imbalance. Sex ratios are totally skewed. But that's when men are absent physically. But the same exactly applies when men absent themselves. Absent themselves. For example, all the men in McDowell, men go in their own way. The incels. These men have taken themselves out of the sexual marketplace for all intents and purposes. They're dead. They're no longer there. A woman cannot count on these men because they refuse to interact with women in any meaningful way, even sexually in many cases. So when men upset themselves, when they go abstinent, when they go celibate, when they refuse to commit and invest in long term relationships, when they even refuse to date. For example, in Japan, when they remain virgins, quite a few societies lately, then these men are not in the pool. They're not in the pool. They're not in the marketplace. And for all intents and purposes, this exacerbates dramatically the sex, sex, ratio bias or sex ratio skew. And so in the majority of industrialized societies, and by the way, developing societies as well, many women are chasing fewer and fewer men. That's the situation. It's no wonder the female promiscuity is off the charts. There's no other way to get a man. The only way to get a man is to offer sex. Now, of course, exactly as Jordan Peterson keeps insisting, these drives, these drives women to become more masculine and they describe themselves in more and more masculine terms. I refer you to studies by Lisa Wade and others. It drives women to become more promiscuous, but it also drives women to become a lot more narcissistic and a lot more psychopathic. And today, there's an equal number of people diagnosed with narcissistic personalities or equal number of men and women. So there's been an explosion, an eruption, a supernova of narcissism and psychopathy among women driving sexual promiscuity and underhanded unethical behaviors such as mate poaching. These male avoidant behaviors create a virtual gap that affects sexual strategies of both sexes. And this gap tilts both sexes towards short-term mating, also known as casual sex. So we need to come up with a new measure. When we calculate sex ratios, that's not enough. It's meaningless because many of these men have taken themselves out of the sexual marketplace. And by the way, so do many women. About one third of women are celibate and lifelong singles by choice. Another six, 17% of women, 16%, I'm sorry, of women are lesbians. So we need to come up with a new measure, sex availability ratio. Not sex ratio, but sex availability ratio. How many men and women make themselves known in the sexual marketplace at any given moment? This is a much more accurate predictor, prognosticator of the evolution and prevalence of social sexual scripts. For example, many people who are ostensibly firmly embedded in a committed relationship are actually in the pool, in the marketplace of available sex partners. Infidelity has skyrocketed. It has quadrupled among women and reached 45%. 60% of men cheat. All these people are in the marketplace. They're looking for partners. Ashley Madison. So we need to reconceive of sex ratios, sexual availability and so on and so forth to reflect these realities of rampant infidelity, disintegration of committed relationships, cohabitation instead of marriage, numerous trends, legitimization of female promiscuity is good and empowering, et cetera, et cetera. We need to take all these into account. Otherwise we're going to get a completely wrong picture of what's happening. Consider for example what I call virtual singles. Intimate partners of narcissists and psychopaths are virtual singles. They cohabit, they live, they're married, they're the spouses of, they're the intimate partners of, they're the mates of a petulant child or a stern father at home. The only outlet and escape these mostly women have is dating and cheating. So partners of narcissists and psychopaths gradually develop a behavior which can best be described as virtual singlehood, virtual because it's not real, they're married or they cohabit or they are in intimate committed relationship but so it's virtual but they behave as singles do. Women in sexless, loveless marriages, something like 21% of all marriages according to statistics and I believe the number is like twice to three times higher. So women in such marriages which are sexless, which are loveless often behave like single women. They go out alone, they travel alone, they drink alone in bars, they associate with actually single women, they go on dating apps and dating sites. I call this kind of women virtual singles because there's no distinction between them and real singles. They send out signals, broadcasts, which are identical to the signals of single women. Men pick up on these signals and men respond to them powerfully by aggressively quoting the virtual single, by sexualizing her behavior and by reducing her to six-object doll. Actually studies have shown that people of both genders, men and women, are able to immediately spot a promiscuous men or woman just by looking at a photograph or by watching a short video. The body language, the facial micro expressions, convey the message, I'm promiscuous, I'm available. Numerous studies, several studies, I'm sorry, have demonstrated this and so men pick up on these signals and they immediately go for the hunt. It converts them into predators. Additionally, other women react to virtual singles with resentment and fear because they consider them to be predatory and indeed virtual singles are in the throes of complex trauma. They usually suffer from CPTSD and so their behavior is indistinguishable from borderline personality disorder, which is a form of secondary psychopathy. Scholars, prominent and eminent scholars like Judith Herman, lobby hard to eliminate the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and replace it with complex trauma. I suggest to do the same with narcissistic personality disorder. So these women have complex trauma and consequently they are a lot more narcissistic and psychopathic. For example, their levels of empathy are much reduced. So every woman in the company of a virtual single is afraid that the virtual single will seduce her husband and abscond or elope with her husband, steal her husband away. This is called mate poaching. All the men around the virtual single assume that she is available for sex. They see that her mate, her husband, is not interested in her sexually and is not even protecting her as his property is not possessive. They see that she is not interested in him as a man equally and they conclude that she is hungry for love and sex and will accept any offer of either love or sex unconditionally. They allow themselves to misbehave with her because she is an abandoned unprotected sexually frustrated woman. A woman who is in a bad relationship with her husband and whose husband doesn't even bother to protect her from the advances of other men is perceived by other men to be fair game. All men assume that she is sexually frustrated and they are right and that she is sexually available where sometimes they are wrong. This is called sexual over-perception. That's a clinical term. There is nothing the virtual single can do about it. It is all about rumors, gossip, reputation and her mate's overt ostensible behavior towards her in public. The virtual single is like a woman without a man single in effect so all men try to get her to be with them. And this is one example of how psychopathy or subclinical psychopathy and subclinical narcissism permeate the modern scene of dating intergender interactions and sexuality. The ascendance of sexual of casual sex is altering mate selection processes everywhere and we have new phenomena like sapiosexuals or demisexuals. These are examples of these tectonic shifts. Demisexuals are people who claim that they cannot have sex if they don't have emotions or attachment or bonding and so they go through long stretches of celibacy when they can't find the absolute right partner with whom they can bond and towards whom they can develop emotions. Sapiosexuals claim to be turned on sexually by intelligence. Contrary to appearances sapiosexuals people who are turned on by intelligence they are dying great actually. In the 1950s Albert Einstein was a rock star and a sex symbol believe it or not. Nowadays these roles are reserved to brawny footballers not brainiac nerds. The very word sapiosexual reflects the malaise of our age. It is a pretentious molestation of a latin verb. It is about poseur, nichient appearance. It's posturing. It's virtue signaling if you wish. It's not true substance, it's not about erudition. So why is sapiosexuality going extinct? Three reasons. Malignant egalitarianism and truthiness imply that everyone is at least as intelligent, at least as capable, at least as knowledgeable as everyone else about every subject under the sun. So no one has an advantage in terms of intelligence because everyone has a smartphone and can access Google and Wikipedia. A soundbite, 144 characters, only scheming and browsing mentality resulted in the uputated truncation of our attention span. We have no time for true learning because it requires more than 10 seconds and the suspension of both decotonous thinking and grandiose fantasies of omniscience. No one learns or studies anymore. And finally, in a hookup in celebrity culture, emphasis had shifted dramatically and conclusively to looks. The only information instantly accessible to people, if you are in a dating app, for example, is a foundation for sexual decision-making is how the person looks, appearance. Narcissistic and histrionic preoccupation with image and appearances precludes the deep dives which are a prerequisite for a prerequisite to appreciating the mind in all its splendid complexity and attractiveness. Simply put, there's no time today to gauge someone else's intelligence. Studies in dozens of countries demonstrate that there are growing rifts and chasms between men and women. And all these rifts and chasms are founded upon a tsunami wave of psychopathy or subclinical psychopathy and subclinical narcissism among both genders, but especially among women. I mean, the rise is especially noticeable among women because their level had been already high among men. Women are catching up to men. So studies, for example, in dozens of countries show that men are loathe to form long-term relationships with promiscuous women whose body count exceeds nine partners, fewer than that in some countries. But why is that? If female promiscuity is the only viable sexual strategy to select and obtain and maintain and secure a mate? In other words, if women have no choice but to be promiscuous because of skewed sex ratios or sex availability ratios, why are women, why are men so angry about it? And if you don't believe me that men are angry, you should visit an in-sale form or a mixtail form. Men are angry. Men claim that women had co-opted society and government against them. And so why are men so angry? Why do they feel so rejected and rejected? And why do they, to start with, reject promiscuous women? The truth today is that about 20% of women are extremely promiscuous. And the vast majority of the rest, more than 60%, have had a lot of casual sex in their history. If this is a criterion, no one would ever have a committed relationship with any woman. No man would ever have anything with any woman. So it's a very counterproductive, self-defeating and self-destructive behavior or mate selection criteria as far as society is concerned on the population level, on the cohort level. It's a very dangerous strategy. If men say, I'm not going to mate with a woman who has had many sex partners before me, very few women will be left. And if you take into account the other numbers I mentioned, the non-men women will be left. And yet, this is definitely an evolving trend among men. The rejection of promiscuous women. It's as if men are setting up women for failure. They create conditions in which women must be promiscuous. They demand promiscuity from women. They refuse to be in touch with women who decline to be promiscuous. They structure society in a way that women must be promiscuous. And they upset themselves from the sexual marketplace, which pushes women to be promiscuous. And then they say, well, you're promiscuous, I can't be with you. It's a double bind. It's a catch-22. And men have three excellent actually and rational reasons why to not be, why to not spend their lives with promiscuous women. But this ignores the fact that men had driven women to be promiscuous. And that women now relish and cherish the newfound freedom that men actually had granted them in a way. So there are three excellent rational reasons why to not marry or to not team up or to not cohabit or not enter a committed relationship with a promiscuous woman. Actually with a promiscuous anyone, but especially with a promiscuous woman. First of all, men are competitive. They seek high relative positioning among their peers. A woman who had been summarily used and discarded by multiple guys is an embarrassment. It's like the message is, is that the best that you can do? I and all my friends had your woman for free anytime we wanted. It's humiliating. Such a woman is cheap and easy and investing in her renders the men a gullible sucker, a simp. Why be the only one to pay for what she had been giving away gratis free of charge to anyone and everyone? That's argument number one and it's a very common argument among meek towns of men going the wrong way and similar manosphere movements. The second argument is that is much more compelling. The first argument is kind of peer positioning argument. It's actually an intimate inter male issue. It's nice to do with a woman. But the second and third arguments do have to do with what promiscuity tells us about a promiscuous person and especially a woman. Promiscuity, promiscuity had been linked to subclinical psychopathy time and again in multiple studies. It is a strong indicator of a lack of boundaries, a weakness of character, people pleasing or of reckless defiance, which is very psychopathic. These are not good qualities to have in a partner male or female. And then the past behavior is an unfailing prognosticator of future conduct. Promiscuity is strongly linked to serial cheating. To share your life with a promiscuous partner, man or woman is to take a chance that you are ending up in bed with a psychopath as simply put as I can. And this psychopath is going to cheat on you. That's the likelihood. He's going to cheat on you multiply not once. This is to summarize the argument why not to be with a promiscuous person. Non-autonomous sexual self-trashing is driven by the wish to be accepted and by the need to buttress self-esteem by garnering attention. These are addictive lifelong behaviors. And so when you take all this into account it is no surprise that a venerable newspaper such as the New York Times published a few days ago an opinion piece against marriage calling on people to remain single. The paper is titled what does marriage ask us to give up and the answer our hard-won independence as singles. The opinion piece was targeted at women and only a twin. So the newspaper the op-ed posits creates a false dichotomy. It's like you have only two choices. Either you get married and lose your hard-won independence as single or you remain single and you then have access to your hard-won independence. It's like there's no middle ground. It's either or slavery or freedom. Give me death or give me liberty something like this. What this counterfactual and odious honestly opinion piece wants you to think is that all marriages are bad and that the only alternative to marriage is to be single. Both assumptions are of course patently false. To resolve the onerous cognitive dissonance of loneliness single-hood seems to have become an ideology. Now psychopaths are loners. I would say that avoiding social contact meaningful long-term deeply invested and committed social contact is a hallmark of psychopathy. Psychopaths another name for psychopaths the official clinical term is anti-social. Psychopaths are against society and all its representatives in other words other people. They act alone. They don't care. They don't have a care in the world. They trample on bodies on the way to a goal. The goal-oriented psychopaths have short-term goals. So and they're incapable of considering the consequences or caring about the consequences of their actions. They don't want to be with anyone in an meaningful way. Encouraging people to be lifelong singles as this opinion piece had done is encouraging them to be psychopaths. July 2016 new scientist came up with a cover story. Parents teach your children to be narcissists. There's a movement of glorifying and glamorizing psychopathic narcissistic traits and behaviors. It's one of the few points where I fully agree with Jordan Peterson. Everyone men and women are expected to be career-oriented to cherish and worship money above all else and to act unrestricted sociosexually in other words to be casual about sex. This is the new unigender role and paradigm and its attendant social and sexual screens. Many female academics hopped on the bandwagon garnering narcissistic supply, instant celebrity and loads of money in the process just type casual sex, TED, TED and watch these impromptu scholars and regrettably almost all of them female who glorify who glorify being alone on your life catering only to your needs selfishly and ecotistically pursuing money and humping and banging anyone who crosses your path and they glorify it counterfactually. Their analysis is very biased and partial they don't qualify as scholars theirs is not scholarship it's propaganda it's ideology feminism had become a cult with these women according to Pewcenter maintaining one's career is 2.2 times more important than being in a committed relationship only half only about half of people trust their intimate partner for anything anything the only exception is faithfulness something like three quarters trust their intimate partner to be faithful by the way it should have been exactly the opposite majority of people cheat but they're very reliable when it comes to other things like money and children embarking on a relationship and catching feelings as though it were some kind of disease so catching feelings these are threats these are perceived today as menace and threats to one's narcissistic self-actualization and they need to be defended against they need to be fended off and protected against by keeping sex emotionless meaningless and never with the same person god forbid one exception is friends with benefits friends benefits is to pretend that you have a relationship and you have none and of course it obstructs and blocks any real progress you're not open emotionally and sexually to to try other options the 20% of population who are promiscuous by nature thrive in this culture of hookups and bed drunk sex and these people remain single for life and there's not nothing wrong with it if this is the lifestyle choice if they are truly happy and content there's nothing wrong with it the thing is people are not happy anxiety and depression rates had exploded stratospheric people are not happy only psychopaths are happy in this in this world only narcissists are happy in this world and these psychopaths and narcissists especially in academia universities and colleges and some parts of the bureaucracy had created a world for the rest of for the rest of humanity who are not psych psychopaths and narcissists they had shaped and molded the world in their own image and so we are living now in a dystopian universe which is psychopathic and narcissistic and they are the only ones who are thriving in this universe it's not a conspiracy they didn't sit together in any ecumenical council or you know it's just each psychopath and narcissists pursuing his or her own goals ended up inflicting damage on the on the rest of rest of us rest of humanity and this is the world we live in today sad bad and mad a world of loneliness craving for human contact which is never gratified yearning and longing for a nostalgic relationship era which had never existed by the way there's a lot of there are many bad things happening within relationships many many relationships end in abuse you know i'm not glorifying relationships as as much better alternative but definitely the way people manage their lives today is psychopathic and narcissistic and and creates enormous cognitive dissonances people feel ashamed and guilty about the choices and decisions that they're compelled compelled to make they have no choice but to make that this choice they can't decide otherwise the world is structured this way there are incentives to be a psychopath and a narcissist it's a positive adaptation unrestricted social sexuality is correlated with some clinical psychopathy substance abuse an extraversion it's not for everyone it's not even for a minority it's for a vanishing minority the remaining 80 having endured the vagaries and dangers of modern so-called dating they recoil about 60 end up in a succession of committed liaisons marriages cohabitation these are pseudo relationships because they don't last long and both parties don't invest because they know it's going to last long the horizon is finite so people don't invest they don't commit not really they look around all the time for other options and the remaining 20% go celebrate and become become lifelong singles they give up they give up on life they give up on others they give up on the opposite sex or the same sex if they're so inclined they give up on on going out there technology rendered had rendered them cocooned and self-sufficient all told only about half the adult adult population share their lives with someone intimate only half of the adult population share their lives with someone intimate the rest are equally divided between celibate singles and sexually active singles who are exclusively into intoxicated one-night stands and anonymous group sex and usually don't remember anything better next morning toxic masculinity is now the norm among women as well as men this is called the stalled revolution women had come to identify with men wrong kind of men bullying psychopathic narcissistic men these are the role models coupled with unrestricted sociosexuality fancy name for promiscuity it is very common among dark triad personalities toxic masculinity and promiscuity are today the most common behaviors of dark triad personalities subclinical narcissism subclinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism surprisingly though this unsavory mix does not always automatically translate into infidelity if the intimate partner is boundary and committed to the relationship the risk of dark triad personalities cheating on you is no higher than the average but you have to work really hard when you team up with a dark triad personality a promiscuous woman a promiscuous man and increasingly that's the majority I mean you have to work really hard you have to show commitment you have to you have to have ample sex frequency you have to it's it's hard labor and it's very reminiscent of the hard labor that partners of borderlines have to put into the relationship everyone became a borderline in a sense borderlines borderline personality disorder includes grandiosity and includes defiance in in the form of acting out includes recklessness it's very close to psychopathy so like everyone became borderline and now if you're in a relationship with anyone you have to to walk on up or actions you have to be on your toes all the time you have to gratify them sexually to be committed beyond doubt never to hint at any criticism or disagreement never to to to be busy with your own things because that's abandonment and rejection I mean long-term committed relationships have become a nightmare a dystopian like who wants to build this who wants this no one does or fewer and fewer people do the marriage rate is down by 50 percent within 30 years that's 50 percent in 30 years no one is bringing children into the world anymore the replacement rate in industrialized countries is under 2 which under 2.1 which means populations are declining everywhere and anywhere from Russia to the UK I mean in all the industrialized and developing world populations are declining precipitously the problem is that when you become more narcissistic or more psychopathic or more dark triad or more promiscuous or more it's difficult to be boundary it's difficult to be committed it's difficult to maintain fidelity and honesty you're already trained by by years of casual sex for example never to mix emotions with sex you're trained by decades of exposure to psychopathic and narcissistic environments to be self-seeking and and self-referential you are you're conditioned to be selfish, disempathic and egotistic so people tend to bail out and cheat with the first sign of serious difficulty and they're accustomed to meaningless and unemotional sex so they hold a more permissive and dismissive view of extramarital casual encounters as Dan Savage the homosexual mind you, sex counselor says what's what's a blowjob compared to the rest of the of your life together well a blowjob happens to be betrayal deception tearing the contract apart but currently sex counselors Dan Savage is only one example Esther Pearl many others they fail to see the problem here they fail to see the problem here they are the problem here serial cheating is not the norm transactional sex is the norm it is any exchange of sexual services for goods services and benefits however minimal any exchange of sex for the promise of goods services and benefits however minimal in the future any even if it's done within a relationship or within a perceived liaison from fantasy liaison or extra diatically outside relationship um transactional sex is bad transactional sex is bad because it objectifies you objectifies the person giving the sex trading something renders that something an object materializes this something a multitude of studies that demonstrated the strong connection between unrestricted sexuality dark triad traits as I mentioned subclinical psychopathy extroversion self-focus sexual motivation and the logic gameplay manipulative love style a transactional attitude to sex was also correlated with with a borderline personality organization impulsivity dysregulation compulsivity anxiety a history of trauma and victimization unstable interpersonal interpersonal relationships and low self-esteem it's not a joke telling people a blowjob is not a big deal and we should not anymore be monogamous but monogamish sounds very cool and hype and if it is negotiated in good faith between two or more people nothing wrong with it but if it is the structure of society that dictates these behaviors or if it is done with deception then it's psychopathic casual sex transactional sex unrestricted social sexuality are psychopathic if they are done because there's no other choice no other option or when they are done coupled with deception the ladic gameplay manipulative love style had come to dominate when when only 20 years ago 30 years ago it was considered a pathology in psychology and so as I said transactional attitude is a borderline attitude it's intimately connected with borderline personality it involves impulsivity dysregulation compulsivity anxiety history of trauma and victimization unstable interpersonal relationships low self-esteem etc unexpectedly multiple studies have shown that subclinical narcissism is not correlated with a propensity for transactional sex only subclinical psychopathy people who are into transactional sex often mistake their involvement as love or intimacy for love or intimacy they are emotionally invested but they are emotionally invested in the goal in the benefit in the good in the service they're going to get in the project they regard the transactional sex as a form of project and they're emotionally invested so they think they they love or they are intimate this creates an enormous confusion between sex love and intimacy so people are totally lost they don't know how to behave they don't know what to expect they can't identify intimacy if it fell on their heads and cracked their skulls they don't know what is love no one no one knows what is love no one had ever known what is love but there was a good there was a good intuition people had the right intuition today love is conflated and confused with codependency limerence infatuation i don't know possessiveness a million other things people are totally led astray and i blame academics for this and i blame women for listening to this to them and i blame men for making creating an environment where women had to listen to these academics everyone is guilty they're not saints or angels here everyone had colluded in creating the conditions for the seventh extinction the extinction of mankind because we are running out of children we're aging we're declining and there's no hope in sight