 Okay, well, I've been a big fan years of read your book, and I've been listening to you for a long time. Please don't diagnose me up the court. I've got so many psychological disorders I even want to start. If you don't include that in your your uploading of this that would be great. Okay, Mrs. DSM. Yeah. Um, so what I'd like to know is and I, you know, based on what I've read I'm not a psychologist so I can't really say for say necessarily what the causes are. What is the creation of the narcissist is this when the mother neglects the child say the child's crying in his crib for too long and the mother doesn't come and play Kate the child, or the child's, you know scrapes his knee outside and the mother doesn't come and put a bandaid on it and this creates the narcissist later in life and this only happens during the formative time of development right between the ages of zero and six. That's usually one that the narcissist is created. I would hope that these minor events would not create narcissists or we're in deeper trouble. First of all, not every child who is mistreated and abused becomes a narcissist actually a vanishingly tiny fraction become narcissists. So there is good reason to assume that narcissism has a genetic component. There is a predisposition to develop narcissism caveat number two. Any form, any form of just could you hold on for a second I keep doing this. I have to plug in my computer. Right, you're plugged in caveat number two is any breach of boundaries. Any, any attempt to deny the child separation from the mother or from the parental figures, and then individuation. These constitute abuse. Whenever the child is not allowed to become his or her own person. That's abuse. Now this can be, this can take many forms. Pedestalizing and idolizing the child, instrumentalizing the child to realize the parents wishes and fantasies, parentifying the child forcing the child to act as a parent to the parent. Physical abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse is the classical forms, tampering and spoiling the child and therefore isolating the child from reality so that the child cannot form boundaries. Not allowing the child to separate, not allowing the child to go away and become an independent autonomous, a genetic individual. All these forms of abuse, which may lead to narcissism, but may equally lead to codependency, or a host of other personality and mental health disorder. So narcissism is not preordained. It just one of a monopoly of possible outcomes of childhood abuse, and the vast majority of children who had experienced child abuse, childhood abuse, gone to become perfectly healthy and normal adults. In the famous ACE study, Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. We discovered that actually most people at one to three adverse childhood experiences and yet grew up to be perfectly healthy, boundary, normal, regulated, happy people and able to have perfectly stable relationships. Can you explain how the, the, the narcissist doesn't evolve beyond auto eroticism to object love. What, what is, why does that take place. It never does, I don't know where you got that notion from narcissists remain auto erotic for life. So narcissists, narcissists use people's bodies to masturbate with. They use people to mirror them erotically. So they use people as one would use a mirror. They get aroused by their own bodies and by their own minds. They gravitate towards people who are self denying and non existent in the sexual act so that they can actually end up having sex with themselves via the agency, by the agency of another person. They also use people as sources of narcissistic supply, even in six. For example, the somatic narcissist would be very, very concerned with a scorecard. How many times did I make you come. Am I the best you've ever had, etc, etc. So it's all about him. It's all about the narcissist or her. It's never about the partner the partner doesn't really exist except as an internal object as a figment of the narcissist imagination as a snapshot. How would the narcissist interact and say the metaverse I did a story about pornography nft so now porn's entered the metaverse it's going to be one of the first things there. So what does a porn nft symbolize say for a porn star because you said that adult content creators basically are the big big that's basically like the tip of the iceberg of narcissism of the internet and the internet itself is is just manifest of narcissism. I wouldn't go that far but of course there are manifestations of narcissism on the internet and off the internet, for example social media. So narcissism is all pervasive and ubiquitous. It's a mental mental phenomenon. It's a physical phenomenon. It's an organizing principle. It makes helps us to make sense of the world. It imbues the world with meaning it gives us direction and goals. So narcissism is far more than a mental illness. It's a new religion. And like any other new religion is over. It's all pervasive so it's on the internet as well. The pornography by definition is an auto erotic, you know, trigger. It helps us to masturbate. And when pornography will mesh and merge with artificial intelligence apps with sex boats, sex robots and similar technologies when pornography for example will become hologramic. Then there will be a convergence of pornography as an auto erotic trigger on the one hand for masturbation and pornography as substitute or surrogate intimate partners. So then narcissists or people who are narcissistic will not be seeking real life partners because they will have all the needs fulfilled online and via the metaverse and the metaverse is a very, very, very, another very dangerous phenomenon. Not because of pornography. Not because of pornography because it encourages us would encourage us actively to migrate from the real world or what's left of it mind you to the realm of fantasy in the bed sense. It will encourage us to migrate into what we call a paracosm. A paracosm is a kind of fantasy which is all all inclusive self contained and creates an illusion of self sufficiency. It will, in other words, it will dis incentivize us it will take away the last remaining incentives to be in touch with other people. And the metaverse will encourage us to encourage us to become so lipstick. And in a way, psychopathic psychopathic in the sense that we will have become we will become defined in your face and rejecting of other people as nuisances or annoyances. Other people will begin to irritate us because other people cannot be customized. But the metaverse will be subject to one's settings. Other people don't have settings. The metaverse will have. And so the metaverse will become this perfect mirror. Our essence, a warehouse of our essence, and it will be irresistible. I think it might make it easier for guys if guys want to just get, you know, they want to just get later whatever they can go to the sex robots right and then if they want intimacy they might actually go out into the dating scene and try to find women for long term relationships. I think this might actually make it easier for women on the dating scene to differentiate between who's looking for just sex and short term and long term. Guys, guys and increasingly girls are not looking for intimacy committed relationships or they're looking just for sex. Well over 31% of adults, men and women are lifelong singles with casual sex is the only form of sex. That's 31%, not 3%. Another 15% are intermittent singles that these are people who have pseudo relationships, which last a few months or a few years, then they move in between. The marriage rates, which is a strong indicator of bonding and long term intimacy and so on, a proxy, shall we say, the marriage rate had declined 50% between 1990 and today dating had declined 65% between 2008 and today. That's dating, not hookups dating, and the dates that do take place. They're glorified hookups actually. So no intimacy is dead intimacy is dead relationships are dead. People cohabit, people cohabit, but the rate of people, the rate of people in the population in the cohort, who are living with another person breathing, eating, drinking, smiling, laughing, fucking. The rate of people who are living with other people had declined precipitously by well over 30% in the past decade alone. So there is a clear trend for self sufficiency and isolation and celibacy, by the way, about half to 60% depending on the study, didn't have sex the year before starting in the year 2016. A majority of men and women did not come across a member of the opposite sex, even once in the preceding year, and that that probably doesn't include the pizza delivery man, but still, we are, we are heading towards atomization and isolation, which are technology technologically enabled and empowered. And the technology is catering to our wishes and needs. It's not that the technology is creating these things technology is reflecting the demand. It's demand driven it's not supply driven. There's a demand for this. People, people want to be alone. People discovered the joy of loneliness, the joy of aloneness, I'm sorry, not the joy of the joy of aloneness. And it's addictive. It's very addictive because you have to make enormous compromises to be with another person. Yes, who wants to be with other people. It's horrible if you can avoid it. Yeah, relationships are awful. I've never got married or anything so. But but I thought for me, but I thought intimacy was sex for men. So that's what you know they're conflated it's not necessarily the same thing for women so I mean how was this, how is there no intimacy for males at this point, you know, and men definitely do not identify sex with intimacy and women do. Men are opportunistic, and they would have sex with any woman who is available. They, they don't even know the names of the women and 20% of the cases. And they are totally self centered as auto erotic in hookups and one night stands, which is why 10% of women experience orgasm in one night stands compared to 75% of women in in committed relationships. So, and that's why women regressed hookups much more than men. Because the sex is bad, not because of anything moral, and it simply sucks. The sex terrible men are self centered simply there. And don't care about the partner at all. And they force upon the partner practices such as anal sex which is painful and choking which is dangerous. So the picture is really bad. It's a toxic masculinity environment today through and through. Women had two choices either succumb and become sex slaves essentially which some of them do or become even more toxic, more toxic than men, which the majority of them are doing within a single generation. The number of women diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder had doubled to equal men and the number of women diagnosed with psychopathy had quadrupled within the past two decades alone. They were becoming more narcissistic and more psychopathic in an attempt to become to out men men to become more men than men. This is the only choice they have actually because men hold men still hold the reins when it comes to sex intimacy and relationships. Men had lost everything else. Men had lost in in education. Women are more educated than men. Women make as much money as men wage inequality is a myth. Adjusted women make as much money as men shortly as they will make more women control several extremely important professions such as the judiciary teaching medicine and so on. So women are on top. It's the age of matriarchy. Men are obsolete, but the only place where they can still exert the dominance and subdue women is with physical power in sex. It's the only place where muscles still count. Muscles don't count anymore anywhere, not even in agriculture, you know. So the only place where muscles count is in the bedroom. And so we men exercise muscles over women. They essentially 27% of first days and in rape. Another another 23% ending sexual assault, one in four college women had been raped or sexually assaulted. By the time she's a senior. These are shocking statistics. 35% of men say in multiple studies, 35% of men say that given the chance and if they are not caught, if there's no risk of being caught. They would rape a woman. She is, yeah. That's 35%. That's how bad it is. So who needs a shit. You have met a very sex, and you know you're safe, you have your Netflix, you have a cat, you have your metaphor sex with the most gorgeous guy, you know, and end of story. No incentive to meet someone. I hear on the relationship things awful. I think unless that you need someone when you're really young, it's like your high school sweetheart and you have the same routine, and you don't go anywhere and don't experience anything. Maybe that works out there's like 50% chance outside of that it's just don't even try. Explain the sadomasochism of the narcissist so the super ego is a sadist, and then it causes narcissistic injury to the, the narcissist when the narcissist becomes intimate with the, the narcissistic supply source right so what is this kind of between the, you know, sadism and masochism and also as a side how does this play into the OCD of narcissistic I've noticed this there is an obsessive compulsiveness that extends beyond just doing grat self gratifying behaviors and addictive behaviors and stuff to obtain supply they're incredibly compulsive incredibly obsessive. Does that have anything to do with the sadomasochism and sorry if that went on for too long. No, I, you can, you can possibly talk as long as I do. I think, I think a great way to look at narcissism is a way that makes sense of many of its manifestations is if you regard narcissism as a form of private religion. When the narcissist is a child. The narcissist is exposed to childhood abuse processes feels helpless, because he's a child is unable to predict the behavior of the adults around him. He's subjected to all kinds of infringements and intrusions and so, so what the child does some children do they invented a deity they invented divinity, the divinity is the false self. Primitive God, and like every other primitive God, it is very demanding. It is omniscient. It is omnipotent. It's all it's, it's perfect. It's brilliant like every God. And it is everything the child is not. It's impermeable. It's strong, infinitely strong. And so, so there's this God, and like, again, every primitive divinity like the model, it demands human sacrifice. And so the child sacrifices the only human it has access to itself. And the child sacrifices the true self to the false self. The narcissist new newfangled divinity. And the false self becomes a lifelong companion of the narcissist and gradually supplants the narcissist. And what remains with of the narcissist is a giant black holy void and emptiness. We call it the schizoid empty core. So now the narcissist is auto erotic. He needs supply. So he teams up with a source of narcissistic supply and the best way to bait and click is sex. So the narcissist engages in false advertising. He becomes hyper sexed in the initial phase of the relationship the narcissist love bombs, grooms, and he's hyper sexed. And that's a promise for the future. It's, it's, it's a wrong problem. It's a false promise, but it's perceived by the partner as a promise. And then the partner comes close to the narcissist. And the moment she comes close to the narcissist. There are adverse dynamics taking place. First of all, the narcissist develops dependency on the partner for narcissistic supply within something called the shared fantasy. There's a shared fantasy, which is kind of of a cult to member cult. And the narcissist is the leader of a cult and the intimate partner is the only follower and worshipper and adherent. And so the narcissist becomes dependent on this cult member for narcissistic supply. And he tries to nail her down by creating a snapshot. It takes a snapshot of her. And then he relates to the snapshot because the snapshot is safe. The snapshot will never contradict him disagree with him criticizing him abandoning him, etc. But the real thing the original of the snapshot is the intimate partner, and she deviates from the snapshot, because she's alive. She's simply alive. So the narcissist wants her to die, because she deviates and diverges from the snapshot and she challenges the precarious balance of his internal world. So she becomes a secretary object. She becomes an enemy. She challenges his mental sanity. So he wants a gun. He wants it to die. He wants to mummify her. He wants her to become an inert object. And that is, of course, a sadistic streak. And if she refuses to comply, then he devalues her in order to get rid of her. And that's another sadistic manifestation. Now the masochistic side of the of the narcissist has to do with self destructiveness and self punishment. The narcissist had internalized a view of himself as a bit unworthy object. And so the narcissist seeks to affirm this view, confirm it, because it's the parental view, and parents are always right. So the narcissist needs to prove to himself that his mother and father were right. And he's really a bit unworthy, worthless object. So he punishes himself in a variety of ways. He has an inferiority complex and compensates for it. Sometimes he's aware of the inferiority complex. Sometimes he's not, but it's always there, but it's always there, and he always seeks to to punish himself. And hence the sadomasochistic interplay. Sometimes the narcissist forces his intimate partner to punish him. At other times the narcissist punishes the intimate partner from deviating and diverging from her internal representation. And in any case, it's what I call dual mothership. The narcissist promises the intimate partner to be a perfect mother to her. He says, I'm going to love you unconditionally because you're perfect. You're amazing, you're hyper intelligent, you're brilliant, you're the most beautiful woman in the world. And I'm going to love you unconditionally as your mother should have done. I'm going to be your mother. But there's one condition. You're going to be my mother in return. And I'm going to test you. I'm going to test you to see that you really love me unconditionally. I'm going to abuse you. You've got limits. I'm going to push your boundaries. I'm going to torture you. And if you still love me, I can feel safe. Because if you still love me despite my abuse of you, it means you love me unconditionally. And so this dual mothership, this dual mothership dynamic is very sick, because the partners end up as maternal objects of each other that end up as each other's mothers. And the narcissist withdraws his motherhood in the love bombing and grooming stage. He is your mother. He sees you as an idealized object of love. He loves you unconditionally and you fall in love with the way that he loves you. You fall in love with the way that he sees you. You fall in love with yourself with your idealized self and then abruptly he withdraws it. And the other thing is gun is avoidant on the contrary is devaluing. And it is extremely traumatizing. It's like losing your mother. But he expects you to continue to be his mother. That's part of his test is testing you with his abuse. And if you fail the test, then he's going to discard you simply and move on. And if you continue to love him despite all the horrible negating, negotiating abuse that is inflicting on you, then, you know, you had it coming, you deserve him, you're right for each other. So this narcissistic rage it serves as a kind of a reassurance for the narcissist. You know, it's towards the, you know, as he's a developed adult. Can you explain the development of this though so it looks like the libido is supplanted by rage. So he doesn't have a lust for life the narcissist he more has he has a hostility for life. And so he kind of proceeds with that in mind and then if anything gets in his way he'll he'll erupt so if there's anything that's like kind of shatters his sense of self then it causes anger gets in the way of his routine or so on. Can you tell me a little more detail about this, the development of this narcissistic rage and its purpose. The narcissist is an agent of death. He spreads death around. He tries to make people dead, because dead people don't abandon that people don't hurt him that people don't challenge him. The deader you are, the more likely he would be attached to you. The narcissist attachment and bonding depending on your ability to kill yourself to commit mental to commit mental suicide. And so, when you show any signs of life, autonomy, agency, self efficacy independence that challenges him. That is, that undermines his grandiosity but on a much deeper level, it threatens him with abandonment. These are things these are echoes of his formative years, especially first two years. And so he panics. It's a panic reaction. And the rage what we call narcissistic rage is actually an anxiety reaction it's a panic reaction. It's an attempt to restructure the world by force of aggression in a way that would feel more safe and secure. And so, the narcissistic rage is goal oriented. The goal is to subdue you to the point of vanishing to make sure that this never ever happen happens again, that you know your place that you know that you know your, your tomb, you're a lot a lot in his cemetery. And so, he objectifies you, and he renders you inert, and he renders you lifeless. Because it's the only way he can feel safe enough to proceed with this with his life. Now we call we have clinical terms for this it's called the strudel, it's the opposite of libido. And it's, it's the force of death. There is one situation where the narcissist is exposed to his own destructive impulses, and that's called narcissistic modification is when the narcissist is shamed and humiliated and abandoned and rejected in public. And therefore experiences his primordial shame as a child, second time around. As a narcissist as a child is very ashamed because it's very helpless, and he cannot direct his anger at his parents because he's dependent upon them. So he internalizes his anger, his self aggressive. In the process of narcissistic modification the narcissist regresses to childhood and experiences the shame, full fledged again. At that point, the narcissist wants to render himself dead. In other words, he develops suicidal ideation. And that's the only case. Otherwise, the narcissist is oblivious to his own dynamics. Because he recasts and reframes all his behaviors in terms of a morality play. He is good. He's the victim. He's right. He knows best. And other people are obstinate obtuse, stupid, vicious, malevolent, envious, even, and it's just trying to fix the world. They believe themselves to be on a mission, on a crusade of reforming everyone around them to conform to a higher standards. They believe themselves to be the next stage in evolution, Nietzsche's Übermensch Superman. So I, can you explain narcissistic guilt in the absence of a partner that is like post abandonment and how can a narcissist even purge his guilt without being self aware because it looks like narcissists and very little self awareness or maybe a glimmer of it. If they're like really bright or something. I wasn't aware that narcissists have guilt, or experienced guilt. Narcissists are very concerned with self efficacy. So they would be very ashamed, for example, for having been caught doing something wrong, or for not having planned the strategies well in advance, or for having improvised stupidly and, you know, or for having failed. Narcissists do not endure failure and defeat very well. They would feel perhaps guilty, and that they had failed to deliver some promises or consequences. But these promises and consequences are, if it are exclusively theirs. They're never the partners. The narcissist internalizes the partner. An internal object and internal representation known as an introject of the partner and continues a dialogue with that introject, never with the partner, ever, only with the introject. So the narcissist negotiates with the introjects agrees on goals with the introjects creates a joint life with the introject and then he's shocked when you disagree, or when you, and then, then he would feel very guilty because he had failed to manipulate the introject properly or so he feels it's more it's more shame than guilt. I'm sorry, narcissists wouldn't feel guilt for cheating on his wife for instance. So they're immoral. They're immoral. Psychopaths are immoral. Psychopaths are actively, actively defy and breach the boundary, the foundations and boundaries of morality and mores and codes and conventions and so on. Narcissists are not immoral. They are not evil. They're not malevolent. They're just who they are. And they are immoral. Now, of course, narcissists are self-justifying. In other words, they seek, like everyone else, ego-syntony. They want to feel good with themselves. So they create self-justifying narratives. They reframe situations. They gaslight you. They try to convince you that reality had actually been different than what you had perceived it to be. They try to convince you that you're crazy. If you perceive reality differently to them, then you're crazy. Something's wrong with you. You're in hell and so on. So they reframe and because they have severe as distinct from the psychopath, psychopaths have intact memory and a very clear identity, strong identity actually, too strong. Narcissist has enormous memory gaps. He is dissociative, exactly like the borderline. So he has fluid identity. He has what we call identity disturbance. So what he does, he bridges the memory gaps by confabulating. He invents stories that are plausible or probable. He says, well, probably this is how it must have happened. And then he convinces himself that this is how it had happened. And so he would try to gaslight you. So he shapes his reality and his environment. He lives in virtual reality. He lives in a kind of metaverse. Narcissist had invented the metaverse long before Zuckerberg was born. They live in a metaverse. They live in a park. They live in a piece of fiction. They inhabit a piece of fiction and they try to convert you to the religion. They try to introduce you into their fantasy and piece of fiction so that you become a figment, an element, an actress. Explain why narcissists need to maintain this kind of island of stability and then everything else is unstable in their life. And is that island just the narcissistic supply they have at the present time? First of all, to make clear, psychopaths do not have this island of stability. There's a god awful confusion between psychopaths and narcissists online, propagated by numerous self-styled experts and what have you. Psychopaths don't have an island of stability. Psychopaths are chaotic all over the place. They're chaotic in every single realm and sphere of their lives. The chaos could be unobstructed. The chaos could be kind of subtle and very difficult to detect, but it's always there. This maintained an island of stability because they have something that psychopath does not have and that's abandonment anxiety. And they have another thing that psychopath does not have and that is addiction to narcissistic supply. Psychopath couldn't care less about other people in any capacity. The narcissist is dependent on other people. He's a junkie. Other people are his pushers. He is critically dependent on other people and he resents these dependence, but it's still there. So he needs stability of sources of supply and he needs to maintain this stability lifelong. Now, this source of supply could be at work, so it's a stable workplace life or career, or it could be at home. He has a stable marriage, but something must be stable. It could be his friendships, could have stable friendships over decades. But one surefire way to distinguish a psychopath from a narcissist is that a narcissist would always have one sphere of life where he is hyper stable because he needs this stability to avoid the separation in security and he needs this stability to secure supply long term. So, I mean, with the psychopath though the psychopath just sees whatever's going on in their mind they just actualize it right isn't that basically what's going on there's there's no filter and there's. So what is this is this just like the, is there a super ego for the psychopath or does it not exist and it's just a fully actualized ego. Psychopaths have no conscience they have no empathy. They lack and they miss multiplicity of psychological constructs for example they have disrupted ego boundary functions they psychopaths are train wreck psychopaths are as removed from human from what it is to be human as possible. Psychopaths therefore a goal are utterly goal oriented they are like binary systems feel bad feel good. They have no gray areas they have no subtleties they have no nuances. They are totally predatory. So they are goal oriented and they trample on bodies on the way to the gold or could be sex go could be money go could be collection could go could be anything. And, but not all psychopaths are impulsive. Actually, the minority of psychopaths are impulsive it is a big, a big misfortune that the foundational texts in the study of psychopathy rely on exposure to inmates in prisons and inmates in mental asylum. So, we have a very distorted view of psychopathy. We think all psychopaths are crazy or prisoners, or something. But actually that's, that's a tiny minority of psychopaths, the overwhelming vast majority of psychopaths are high functioning. The majority of them are pillars of the community. They're over represented among chief executive offices or fortune 500 companies. Just FYI, I thought the whole financial crisis of 2008 is caused by psychopathy. Yeah, absolutely. I got out of the mental hospital and I got hired on Wall Street, three months later, just bonafide proof of it was. Medicine is interested with psychopaths. Oh, yeah. Oh, definitely. So we have started with doctors and we're not to over generalize the doctors they seem to be more narcissistic than psychotic. For example, surgeons, for double surgeons. There's an over representation of psychopaths among surgeons and neuroscientists. So, baby, I conducted studies about the about the psychopathy in corporate world and we have studies by Dutton and others. So, psychopathy is psychopaths are actually better, more high functioning than narcissists, because narcissists are junkies. Psychopaths are not psychopaths can put a perfect imitation of a pillar of the community, and they often become ones. The church I think is infested with psychopaths. There's a, this is the distinction between these two, but narcissists as opposed to psychopaths. Don't chaoticize everything a psychopath could reach a position for example become a present of a country or become a chief executive officer and so on. And he would chaos, he would create a mess, wherever he goes. Not so the narcissist. The narcissist definitely would maintain an area of his life where he can be safe and secure and know that he can always go back there to regulate his narcissistic supply. And it's like a launching pad for him. So this, this is a very clear distinction with it. But a psychopath is a narcissist when a narcissist isn't necessarily a psychopath right I mean it's not distinctly not to psychopaths and narcissists share a single a single trade cognitive distortion known as grandiosity. Some psychopaths are comorbid with narcissists so they have both diagnosis. Some narcissists have both diagnosis and they're known as psychopathic narcissists or malignant narcissists. But the nonsense online that all psychopaths and narcissists are is nonsense. It's nonsense mainly because it's online. 99% of all the so called information online is totally nonsensical and defies all we know in academia, all the studies we've ever made on narcissists and psychopaths. So I would, I would advise all the listeners. If you want reliable information, go to Google Scholar. Please avoid YouTubers. The vast majority of them, including ones with academic degrees, including ones with advanced academic degrees, don't have a clue what they're talking about, have never published a single paper on the topic, have never done research, and are essentially con artists. Well, so, so what about the borderline. Okay, so is this kind of like a sexist people say oh it's a sexist diagnosis and, and so on. And can you explain how this is purely the secondary psychopath is purely attributed, or largely attributed to women. It's quite true that certain diagnosis were sexist at the beginning. But then in 1973 with we still had homosexuality as a mental illness in the diagnostic and statistical manual. So we've come a long way. Borderline personality disorder was long considered a woman's affliction. But today, 50 it's 5050 50% of borderlines are men and 50% of women so we no longer, we no longer considered it considered the women's affliction woman's affliction. Same with narcissism by the way narcissism was considered to be a male, a male problem, but it's no longer true about half of narcissists are women. So, the sexist stereotypes are gradually being removed and I'm happy to say it seems that mental illness afflicts both genders. And sex is equally. Regardless of what it is now about secondary psychopathy. This is a social sexual sexual sexual cultural issue. Women had been trained for thousands of years to not express aggression openly to not be aggressive openly. So women were the weak, the weak sex the weaker sex so to speak, they were subjugated, they were enslaved, they were mistreated, they still are in vast walls of the globe, they still are. So they had the weapons of the week. They were passive aggressive for example, they never expressed aggression openly, they didn't dare. So today, when a woman has to become aggressive. She would tend to develop underhanded passive aggressive under the radar ways of expressing her aggression, which is a good description of secondary psychopathy. So when we have a borderline happens to be a woman. She happens to be a woman, and she would need to express aggression, because she feels rejected with humiliated for abandoned. She would tend to express her aggression in a different way to a man. A male borderline would tend to become a primary psychopath factor one psychopath. And this is what I call covert borderline. Would tend to react in a secondary way as a secondary psychopath is psychopath, whose behavior is tempered to some extent by empathy and emotions. So it's less, less defined less reckless less vicious less cruel, less aggressive less violent than a primary. It's a gender thing. It's just that women had been conditioned and socialized to it to channel aggression in specific ways. They were never allowed to be as violent and aggressive as men. Now many women are trying today to emulate men, even when it comes to aggression and violence. But there's a minor issue. They don't have the muscles. They don't have the muscles. They don't even have the hormonal and enzymatic enzyme structure that men have. For example, women process alcohol, totally differently to men. And so the enzymes that process alcohol in women work differently at much lower levels than with men. So alcohol is a major driver of psychopathic behavior. It disinhibits and encourages aggression and violence. So women process it very differently. So ignoring the differences between sexes and genders is not helpful, because they do exist socially, culturally, historically, and biology. So, would you say that the reason women weren't really diagnosed as narcissists before 1970 is because they couldn't get supply so they're like, you know, women, they would attempt to be narcissists and would become borderline, because there, there was no validation, no, no way to obtain supply because they wouldn't be a covert narcissist because they'd have to be in a relationship with the narcissist to be covert. I mean, why the sudden change here? First of all, no, you don't have to be in a relationship with the narcissist to be covert. A subspecies of covert, a certain type of covert known as inverted narcissists has to be in a relationship with the narcissist to express her covert grandiosity. So women did obtain supply. They obtained supply within the household. They obtained supply from their husbands and from the girlfriends and from the extended families and so on so forth. But it was not full-fledged narcissistic supply because they didn't have the imprimatur and the affirmation of society at large. So women, women chose to sublimate, in other words, to render socially acceptable their drive for supply. So for example, we had many more women authors than men authors in the 19th century. In the 19th century, most literature was written by women, not by men. This was the way to obtain supply. They even took on male or masculine pseudonyms, George Eliot. But you have George Eliot, you have Jane Austen, you have women, I get the Christie, the old women. So there was a way to obtain supply in a socially acceptable way. In other words, women channeled their narcissism in a socially constructive way. They used their narcissism to build and to create, while men leveraged their narcissism to destroy. And so this is why women are on the ascendance nowadays because we are much more focused, we're much more focused on building, constructing and producing than on destroying. So because a woman's narcissism is creative, that's why women are on the ups? They didn't have a choice, it was socially mandated. If you wanted to obtain supply as a woman, you had to have children, which is a form of creativity. You had to write books, which is a form of creativity. You had to solve, which is a form of creativity. You are told as a woman, if you want to be admired, adulated, you need to create things. And you were told as a man, if you want to be admired and adulated, you need to be Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. That's the way to be admired or Donald Trump. But so women started to equate creativity with ascendancy and with narcissistic supply. And this gave them the enormous advantage in today's environment. Because in today's environment, we are constructively oriented. We are, it's all about building things, creating things, putting things together, creating networks, networking and being empathic. These are all female strong points. Ironically, men had conditioned women and trained them and skilled them, gave them skills to be predominant in the information society. Men did this. Men forced women into becoming productive and constructive and creative, which are the main skills in today's environment. Today's environment, muscles and fighting, they get you, they get you, you end up in jail, in prison. These are not job qualifications, mind you. But as late as the 19th century, if you were violent, you had a career. If you were violent, you had a career as a mercenary, as a soldier, as a colonizer, you know, it was a great job qualification to be violent. Not anymore. What do men have to offer? Sperm? Muscles? Muscles? Are you for real? What men have to offer today? They're undereducated. They're much less educated than women. And education is the main predictor of lifelong earnings. They live much shorter, brutish and nasty lives than women do. They engage in violence nine times more than women are. They are retards. They have nothing to contribute to current modern society. And they are doomed. That's pretty funny. I agree with you. I'm on board with this. But you know, if you look at it, it seems like though, even though more women are getting college degrees and you know, they are valuable to a certain extent over the course of your life, they pay off. It seems like a lot of women are kind of grouped around the middle. So here's the median, here's the mean, the average women are kind of all kind of crammed in there, some at the high end, some at the low end, and then men are just all over the extreme of the spectrum. Geniuses up here, absolute lowest IQ over there, not necessarily grouped around the middle. So it just seems like there's a different deviation between the IQs and, and, you know, the functionalities of men and women, you know, because there's just kind of this basic competency jumble right around the median with women but I mean, and women aren't getting there moving up now that we can know now we can actually educate ourselves and actually, you know, move on. Patrick is dying so of course it was going to take 200 years. But Patrick is dying. And the vast majority of men are undereducated, underpaid, unemployed. These men still make in the US they make women, a white woman makes 70 cents to the dollar of every. That's not true. That's a myth. That's not true. Adjusted to, adjusted to time worked women make 92 cents to the dollar. By 2030 women will make 103 cents to the dollar more than men. But men are still taking men take paternity leave and stuff like that it's more than that it's just that men are more likely to get promoted. No, that's not true. That's not true simply. There's a myth that date back to the 70s and 80s. It's not on the truth. It used to be true. Of course, it's not on the truth. There are some glass ceilings that women hadn't broken for example in that in the technology in the tech industry. Women are massively underrepresented. But that's true for many other minorities for example, blacks or Hispanics. So there's a problem with minorities. It's not limited to women now women are not a minority that happened to be the majority numerically. So women are a minority that definitely. Yeah, by power. Considered power, the minority. Yes. So there's still power struggles and so on, but there is no doubt whatsoever where the trend is the trend is women on the ascendancy. I agree women are taking over that women are taking over I mean it's not beginning of a of a not beginning of a debate women are taking over men are obsolete. Women are in the field where men rule. And you see it in the hookup culture, hookup culture, especially in colleges, and especially in fraternities hookup culture is 19th century toxic masculinity. And men dictate because they have the booze. And they trade it for sex. And women play the flusies and the slots in this environment, because men rule. This is the only enclave where men still rule and women in their infinite stupidity and submissiveness. Instead of telling men to f off and denying them sex and putting boundaries and telling them if you don't fulfill these conditions, go masturbate. I'm not here for you. Instead of doing this. Women grovel grovel all over the place. They play men's games. They adhere to male chauvinistic stereotypes. They act upon porn stars women become porn stars for men. And they consent to the hookup culture, which means horrible sex, rape and sexual assault in so called first dates and hookups. Why women do this. I have no idea. I mean, I think it's a lot. I think a lot of the time is to try to get into a long trip. A lot of women think if I hook up with this guy, I'm going to he might stick around because I, you know, Why would you want the guy to stick around. That's the problem. I personally don't. I mean, I think that's I think that's part of the motivation or we're women want to get laid and it's like, you know, you gotta be the, you gotta be the keeper of the morality and then the guys can run run rampant and screw whoever they want. You want to get laid. You want to get laid. You are in a position to negotiate negotiate equal terms, negotiate reciprocity, negotiate mutual pleasure. By all means get laid, get laid with a different guy every day. I have no moral problem with that. Just be equal be reciprocal be autonomous. Women don't do that. I think guys are good at men are they have a biological predisposition to lie and to be immoral with respect to getting access to higher quality women, or any women. So, you know, guys have all these games they play, and they can trick the savviest woman in a social situation into into, you know, into sex. Okay, and, and it often turns out to be a semi rate situation I think that's what happens with a lot of women. What's the matter with women, they are retards, they don't realize that guys are lying or what. What's, I think it's if you want to do. I just feel like sometimes with women want if you want to enter and you like a guy you want to date him you're attracted to him. And you've known him sometimes they they'll talk to you for years just for the opportunity to hook up with you once for a hit and run, you know, and it's hard to tell like, you know this guy been talking to you for three years you know we're going to date and he actually wants to get to know me maybe he really wants relationship or friends. It's hard to tell to draw this kind of demarcation between where, when are we dating and what his intentions are because you get me I'm supposed to sit around and wait for guys intentions I'm not talking about the moment that you did agree to hook up. Why don't you establish boundaries, demands for reciprocity, mutual pleasure, you give him oral sex, he gives you oral sex, or get out of my room. I agree I agree with you I think that you know I just I think it's what happens is that I don't understand the process here but it's like you either if you set up boundaries, at least in my personal experience. Okay, they just go away. Okay, you have boundaries up, you go on a date or they never hear from 90% of the guys again so it's like, it's always a one time thing. Yeah, I mean it's like you avoid that. You know, it's a filter you need to filter women don't filter that they are promiscuous in the sense that they are indiscriminate. Well I think I don't think women are indiscriminate I think that it's I think that women are desperate to get into relationships and they want to agree with you why. And why because what they want to have kids because of biological clock they want to have kids society women want to have kids I'm sorry to break the news to you less than one third of women want to have kids. They're only there's only like, well I guess only 29% of the world is having children now right I mean so a lot of people aren't. But I do think that a lot of women there's at least a drive. You know, evolution, the evolutionary biology is gauging a lot of these activities so I think that a lot of women want to get married and they might might in a lot of its financial they might want to have a, you know they don't want to be alone and so they don't want to shack up with the guy living by yourself as a woman isn't fun. You know, so I think there's, you know, societal factors that overlay these other things as well. But I also think no one, no one teaches anyone how to date they don't, they don't do good. There are dating assignments in Boston University and so dating assignments like you get credits, you're studying. That's a class I mean I've gone for anyone does that. They don't really tell people how to date what you're doing, but you know, there's kind of like, you know, sex is this kind of open context where there's no rules and it's not really an environment and you know, consent is a wishy washy subject so there's no, there's no defined boundary around anything anyway, you know what I mean and it's like, if you want to go out and have fun it's like you either have to succumb to BS, or that you have to just, or you it's nothing, or you're like, yeah, like, you know, I want to get to know you like what's your name, you know, and then they run away. I mean, many women choose to syllabus here. Many women just give up on men and many men give up on women. I mean there's a withdrawal. I mean there's a mass, mass avoidance now and it's men going their own way women going their own way. That's it. The gender, the gender situation had never been worse. Never. Absolutely never. This is the most horrible period for dating. I think in human history. I just made a class on the history of human sexuality and relationships in the West. So I covered a few hundred years of, and today is by far the worst. It's the worst because there are no gender roles, which is good maybe to some extent but there are also no sexual scripts, no social scripts, no one knows how to behave. No one knows what the heck should they do. I mean, there's no rules. You have to negotiate everything from scratch every single time and it depends on your partner and some partners are crazy and it's a bloody mess. I mean, it's, I, I, I am so happy. I am not 20 years old. I would hate to be 20 years old in this. Would you want to get married in the 50s though in the 1950s US is just, you know, the, if you meet the first person you meet that you sort of like you marry them and then you just add a principle stay together. That's another, that's another myth. That's not great. That's actually, that's actually another myth. People in the 1950s dated more, more people than today. This comes as a shock. It was possible with online dating. People in the 1950s dated more men than today and had more sexual partners than today. Shock of all shocks. Yeah. Dating is bullshit. Dating up some bullshit. Because what you do in dating apps you waste time. Less than one in 300 agrees to meet. When you meet less than one in 100 agrees to have sex. And then when you have sex, less than one in 70 end up in a relationship. If you multiply. If you multiply, you have a chance of one in a million to have a relationship with someone from a dating app. Now, in the 1950s 60s 70s and 80s, people dated more had more sexual partners and shock of all shocks had more sex than today. That's a fact. Simply a fact. I have to look that up because I don't how do the women keep that under wraps how did they get married after that like men can go out, you know, have their Trist and go back to being a family man women can't do that. That is a fact. Young people today have the least sex in the past 60 years. And the fewer fewest sexual partners ever in the last six years. These are facts. In multiple studies, multiple studies, not one. So, so do you think this is because of a lack of gender roles or structure around technology or pornography or sense of efficiency. I mean, it's a mess. People don't have money. One third to one half of people under the age of 35 live with their parents. I mean, how could you bring anyone home and have sex or whatever. You know, I think that's okay. I mean you go to you can go to other places you know, at least you know, some people just you have your own place just for the purpose of bringing some guy back. Don't fight with facts. I'm only the messenger. People are having less sex than ever. Less sex than ever. And one third to one half of people under HD five depending on the country. One third in the United States one half in Italy, live with their parents. And when they live with their parents. Most of them go up to four years without sex. Majority of people under age 35 did not have sex the previous year. According to studies repeated studies. Few center other stuff. They don't have sex simply a whole year before. That's vast majority of people. So you think that's bad. I mean I don't think it's necessarily bad I think the world's overpopulated I mean I think it's, it's fine. I like you because you keep you keep bringing you can bring you up all kinds of myths. The world is not overpopulated. What the world is, it's aging. So 25% of the world's population is above the age of 65. We, we need an additional 20 million children a year, just to support these old people. For example, pension schemes, pension schemes are built on the contributions of the young, which finance the pensions of the old. But now we don't have young people. So all pension schemes around the world are in big trouble, because there are no contributions by young, and they cannot pay out to the old. Social security in the United States, for example, is in dire straits. There are about 20 million additional children now in all industrialist countries. No exception, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, you name it in all industrialist countries, with exception of the United States. The replacement rate is under 2.1. That means populations are shrinking annually. And will be halved 50% fewer than today in 2050. So, in Russia alone, the population has gone down by 20 million people in the last 30 years. These are just the industrialized, not, you know, these are the adults in the developing in the developing countries the situation is still above the replacement rate. The collapse in growth rates, the collapse in childbirth rates in the in the developing world is much faster than in the developed one. So in Africa, for example, the decline in birth rates in birth rates is much higher than the decline in birth rates in the United States. And in the United States, the decline in birth rates is huge. Absolutely huge. Last year, the United States has added 400,000 people to its population. That's all. I think part of it's the coronavirus, you know, I think that's, that's, you know, I don't want to take a ball, I find it fascinating. I wouldn't agree because past crisis, past crisis, for example, wars like World War Two, World War One, and the Spanish flu created baby booms. The baby boom of the 1950s and 60s followed World War Two. There was a enormous baby boom after the Spanish flu, which killed 50 million people. So I don't think it's COVID. No, because the past shows us that whenever there was a crisis or plague or pandemic or a war, there was actually an increase in childbirth. And this is not the case this time. So what do you think is the cause of this? Is this kind of like all of society becoming autoerotic, people not interacting, people not really being able to interact on levels that are satisfying anymore? There's no, there's no direct benefit. You know, I mean, I don't, I don't know, what is it psychologically? If you ask the whining youngsters of the Gen Z and Millennium, they would tell you that, you know, the economy is bad, it's dead. Mind you, during the depression, which was a mild economic problem, during the depression, people had children, people created families. Economic problems never deterred people, never prevented it. People had children in concentration camps in the Holocaust. That's nonsense. All these excuses are nonsense. When you talk to young people and ask them, why don't you have a family? Well, I can't afford it. What the hell? What do you mean you can't afford it? Well, the situation is bad. As bad as World War Two, you can't afford it? Like what? Like in the depression era? What the hell are you talking about? You have three smartphones and two cars. What do you mean you can't afford it? So it's nonsense. Yes, I agree with you. I think the main cause is the atomization, the self-isolation, which long preceded the pandemic, the self-sufficiency, the technological empowerment, the casual sex, the hookup culture, which gives you what you need without any long-term commitment or investment. You see there's a discrepancy between men and women. Men want to commit mostly between the ages of 25 and 29. Women want to commit between the ages of 30 and 35. When women want to commit, men no longer want to commit. By the age of 42, 3% of men want to commit, 97% don't want to commit. Women wait too long. Women dedicate time to their careers, to their studies, to traveling, having fun with friends, to fucking around. That's nice. But by the age of 30, when you want to settle down, there will be no one to settle down with. At age 30 to 35, only 40% of men consider a long-term committed relationship. 60% gave up on it, and the number climbs to 97%, 10 years later. I saw a number that said men are most likely to settle down between like 27 and 34, but after that they just don't. Actually, the correct numbers are 25 to 29. Majority of men settle down this age. Just the statistics, simply. Majority of men settle down this age. Women develop a desire, yearning for settling down after age 27, 28, and it reaches the peak at 30, 31. And then they become desperate until age 35, and then after 35, they give up. They're no longer interested. So that's the picture. The end result is that when men want to commit, women don't want to commit. And when women want to commit, there are no men around. So we have about 50% of population or singles, 31% of population, lifelong singles. 21% of relationships are marriages, I'm sorry, sexless, and most relationships are much shorter than they used to be. There's many, many relationships of six months and four months, two months, you know, pseudo relationships, not fair. It's a bad story out. Can I ask you about online dating now that we're on this topic. And if I'm taking up too much of your time, you just, just show me out. I'm a huge fan of yours. I think you're fascinating anyway. So, um, so with online dating, it seems like people get an ego boost, right? You're there. You see, okay, I'm validated. I've had these contacts and you have these kind of superficial meaningless texts back and forth that can go on for weeks. And very rarely do you actually go out and meet anyone. So is this all just to placate the ego, this kind of thought to make you know that you're desired and to not take it further. Or is this a lazy man's way of trying to date, but not actually putting oneself out there. I mean, I don't understand the phenomenon. There are numerous, there are numerous reasons for being on dating apps that quite a few studies by now on dating apps. Women and men have different motivations for being on dating apps. Women are on dating apps for casual sex, regardless of what they say, by the way, women are on dating apps with with a desperate hope for relationship. Never mind what they say, by the way. And there's a total mismatch. Typically, there's a ratio of one to 10 for every 10 matches with men. I mean, women are much more selective. They're like 10 times more selective than men. But the end result is that your chances to have sex with another partner with a partner through dating apps are just about one in a million. And I'm not exaggerating. That's the real figure. It's about one in a million. And so the vast majority of dating app interactions have to do with self validation. Entertainment. It's entertaining. Boredom. Filling the time. It's a little like surfing or watching television or being on a forum. It's a form of social media, in other words. So the social medium, exactly like Facebook or Instagram, more like Instagram. No one has any real expectation to have sex or to have a relationship. Definitely. When, when you come on, I mean, maybe you haven't such an expectation. If you're a newbie. If you're a novice, but after one month on social media on a dating app Tinder, for example, you realize it's bullshit. It's a waste of time. I mean, like you are just, you're just swiping and texting and then swiping and texting and swiping and texting. Nothing comes out of it. No one wants to meet you in real life. And then if they do meet you, I mean, it's like Hail Mary, if you get, if you get late. So dating up suck is dating. When it comes to dating, they suck, absolutely suck. But the great, the great in connection, communication, validation, fun, entertainment, and they lead, for example, to sexting. They lead to sexting and coming. That's much more common than real life meetings. So a lot of people sex and cam and chat and text, and then they move on. And so a typical user would communicate with 300 other users a month. Meet one of them. In one of 100 such meetings, he would end up having sex. And in one of 70 such meeting such sexual experiences, he would end up having a relationship. That's how bad it is. Now, the fact is that one third of all relationships. And one third of old man and one half of old marriages. Start with a hookup. So who cups do lead to relationships and marriages. The problem is, you need to hook up with a hell of a lot of people to end up in a relationship, let alone marriage. Yeah. So you need essentially to prostitute yourself. Men, men or women. You need to prostitute yourself to hundreds of strangers. Dozens of strangers before you end up with someone who is willing to consider anything serious with you committed invested in the long term. All these technological advances are not don't mesh well with real life. 80% of all serious relationships marriages included. That's 80% 80 to this very day. This moment have to do with introductions. You were introduced to someone by friends and family. That's 80%. Conductions via friends and family outweigh dating apps by a factor of 17,000. Your chances to find someone for a serious relationship, commitment, investment and marriage are 17,000 times higher than if you use a dating. Simple. Social media infidelity, this is something I wanted to write about. I've noticed it on Twitter is like a smorgasbord of married men who go on there and they just seem, I don't know, I figured out how they do it. They can look up by location and profession. Certain people. So they, you know, they like journalists, they'll look up a journalist and they'll see it's near me and they'll follow every one of them and if they follow him back and they'll send the messages and they'll be doing this and that they're all married. And they're doing this on Facebook, they're doing it on Instagram. They're on Instagram like liking nude models and they're married and the wife can see this and other people can see it. It's like, is this cheating or is this just like self masturbatory kind of crap? Like these guys are just like, yep, I like it. They're just like, they're like, yeah, yeah, that's hot. I like it. I like it. I like it. And it means nothing. I'm certainly hoping that these women will respond to them and then they'll run off on their wives and you know what I mean? Is it cheating? Men want to fuck. Men want to fuck. So any interaction with the woman and I repeat any interaction with the woman is geared towards securing sex. End of story. Your grandmother was right. Men just want to get in your pants. Now this is, this even has a clinical name. It's called sexual over perception. Men interpret every female gesture, every female word, every kindness, every remark as an invitation to sex, which creates a lot of misunderstandings and leads to sexual assault and rape. So women are online interacting with women because they hope to to bed them. They hope to go to bed with them. And don't you believe anything else? Women are utterly uninterested in women. Men are utterly uninterested in women. They just want to go to bed with them. Now, having gone to bed with them, men tend to develop affections, romantic bonding and attachment, more than women actually. Studies show that women get bored in monogamous relationships, much more than men. Women get bored with the sex in monogamous relationships, much faster than men. And studies show that women reject men's offers for romantic relationships, much more than men. Men are the romantics, but their gateway is through sex. Men fall in love with women they have sex with. Women have sex with men they love. So it's a bit of a different, it's a bit of a different trajectory. So even when a man has sex with a, with a total stranger, she would create a fantasy of this total stranger, where he is, I don't know, amazing, intelligent, funny, witty. But she would invent a story, she would spin a story around this stranger to make it more palatable for her to resolve the cognitive dissonance of why she's having a sex with a stranger. A man would never do this. A man is body oriented. Actually, we discovered that men orgasm as frequently when they're exposed to body parts as when they're exposed to the, to the whole body. Men keep sending you dick pics. Well, I thought that wasn't a paraphernalia though, if they can keep you just aroused by one aspect. No, no, no, no. Men react to visuals and they react to body parts. So men would react to boobs or vaginas. Very powerfully, they would organ. So that's why they send you dick pics because they think you're the same. They think it would react the same way. Women need totality. Women are actually women consume pornography more than men, but not visual pornography, textual pornography. Women read novels and texts, which are essentially pornographic in nature, much more than men. One third of all of all visual pornography consumers are women. But if you add to this pornographic texts, women consume much more pornography than men. They just need text. They need a context. They need a story in other words. They need a narrative. And it's very common for a woman to get drunk, to meet a total stranger, and to spin a story or a narrative around this stranger is mysterious, is amazing, is witty, is funny, is attractive. Is I don't know what and then go to bed with it while men dispense with this intermediary stage. This is go to bed with the body or body parts. So this is the difference between the sexes when they meet and interact. So social media allows men to hunt. They're predators in nature. They're hunters. Allows men to hunt, but women are not averse to being hunted. But if you think that social media is a new thing, it's not true. In the 1940s, 30s actually. You know what, going back to the 20s. Many, many newspapers in the United States and all over the world, they had what was called the classified romantic ads. You could put an ad in the classified section saying, I'm a lonely spinster, and I'm looking for the right men, or I'm a widower, and I would love to have you in my life. A typical classified ad ad section in the newspaper constituted the bulk of the newspaper. Actually, there were thousands of them. And they were the equivalent of a BBS, which is a bulletin board service, or an IRC, or much later chat forums, and later, you know, social media, social media just the latest incarnation of a trend that is at least 100 years old. So married men liking those, all those women on Twitter and Instagram, that's the equivalent of going and checking out the 40 year old. Yeah, the 40 year old. They don't care. They don't give a hoot about you, your, your education, your knowledge, they don't care who you are. They play the game. They would date you. They would listen to you to your boring nonsense. Yeah, for six hours. They tend to be interested in that they would buy you drinks, they would, I mean, you name it, just to get to get in your pants. And if you deny them that they will get very pissed off, and very aggressive. You try it. I've done it before yeah. Right, they get very pissed off and very thought I was captivating you know, I guess I wasn't. Men are primitive binary devices. We're in a bit more complex, which is why women will rule in the future. They're a bit more complex. Oops, I can hear myself, which is not a bad thing, but there's an echo. All right. It is this mismatch between the sections of the other gender, or other sex expectations, sexual scripts, social scripts is a normal mismatch between men and women, never as large today, never as large. I mean, it's the largest ever. There's such a gap, such an abyss, such a cousin between men and women today, because they're not playing by the same rule book. They're not sharing the same playbook. And so it's everyone for his own on his own, and everyone has to reinvent the rules as they go along. But the seat of their pants, it's like, you know, played by ear. And very often there's a people meet people miss read each other, the misinterpret each other. It creates a lot of misunderstanding a lot of anger a lot of frustration, and people who are less. If we less impulse impulse control, they end up sexually assaulting or raping, or the situation is really bad, really bad. So would you say that religion, are you religious that would you say that religion is good that had a good impact on sexuality, and you know and curbing in you know marriage was good, or, or what's your opinion. So you said you earlier that you like gender roles and you thought that gender roles are actually good for defining positive relationships. And more, not gender, sexual scripts, sexual scripts and social scripts is simply sexual scripts simply tell you how to behave as a man and how to behave as a woman. In the sexual sense, how to behave as a female and how to be as a male and social scripts have to do with social expectations and expectations from each other. So something completely different gender roles are socialized, and they are used actually to to to render women submissive. So I think gender roles are very toxic and pernicious things. And I'm pretty glad that they are disappearing. But the fact that there are no sexual scripts and social scripts. This is very bad, because it leaves everyone to fend off of themselves and to reinvent the wheel in every single interaction. And capable of capable of this, you know, not everyone is that intelligent and that informed and that impulse control. So, if you know what you have to do as a man and you know what you have to do as a woman or more precisely, if you know how to behave as a male, and the woman knows how to behave as a female on the sexual level, biological totally biological and societal, not cultural, but biology. That's okay. But if you don't, then you have to negotiate. And there's a lot of the many possibilities for miss miss communication misunderstanding can end very badly and does end badly. So, religion. I'm never in favor of replacing one form of mental illness with another. So, religion is a form of mental illness. And yes, it's true that delusional disorders can have behavior modification effect can be modified behavior. So if you hold certain specific delusions, they modify your behavior and may even endow you with impulse control. But it's still mental illness. I don't think believing in God or other such not utter insane in a nonsense. Even if they do have beneficial effects on society at large and individual conduct, most specifically, I don't think it's a price worth paying. I don't think to render yourself insane in order to control your behavior is a good idea. It didn't work for me to try to other ways it didn't work. So I'm absolutely against religion. I'm an agnostic. I don't have the the reason God or isn't even an idea what is a good but I'm an agnostic but I'm definitely against religion, which is the, the assumption or the pronouncement that there is a God. And that the very fact that or alleged fact that there is a lot should dictate behaviors and I think that's delusional disorder. I think it's it's very close to psychosis it's mental illness. It's only that we were politically correct and we don't have the balls to lock up all this not business. And anyone who claims that there is a God or angels or otherwise it's mentally ill needs help medication and in extreme cases needs locking up. But who would dare to say this. Well, I don't want to keep you all the time I don't want to keep you all day long. I think I think people won't be able to watch beyond this point. Yeah, you're, I'm such a big fan I love your book you're brilliant. You know, if I'd love to maybe if I can interview you sometime in the, in the future I'd love to be able to talk to you again. It was a privilege. I look forward to putting the supplemental be launching my site on on Valentine's Day. So it's a good day. So thank you for having me. Would you mind if I upload, would you mind if I upload the interview now or would you want me to do yeah upload it now go for it no one's going to know do whatever you want with it and thank you so much for your time. You're brilliant. You're my favorite YouTuber and have a great day. Thank you. Take care. Bye.