Self-styled experts, including, and especially, I would say, experts with academic degrees, irrelevant degrees, but still, have created a godawful 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 what would be the latest addition to my attempts to disentangle the gaudic knot of the geniuses online.
Today I'm going to discuss sexuality, socio-sexuality, 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, Shoshanim, we delve right in, and this time the pun is intended.
My name is Sam Vaknin. 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 Sam Vaknin 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, is 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.
Psychopaths use sex. So, if you look at settings where psychopaths are 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 prisons, all of them, by the way, same sex. In corporate settings, sex is used to lubricate, sorry, for the pun, to lubricate promotion and career paths. Where psychopaths rule, sex is weaponized.
But not so with the narcissist. Both cerebral and somatic narcissist 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 madding crowd.
The next stage in evolution, presumably, sexual 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 he's 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 hoi polloi, 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 God-like. That's a cerebrum 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 conquests to demonstrate the pyrotechnicthat he possesses.
He is very concerned with statistics. How many times did you come? Was I the best?
Both types, the cerebrum 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 cerebrum and the somatic are hypersex at the beginning of every relationship. Mission accomplished. Intimate partner acquired. Or overt. Both types go sexless within the dyad, within the couple.
Both the somatic and the cerebrum usually go sexless. The cerebrum becomes abstinent, and the somatic cheats on the partner profusely, extramaritally, outside the confine, extra dyadically, 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 reclaimed 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 sciences, 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 paraphiliac. They tend to prefer kinky sex, group sex, extreme stranger sex, like dogging and glory holes. They like life 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-trashy.
Psychopathy and extroversion 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 socio-sexually unrestricted, people who like casual sex, who prefer stranger sex, and have difficulties in committed long-term relationships, sexually speaking, these kind of people are subclinical psychopaths.
Psychopathy and extroversion 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 the of dysregulated social sexuality.
The third category that I'm hereby proposing.
So I think the dysregulated social sexuals are actually full-fledged factor one psychopaths. While unrestricted social sexuals are subclinical psychopaths and factor two psychopaths, for example, people with borderline personality disorder, at any rate, dark trial, dark personalities, Machiavellian, narcissistic, psychopathic, are closely associated with unrestricted social sexuality.
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 mate poaching are examples or manifestations or expressions of unrestricted sexuality.
And we see the female promiscuity and mate poaching on the rise in societies and environments with adverse sex ratios, where there are more men, 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, as a strategy of attracting and keeping a man, female promiscuity becomes the main lifestyle choice, the main sexual strategy and sexual script.
Mate poaching also explodes in societies where there's a death, 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 violence acts.
And all this creates an imbalance between men and women in sub 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. Absend themselves, for example, all the men in MGTAL, men going their own way. The incense, 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 absent 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 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 of the chance. 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. This drives, this 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 personality. So 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, underhanded, unethical behaviors, such as mate poaching. These male avoidant behaviors create a virtual gap that affects sexual strategies of both sexes until 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 16% 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 socio-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 as good and empowering, etc.
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, 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 an intimate committed relationship. 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 man 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 Hermann, 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. 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 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's 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's sexually frustrated and they're right and that she's sexually available where sometimes they're wrong. This is called sexual overperception.
That's a clinical term. There is nothing the virtual single can do about it. It is all about rumors, gossip, reputation, and her mates 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 sapio-sexuals 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.
Sapio-sexuals claim to be turned on sexually by intelligence.
Contrary to appearances, sapio-sexuals, people who are turned on by intelligence, they are dying breed, 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 sapio-sexual reflects the malaise of our age. It is a pretentious molestation of a Latin verb. It is about potere, nationare appearance. It's posturing. It's signaling, virtual signaling, if you wish. It's not true substance. It's not about erudition.
So why is sapio-sexuality 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 skimming and browsing mentality, resulted in the amputated truncation of our attention span. We have no time for true learning because it requires more than 10 seconds and the suspension of both dichotomous 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 the 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 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 the 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 men so angry about it?
And if you don't believe me that men are angry, you should visit an incel forum or a miktau forum. 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 dejected? 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 race, more than 60%, have had a lot of casual sex in their history.
If this is the criteria, 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 team up, 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've 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 are 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 to not be, why not not to 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 cohabitate 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 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 fool.
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 towers, among men going the wrong way in similar monosphere movements.
The second argument is, is much more compelling.
The first argument is kind of peer positioning argument. It's actually an inter-male, inter-male issue. It's nine 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 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 simple as simply food as I can. And this psychopath is going to cheat on you. That's the likelihood. They're going to cheat on you multiply, not once.
Let's 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 is singles.
The opinion piece was targeted at women and only at women.
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.
So 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.
And both assumptions are, of course, patently false.
To resolve the onerous cognitive dissonance of loneliness, singlehood seems to have become an ideology.
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 antisocial.
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. 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 any meaningful way.
Encouraging people to be lifelong singles, as this opinion piece had done, is encouraging them to be psychopaths.
July 2016, new scientists 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 socio-sexually, in other words, to be casual about sex. This is the new uni-gender role and paradigm in 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, TTD, and watch these impromptu scholars, regrettably almost all of them female, who glorify, who glorify being alone all your life, catering only to your needs, selfishly and ecothetically, 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 Pew Center, 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 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 with 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 try other options.
The 20% of population who are promiscuous by nature thrive in this culture of hookups and bad drunk sex. And these people remain single for life. And there's nothing wrong with it.
If this is their 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 stratospherically. People are not happy.
Only psychopaths are happy in this world. And these psychopaths and narcissists, especially in academe, universities and colleges and some parts of the bureaucracy, had created a world for the rest of humanity who are not 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 psychopaths and narcissists pursuing his or her own goals ended up inflicting damage on the 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 and, you know, I'm not glorifying relationships as much better alternatives, but definitely the way people manage their lives today is psychopathic and narcissistic and creates enormous cognitive dissonances.
People feel ashamed and guilty about the choices and decisions that they're compelled to make. They have no choice but to make 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 subclinical psychopathy, substance abuse, and extroversion. 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, or habitation.
These are pseudo relationships because they don't last long, and both parties don't invest because they know it's not 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 celibate and become lifelong singles. 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 going out there. Technology had rendered them cocooned and self-sufficient.
All told, only about half the adult population shared their lives with someone intimate. Only half of the adult population shared their lives with someone intimate.
The rest are equally divided between celibate singles and sexually active singles who are exclusively into intoxicated one-life stents and anonymous group sex, and usually don't remember anything by the 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 wrong models. Coupled with unrestricted social sexuality, 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 boundaried 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 have ample sex, frequency. 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, borderline personality disorder includes grandiosity and includes defiance 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 walk on up. 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 be busy with your own things because that's abandonment and rejection.
Long-term committed relationships have become a nightmare, a dystopian nightmare. Who wants to be in this? Who wants this? No one does, or fewer and fewer people do.
The marriage rate is down by 50% within 30 years. That's 50%. In 30 years, no one is bringing children into the world anymore. The replacement rate in industrialized countries is under 2.1, which means the populations are declining everywhere and anywhere, from Russia to the UK.
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 boundaried. It's difficult to be committed. It's difficult to maintain fidelity and honesty. You're already trained 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 self-referential. You are 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, a sex counselor says, what's a blowjob compared to the rest 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. Even if it's done within a relationship or within a perceived liaison, fantasy liaison, or extra diatically outside relationship.
Transactional sex is bad. Transactional sex is bad because it objectifies you, it objectifies the person giving the sex. Trading something renders that something an object, materializes this something.
A multitude of studies have demonstrated a strong connection between unrestricted sexuality, dark triad traits, as I mentioned, subclinical psychopathy, extroversion, self-focus, sexual motivation, and the latter game-playing manipulative love style.
A transactional attitude to sex was also correlated with a borderline personality organization.
Impulsivity, dysregulation, compulsivity, anxiety, a history of trauma and victimization, unstable 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 game-playing manipulative love style had come to dominate 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're 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 love or they're 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 knows what is love. No one had ever known what is love, but 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. 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 inside. ###