Background

Is Sam Vaknin a Misogynist (Woman-hater)?

Uploaded 11/20/2021, approx. 32 minute read

In the wake of my recent dialogue with Richard Grannon about gender issues, I had received the totally predictable tsunami of hate mail claiming that I am a misogynist.

At first, my impulse was to ignore the avalanche, but then I said to myself, people have a right to be heard and they have a right to my reaction. Having provoked the debate, I owe them what is called a replica. I owe them a reply.

So here's my response.

I ask you to please suspend your hostility, put aside your animosity, your preconceived notions, your biases, your prejudices, and just listen or try to listen to what I have to say. Forget for a minute who I am. Just listen to what I have to say.

Agree with me, disagree with me, criticize me, but talk to the arguments. Don't attack me personally.

This is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Don't attack the messenger. Argue with a message. I'm a man. And believe it or not, I'm old.

And this, of course, puts me in a certain context. Contextualizes me.

Obviously, old men feel very uncomfortable with new ways and with the young.

Clearly, a man cannot fully grasp the experience of a woman.

And so I acknowledge my limitations in this video. I accept that I cannot reach the truth, but only strive, attempt asymptotically to get to it.

Remember that even misogynists, which I vehemently deny that I am, but even misogynists can have good arguments. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If you label someone, you automatically block yourself. Labeling is not the same as comprehending, not the same as arguing. It's not even scoring points. It's meaningless. It leaves you nowhere.

I've been trained most of my life since age nine to be a scientist. Scientists are a little like judges. They're supposed to put aside their emotions, their biases, their background, their upbringing, their prejudices. They're supposed to go where the data take them, where the evidence takes them.

So in this presentation, I will try to be data-based. Evidence-based.

Observations, my observations are based on studies, not on anecdotes, not on my values, not on my prejudices.

I advise you, I recommend that you watch my video on hookups. In that video, I review 91 studies. It's a literature review. That's the way I work.

Before I make a video, I study the topic in depth. I dive through the literature. I scan, assimilate, incorporate dozens and sometimes hundreds of pieces of literature.

Take, for example, my claim that casual sex has deleterious effects, bad effects. These are facts. This is a fact. This is not my bias. That's simply a fact.

And now, a personal confession. I have had casual sex, I did swinging, and I participated copiously in group sex when I was young or younger. That alone goes to show you that what I say has nothing to do with who I am. My arguments do not reflect my personality or my background or my personal history.

Casual sex and group sex and group sex, but especially casual sex, has deleterious bad effects.

Sexual self-trashing or self-trashing via addictions is a form of self-harming.

And today, men and women use each other to self-harm.

So, when I state a fact, it's based on studies and research. If you want to dispute the fact, find alternative studies, other types of research.

This proved me the same way I had proven my point. Throughout the ages, women had been complaining that men are reducing them to sex objects with no mind and no personality of their own. Strangely, women are now fostering exactly such an attitude by giving in to casual sex.

And I'm using the phrase giving in because casual sex sucks, especially for women. 90% of women don't orgasm in casual sex. 27% of women are raped in casual sex. And 50% of women are forced into painful anal sex in casual sex. It's not a savory experience. It's not something to look forward to.

So, why do women keep experimenting with casual sex? Why do they keep seeking out and participating in casual sex?

Because they have no choice. This is the environment today and we'll come to it a bit later.

I'm giving the example of casual sex which has horrendous effects on mental health and sometimes physical health through sexually transmitted diseases. I'm discussing casual sex as an example of a statement I make which is evidence-based. Everything I say is evidence-based. If you don't like the data, you don't like reality. And if you don't like reality, you're going to end up badly. We're all going to end up badly.

Some women say, why do you focus on women? Men are also to blame. Men are also guilty of oneself.

Yes, that's true. Men and women had colluded in this emerging catastrophe.

But my focus on women has to do with the fact that women are in the driver's state of this enormous revolution. This is the biggest revolution ever in human history. Never before were gender relations so tumultuous, so uncertain. Never before did we have the concept of, did we have the process of fluidity, sex fluidity and gender fluidity. This has never happened before in 300,000 years of documented homo sapiens. This is the first time this is happening.

So it's the greatest revolution ever, far bigger than the agricultural revolution, far bigger than the industrial revolution. And every revolution is a threat. So this is the biggest threat. This revolution threatens vested interests, the interests of men.

And this gives rise to rebellion movements among men. You have the Manosphere, you have MGTOW, you know, this kind of people.

And I've been accused by men of being a simp, a misandrist, a mandator, and someone who caters to the whims and needs of women. So it's a good sign that both men and women are accusing me of bias.

But we are undergoing an enormous revolution. And this revolution, if it is not managed properly, if it is not tackled and understood deeply and profoundly, threatens the existence of a species. The threat of intergender implosion, the threat of intergender alienation, the threat of men and women going their own way is far bigger than climate change. Immeasurably bigger than COVID-19. This is the greatest threat the species had ever faced bigger than any pandemic and any tectonic shift in any field of life.

If we stop interacting with each other as men and women, we are doomed for the very practical reason that without men and women, appropriation is somewhat more complex. But even more so, I would say, without the contributions of men and women, I don't think civilization can survive.

The role of women in civilization had, of course, been underestimated, rewritten, retouched out of history, ignored and erased, but women had been foundational in modern civilization.

Take away women and everything crumbles to dust. Men had been more visible. Women had been the power behind the throne and behind the scenes.

Without men-woman collaboration, without cooperation, without a joint effort, nothing will be left of us.

I am an old man and I'm afraid of what I will leave behind. I'm afraid of what will happen to the next generations.

It is out of this fear and concern that I'm making these videos. I stand nothing to gain from that. I stand nothing to gain from that, except opprobrium and attacks and castigation and belittling and mockery, ridicule.

But I'm doing this time and again, alone and with other people like Richard, because I believe there is nothing, absolutely nothing, more urgent than this, and that the young generations don't see this, that they're out on the streets protesting against climate change, that they developed climate anxiety, and they think climate is the main threat.

They have been blinded. They have been blinded by indoctrination and brainwashing.

We need to wake up. And to wake up, we need first to go back. We need to go back to the concept of patriarchy.

Patriarchy, the dominion and domination of men throughout history, at least starting with the industrial, with the agricultural revolution and with mass urbanization, let's say 10,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago.

The domination of men and the institutions that men had created, men, I mean males, had created in order to render women subservient. This is called the patriarchy.

Now, Jordan Peterson is right that men had been beneficial to women, men had been providers, men had invented many things, many devices, pills, medications, and necessities of life and luxuries, which make women's lives a hell of a lot better. Men had been friendly to women throughout the millennia, but the problem is the patriarchy was a top-down structure, hierarchical. There was no consultation, women had no voice, no one asked them, do you want the patriarchy with all its benefits? Is this the way you want to live?

It was taxation without representation. It was subjugation. Occasionally, and in many periods in history and many territories frequently, women had been horrifically abused by men and men got away with it. Women were subjected to stunted growth. They were not allowed to self-actualize. They were sexually assaulted with impunity, hence the MeToo movement.

So the patriarchy had its positive aspects, shielding, protecting, providing, but the quiproco, the trade-off was both unacceptable to women and no one bothered to ask them.

Patriarchy was a bad thing and let no one tell you otherwise.

And one day, women woke up and they realized that most of their relationships with men in professional capacities, in service capacities, in intimate settings, most of the relationships with men were abusive, are abusive, and then women had a choice. That happened about 150 years ago with the suffragettes.

At that point, women had a choice. They could say, we're going to build a better world. It's going to be balanced, it's going to be equal, and it's going to be in some areas male-free or at least free of the dominion and control of men. But it's going to be fair, it's going to be just, it's going to be compassionate.

But at that point, around the 1960s, women made the wrong choice. They did not choose, they did not choose to create a better world. They chose to emulate and imitate men.

Now, we know in psychology that victims of abuse tend to adopt the abuser's point of view. They tend to internalize the abuser. It's a way of regaining control over one's life.

If I am the abuser, then I cannot be abused anymore. If I become the abuser, I can abuse others, but no one will abuse me.

So many victims of abuse, actually the vast majority of victims of abuse in complex trauma, for example, tend to adopt traits, behaviors, and personality dimensions of their abusers.

Women were no exception.

Starting after World War II, women became men. They had adopted internalized, assimilated, emulated, and imitated their own abusers, men.

They tried to conform to male stereotypes, actually. They tried to become men too.

It was a catastrophically wrong choice which took us down a path of no return and is threatening the very existence of a species. It was brought on by militant feminist literature.

And I'm not being misogynistic here. I'm being fact-based. Men are guilty of the most horrendous crimes against women, but when women became emancipated, more or less, when they were liberated, they didn't choose the Nelson Mandela way of forgiving your enemy and coexisting with him. They chose to become the enemy. They have seen the enemy and it is I.

I've seen the enemy and it is I.

Women had become men and women are trying to outdo men. Women are trying to outman men to this very day.

Men, on their part, shied away, bitter, resentful, hateful. They betrayed and are betraying women.

For example, they are coercing women into casual sex and then abandoning. They lie to women.

Men are becoming more and more narcissistic and psychopathic in their attitudes to women because they perceive women as a looming threat on the one hand and as the gift that keeps giving on the other.

Why buy the cow? If you can just have a pint of milk now and then in the local pub or bar.

So men have given up on women. Men have given up on modern women because the power structure had been upended and men feel belittled and under siege. Men feel frightened. They're in panic and they want to get away and they want to get away from the source of their frustration and they become aggressive.

Now everyone, men and women, everyone is becoming more narcissistic and more psychopathic.

This is the tide that lifts all boats.

Narcissism and psychopathy are on the ascendants. They have become the organizing principles of our civilization. They make sense of life. They endow it with meaning and provide us with goals and direction.

But women regard their newfound narcissism as an empowering ideology. They had created a whole ideology around being vulgar, bullying, immoral, amoral.

A small minority of men used to be narcissists and psychopaths and bullies. Other men shunned them. These were the bad apples. These are the bad men.

No one wanted to be like them. They ended up badly.

Women chose these men, the psychopaths, the narcissists and the bullies as role models.

And suddenly this became an ideology which legitimized and contextualized misconduct, misbehavior and misdeeds.

Men, women had become proud of becoming bad guys. Women aspire to become bad guys.

And they think that this is about being assertive. This is about being empowered. This is about being genteel and autonomous and self efficacious.

They don't realize that to be a narcissist or a psychopath or a bully, that's the easiest thing in the world. It's an uprobing of responsibility. It's a surrender of autonomy.

When you're defined by someone else's gaze, you're wickling. You're nobody. You're a loser. You're nothing.

Narcissists don't exist except when they're seen and noticed. Psychopaths are losers.

But women want to go there and are going there inexorably. You should see the comments that I'm receiving and the direct messages and the emails from women. They keep telling me, we're going to do these things because men used to do them.

But women are wrong. These things are doubly, cheating, acting immorally, being vulgar, foul language, drinking to the point of blackouts, casual sex. These were not the things that men used to do. These were the things that certain men used to do.

And the overwhelming vast majority of men regarded these other men as outcasts and misfits and miscreants, miscreants. These men who used to drink and curse and womanize, who never had a family, who always were carousing, and the overwhelming vast majority of men regarded them with disdain and contempt.

And yet these types of men became the role models for women.

Now don't get me wrong. The forthcoming age is matriarchal. We had patriarchy and we are entering the age of matriarchy. Women are on the ascendance. Women are going to rule. Women are going to dominate. We are entering the female age. Women are much better suited to the challenges and exigencies of the postmodern world in a variety of ways.

If you want to, you can watch my other videos on gender and gender ratios and so on. Suffice it to say that women are far more accomplished as far as education, jobs. They are very close to wage equality.

In many, many professions they dominate and these are elite professions.

The oncoming age is the age of women, artificial intelligence, robotics with displacement. Muscle of men will no longer be needed. Their brains will no longer be needed. Their sperm is no longer needed. Men are not even needed to produce children, to procreate. Women are utterly self-sufficient and independent and are not going to take shit from anyone anymore.

Men have to accept this. Men have to adapt to a world dominated by women.

But so do women. With power comes responsibility. With responsibility comes accountability. With accountability comes payment, cost.

Women must adapt to their new attained or new obtained dominance. Women now increasingly are in control. Women bear as much responsibility to this emerging new brave world as do men.

And if women choose to imitate good for nothing men, men who are the refuse of virility and masculinity, if women take these men, psychopaths, narcissists, bullies, if they take these men as role models, we are doomed. We are doomed.

There's a joint responsibility of the genders here.

Women confuse equality with identity. Equality is not identity. Equality is about access, equal access to money, to wages, to education, to health care, to positions, no glass ceiling. These are all laudable goals and women should continue to pursue them and men should help them. Men should help women become equal because this will unleash an enormous enormous suppressed reservoir of energy and creativity.

Half of humanity had been hitherto prevented from contributing. So this half we should incorporate it. We will double our force as a species. We should make this happen as men. We should help women become equal.

Equality, I'm all for it. Identity, I'm all against it. Identity is about homogeneity. It's about unigender. Having a single gender, half of it with vaginas and half of it with penises.

I can't think of anything more dystopian, more unsettling, more nightmarish than this. Fluidity of sex is again a choice, a personal choice. A personal choice is a good value.

But when fluidity is used to homogenize, when fluidity is abused by certain groups to create fuzziness, we are all just human beings. We are not men and we are not women. We are people, pregnant people, not pregnant women.

This is bad because homogeneity leads to entropy and entropy leads to death. Homogeneity means there are no differences and where there are no differences, there's no attraction, there's no comparison, there's no learning, there's no evolution or growth or development. Differences, gradients create all these processes.

And if we have no differences, everything will die and peter out and shrivel and wither.

Indeed, we see a precipitous decline in human communication and interaction, especially between the genders. Dating is down by 60%, a whopping 60%. Even hookups are down by 25%.

In several countries in the world, there's no sex. Sex has vanished completely. Relationships are gone. Long-term relationships gone. Cohabitation leads nowhere.

We need children and we don't have any.

There is this myth that there are not too many people in the world. Yeah, there are too many people in the world, old people. We don't have enough children. We need many more children if we want to sustain, for example, our retirement skills and we don't have them. No one is having children. No one is getting married. No one is having a long-term relationship. There are no intimacy skills and no relationship skills. We'll deal with it a bit shortly.

And the whole sphere of intergender politics is suffused with counterfactual claims, nonsensical claims and myths in an age of truism. Everyone has his own facts. Everyone is as entitled as everyone else to make a statement or express an opinion.

And the outcome is no one is happy. You don't need to be a scholar. You don't need to read the literature. You don't need to listen to Sanvakninim. Just look around you. Do you know anyone who's happy? No one is happy. We are doing something very wrong.

And in my video with Richard, I tried to isolate or pinpoint several social trends which are undermining our future.

So our future critically depends on collaboration between different genders, genders with differences.

So there's first, I'll summarize it very briefly. You can watch the video with Richard, which is longer. I'll summarize these trends.

Number one, invulnerability signaling. Everyone is signaling to everyone. I'm invulnerable. I'm autonomous. I'm magentaic. I'm powerful. I'm goal-oriented. I'm empowered. I'm unemotional. I'm uninvolved with you. I'm self-sufficient. I don't need you. Go away.

This signaling of invulnerability had become a variant or a subspecies of virtue signaling. It is virtuous to be invulnerable, impregnable, impermeable, invincible. That's narcissism. It's a form of grandiosity.

So men and women team up for one-night stands. And throughout the process, they signal to each other, we don't really need you. I'm here just for my own pleasure. And I'm going to see you again after that.

The second trend is gender vertigo. Vertigo, V-E-R-T-I-G-O. Gender vertigo. Apologies for my accent. Gender roles, which are socio-culturally determined, of course. They're not biological. They're not natural. There's nothing natural about being a man or a woman. This is dictated by society. And it's ever-shifting and ever-changing. Gender roles are fluid, have always been, by the way.

In the mountains of Albania, in the steppes of Russia, in the savannas of Africa, gender roles were different all the time. In biblical times, the 19th century, gender roles change all the time. They're fluid, but it's the first time in human history that there is a concerted attack on the very concept of gender roles.

There's an attempt to abolish gender roles, or as Richard calls it, criminalize gender roles. And when gender roles collapse, sexual scripts collapse. Sexual scripts are scripts that tell us how to behave when we are in an encounter with the opposite sex or with a potential sexual partner.

Sexual scripts are critical because they lead to sex, which ultimately leads to family formation and procreation. So we don't have gender roles. We don't have sexual scripts. It's enormous, god-awful confusion as to appropriate and inappropriate behavior, how to behave. Codes of conduct have vanished. People don't know how to behave. Men and women are utterly befuddled and confused.

Men are trying to emulate some feminine behaviors. Women are trying to be men.

And you can see that when young people are arguing about splitting bills, going Dutch, young people even have arguments about how many orgasms they've had. Everything is reduced to some kind of accounting, the number of orgasms and who pays for which drinks.

And this is an outcome of confusion, desperate attempts to introduce some structure in order into a melee of chaos and the miasma of coming across each other.

In the absence of institutions, and all institutions are dead, you realize it, family, community, church, even the nation state is dying. In the absence of institutions, relationships, however rudimentary, even one might stand, relationships have to be negotiated from scratch every single time. This is time consuming. It's energy depleting. This need to renegotiate everything every single time creates destructive friction among the gender, among men and women. Frustration, aggression, exhaustion, and ultimately leads to abusive behaviors.

And so people say, I'd rather be alone. The squeeze is not worth the juice. The prize is not worth the price.

And many other such phrases. I don't need any of this. I don't need this. You know, who wants this? It's too much.

So this leads to atomization and alienation, loneliness and boredom. Everyone in his cubicle with his Netflix, not seeing other people.

2016 was the first year in human history where the majority of men and women never came across another person from the other six throughout the year.

You heard me correctly. 2016, majority of men and women did not see another each other during the year. Didn't come across each other during the year. Didn't have a single encounter.

People live alone. People withdraw.

But when you live alone, when you're subject to boredom and loneliness and emptiness and alienation, and there's a collapse of agency, a collapse of self-efficacy, because agency and self-efficacy are only in relations to other people. Everything is relational.

When you don't have relationships of whatever nature, there's no you. The very boundaries of the self are defined from the outside.

Your interactions with others mold you and shape you into who you are. And you know by interacting with other people is the only way for you to find out where you end and they begin.

And so this collapse in agency and self-efficacy, it leads to self-loathing.

People begin to hate themselves and loathe themselves. They're depressed, which is a form of internalized aggression. They become anxious and then they act out. If they're weak or they're mentally ill, they act out recklessly. They self-trash sexually in some other way. Substance abuse.


The third trend is what is called in literature the Stold Revolution. Stold, S-T-A-L-L-E-D revolution.

I said before that there is the emergence of a single masculine unigender. Everyone is a male, males with different genitalia, but still everyone is a male.

The Stold Revolution is a technical term to describe the fact that women are now describing themselves. Women are now referring to themselves in strictly masculine terms. Women have now appropriated adjectives that used to be the domain of men until well into the 1990s.

So now women define themselves as men.

In actuality, about half of all breadwinners in big parts of the West are women, and they had surpassed men in many, many fields.

The politically correct mainstream media, they revel in uniformity. Remember? Pregnant people. Not pregnant women, pregnant people.

So the media encourages you to discuss everything in uniform homogenous terms. There are no differences. A difference is considered to be kind of sin or crime. Politically incorrect, you should not mention differences. Differences are bad. This is the most totalitarian system imaginable.

The irony is, in our attempt to liberate and emancipate and empower minorities, we had created a totalitarian system where no one can speak his mind and no difference is tolerated.

Women are defining themselves in what used to be exclusive masculine terms and are rejecting all feminine aspects and descriptors.

This Stold Revolution, as it is called in the school of literature, is exploding among the younger generations where gender roles have been effectively abolished, leading to an androgynous unigender state.


There's one more piece of evidence from a series of studies by researchers at the University of Minnesota.

Men are now seeking love and long-term connection prior to having sex even in a one-night stand. It is women who reject these men and walk away.

I quote from Time Magazine, February 14, 2019.

Studies have shown that men usually say, I love you in a relationship before women do, and prefer to hear, I love you before they have sex with a woman. Womenwoman.

Women are more circumspect, preferring to wait until after the couple had sex. This is total gender role reversal.

It runs contrary to all the stereotypes. Men are romantic. Men seek love. Men want relationships. Women don't, because they had become men. They had become the erstwhile men.

But men hadn't gone far enough, and that's why we call it the stalled revolution. It stopped.

Men try to accommodate women, not very graciously, with a lot of aggression and pushback, but still try to accommodate them.

But at some point, they gave up. They withdrew. They became hostile. And women reacted in the same vein.

And now we have an unofficial divorce, enmity, an hostility between the genders.


The next trend that affects all this is fluidity, biological and social cultural gender, both fluid, which makes it extremely difficult to orient yourself, if you're a man or a woman.

Then there's defiance. There's an attitudinal shift from agency and self-efficacy to aggressive assertiveness. And this replaced benign constructive discourse and intergender dialogue.

One of the main things that's happening in the world today, women had realized that they had been abused for millennia, and they don't take it lying down anymore. They fight back.

So there is a river of refugees of abusive relationships and divorces. Most women in the market, so to speak, in the marketplace, the sexual marketplace, the romantic marketplace, most of them are refugees. And they carry with them animosity, bitterness, hypervigilance, hatred, withdrawal, insecure, avoidant attachment.

This same goes for men, increasingly. Increasingly, many men go through embittering processes of breaking up with women.

And now we have these two camps. They're both paranoid. They're both hypervigilant. They're both suspicious of each other. They both hate each other a bit. They are both hostile, staring at each other from across the abyss, the divisive, immersed and moored in bad memories, terrified to try again and be hurt. Both men and women are wounded, broken, damaged, and can't get over it.

There's a whole cottage industry of trying to help these people, not very effectively.

And finally, there's the enshrined double standard. Women now conform or try to conform to male stereotypes of sexually emancipated sluts. To be a slut is a malechauvinistic male stereotype. It's a bad stereotype of bad men, narcissists, psychopaths.

And yet women try to conform to it, had adopted it gleefully, are proud of it. Slut parade, slut pride, claims of empowerment by these women are belied by interjection of male double standard.

And these women display rampant discontent and substance abuse because they're not happy. They're not happy because they're not themselves, because they play out the caricature of an emancipated and empowered woman because they're trying to conform to the male gaze. They think by becoming sluts, they are stronger. They are equal to men.

These men are sluts, and they are sluts, and somehow they're men.

And now everyone is on the same level playing field, which is nonsense.

Because men take advantage of this, and they abuse women even further.

And women realized it somewhere deep inside. They realized they had actually lost their power in the sexual marketplace.

And so they're extremely depressed, anxious and unhappy.

This duality, this self-denial, this self-deception, it's driving men and women apart.

I said that self-trashing, especially sexual, but also other forms of self-trashing, like substance abuse, these are all forms of self-harm, and that men and women use each other to self-harm.

And this is the outcome of myths which we can't seem to read ourselves of.

There are two myths that had pervaded the last 60 years. Myth number one, we all have a right and a need for recreational sex. Myth number two, women are gatekeepers who refuse to procreate without suitable men.

This is another Jordan Peterson monarchy.

The truth is this. The facts are these. The evidence is this.

Well into the end of the 19th century and in most of nature, sex was and is about making offspring. Making offspring, that's it, procreation. Sex is limited to a mating season or estrus.

The Jewish Talmud actually uses the word season to describe the female sex drive. Recreational sex is a new invention. The right to have sex is an incel concoction.

The majority of humans get laid rarely or not at all. No one has a right to sex.

And a big number of people don't feel the need to have sex.

Moreover, the plethora of studies revealed that toll in mental and physical health that casual sex has on its participants. Casual sex also adversely impacts the capacity for intimacy and the ability to form long-term relationships.

Every word I'm saying is based on numerous studies with tens of thousands of people throughout the world.

Hookups are seriously damaging. Again, see my video on hookups, where I review the literature.


And finally, women actually have a tendency to select inappropriate males for breeding.

Criminals, the uneducated, the poor, they account for the vast majority of children born worldwide.

Children are born to the poor, to the uneducated.

The elites are often childless, or they have one child, the household.

Women who consent to not stream as attached instant drunk sex with men they had just met make it very difficult for their boundaried, self-regulated, self-respecting sisters who are possessed of at least a smidgen of self-esteem and wish to pace the dating process organically.

I'm going to repeat this controversial paragraph. And I'm sure I anticipate the attacks.

Women who consent to not stream as attached instant drunk sex with men they had just met make it very difficult for their boundaried, self-regulated, self-respecting sisters who are possessed of at least a smidgen of self-esteem and wish to pace the dating process organically.

This applies of course to men as well, but more so to women.

There is still an asymmetry between men and women. An asymmetry needs asymmetry in expectations, asymmetry in social structures, and asymmetry in power.

To ignore this asymmetry, to pretend that it doesn't exist, to assume that it will go away mysteriously somehow, is idiotic.

Nothing short of counterfactual and stupid.

A woman who gives her sex free, unconditionally drunk to total strangers, she is undermining the very structure of intergender interactions.

Even in the future, in the female age, when women would be in charge, dominant and in control, still, childbearing and childrearing will remain female prerogatives and will entail certain structural adjustments.

The behavior of women cannot be identical to the behavior of men, for the simple reason that women are not men. Never mind how much they protest and how much they want to be men, they will never be men, luckily for us. And men will never be women, never mind how much they try, they will never be women.

Men and women are separate, different, not only by virtue of sex, but by virtue of other biological functions, like appropriation.

To ignore this is to ignore reality, it's delusional, it's totally psychotic.

Having grown accustomed to sex on demand, men are becoming more and more predatory and they are unwilling to commit or to invest beyond a single night.

Is this the outcome women are seeking?

Not according to studies. Women are very unhappy with the situation and with men's unwillingness to commit or to invest.

But women had created this, women had made this happen because they give their sex free.

When denied sex, even on a first date, most men become aggressive, demanding, coercive, verbally abusive and worse, a whopping one quarter of first days, now ending rape.

Similarly, studies show that women are giving up on men in drawers. Women expect no intimacy or relationship with men any longer.

When women are horny, they resort to dating apps or the nearest dive, they pick up a stranger and they go through the motions.

Hookup sex is so bad that only 10% of women and one third of men actually orgasm. And it's intimately connected with drinking. About 80 to 90% of hookup sex is drunk to the point of blackout.

Okay, what about other arrangements? For example, friends with benefits sounds much more benign. A friends with benefits arrangement is vastly preferable to casual sex.

As far as mental health outcomes are concerned, that much is true.

But it is a pernicious phenomenon all the same, because it provides the illusion of an intimate relationship when there is none.

Studies show that people who engage in friends with benefits arrangements, these people are less likely to find a true intimate partner. These people are less likely to maintain a full-fledged love relationship. These people are more likely to engage in promiscuous and reckless sex in addition to the friends with benefit arrangement.

Friends with benefits liaisons often last for months or even years. And so they inhibit dating, they inhibit courting. Ultimately, friends with benefits arrangements may have a retarding effect on acquiring and deploying intimacy and relationship skills.

You don't need intimacy and relationship skills with a friend with benefits. Friends with benefits arrangements also foster and encourage superficiality and emotional unavailability and renders sex a mere release or self-soothing function.

On the rare occasion that one of the parties wishes to convert the friend with benefits situation into a romantic affair, she is often rebuffed and rejected painfully. This might take a devastating emotional tone, especially if the spurn party suffers from a mental health problem such as borderline personality disorder.

The outcome is mind-boggling. The catastrophe, the calamity, the apocalypse is tearing us in the face. Almost half of the adult population in the United States are singles who have never been in a long-term committed relationship, including cohabitation. Half other parts of the world are getting there. Contemporary singles are likely to end their lives this way.

Single, atomization, malignant individualism, and technological self-sufficiency conspire to render all of us irredeemably lonely.

The solitude of singles adversely affects their income and health, both mental and physical.

Everything I say is based on massive studies. These shocking data reflect terminal deficiencies in the skill set required in order to maintain intimacy in relationships, decades of casual sex, decades of placing career above love, hardwired our neuroplastic brains to shun both love and intimacy.

He who does casual sex habitually is incapable of real sex. Never mind what she tells herself. He who places career above love may end up with one but not the other and usually ends up with neither.

What are these missing skills?

The ability to compromise, the capacity to set boundaries, to be vulnerable, tolerate frustration, give space, trust, cooperate. These are all lost hearts.

In short, everything that the narcissists and psychopaths we are all becoming are bedded.

By giving up on the other half, we are becoming less human, less whole, less healed, less happy.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? Why have we given up on some of the old ways? Why did we throw the baby with the bathtub and the bathroom? What's wrong with us? Why are we trying to emulate and imitate the worst in human nature rather than the best?

Where are we all going with this?

It is apocalyptic. It is nothing short of suicidal.

If you enjoyed this article, you might like the following:

Narcissistic Youth Sexlessness: Porn and Relationships in a Dying World

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the decline in sexual activity and satisfaction, particularly among younger generations, attributing it to rising narcissism, inhibitions, distractions, and environmental factors. He notes that casual sex is less satisfying than relationship sex, and that women are avoiding bad sex. The consequences of this decline include a collapse in birth rates and a rise in single adults living without partners. Additionally, pornography is reducing the desire for real-life sex, and dating apps are inefficient.


Hookups Trap: Bad Sex, Female Raw Deal (Literature Review)

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the cultural shift from traditional dating to the prevalence of casual sexual encounters, known as hookups, among young adults, particularly in college settings. He highlights the psychological and emotional consequences of such encounters, including feelings of regret, shame, and increased rates of depression and anxiety. Vaknin also points out the role of alcohol and drug use in facilitating hookups and the discrepancy between the actual desires for intimacy and the behaviors exhibited due to peer pressure and societal expectations. He warns of the potential long-term negative impacts on mental health and relationship formation.


Choose Intimacy, not Self-sufficiency: Response to Angry Women

Professor Sam Vaknin argues that modern feminism is a cult that has led to negative outcomes for both men and women. He claims that the hookup culture, which is often framed as empowering for women, has actually led to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Vaknin believes that the only real empowerment for women can come from stable, loving, emotional, equal, and reciprocated relationships, which are not found in hookups or one-night stands. He also criticizes the idea that freedom of choice should extend to self-harm and harming others, as seen in the anti-vaxxer movement.


Adultery - the New Monogamy? (2nd World Congress on Psychiatry and Psychology, July 2021)

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the future of monogamy and argues that it is ill-suited to the demands of modern Western civilization. He notes that casual sex is dominant among people aged 25 to 35, and infidelity is at an all-time high. Women have become richer and more empowered, leading to a shift towards a matriarchal society. Vaknin also discusses the changing nature of relationships and the challenges younger generations face in forming them.


Why Men Abuse Modern Women, Degrade Them Sexually

Women are now more educated and financially successful than men, leading to a shift in traditional gender roles. However, in sex and interpersonal relationships, women are less empowered than ever, as men use these areas to assert their dominance and punish women for their success. This has led to an increase in infidelity, toxic masculinity, and dark triad personalities in both men and women. As a result, commitment in relationships is declining, and the battle between the sexes is becoming increasingly destructive.


Sex, Love with "The Other": Singlehood, Heterophily, and Exogamy

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the impact of disrupted object relations on the sex drive and the decline in sex as a language of communication. He also talks about the shift in gender roles and the rise of narcissism and psychopathy among women who have been subjected to abuse and complex trauma. Vaknin notes that men have become more effeminate, while women prefer better males who are submissive, kind, empathic, and nice. He predicts that technology will eventually provide people with artificial synthetic sex partners, leading to the end of human relatedness and communication.


What’s Wrong with Voluntary Sex Work, Promiscuity? (EXCERPTS)

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the changing gender roles and how women are adopting masculine traits. He argues that sex work is not morally or socially wrong and that it is a patriarchal judgment to condemn it. Vaknin distinguishes between sex work and promiscuity, stating that promiscuity is addictive and has negative outcomes, including fostering anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. He argues that sex positivity is a pernicious and dangerous ideology that has ruined the lives of countless young men and women and should be removed from the curricula of universities and higher education institutes.


Promiscuity: Psychology of Self-Soothing with Sex (oh, and Relationships)

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the topic of promiscuity, its various causes, and its connection to mental health disorders. He delves into the psychological and behavioral aspects of promiscuity, including its association with narcissism, psychopathy, and dissociation. He also explores the impact of promiscuity on intimate relationships and societal changes. The presentation provides a comprehensive analysis of the complex and multifaceted nature of promiscuity.


Casual Sex Q&A: The Fake Intimacy of Bodies

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the impact of casual sex and infidelity on romantic relationships. He explores the psychological and emotional implications of promiscuity, the changing dynamics of mate selection, and the rise of narcissistic and psychopathic behaviors in women. Vaknin also delves into the complexities of intimacy, gender roles, and the challenges of modern relationships. He concludes by examining the impact of mental illness on individuals' coping strategies and their ultimate relationship with death.


Myths of One Night Stands and Casual Sex (Full Text in DESCRIPTION)

Casual sex is linked to negative mental health outcomes, but only in certain kinds of people, not in everyone. People who were drunk or who were drugged during the encounter, people who acted under peer pressure and didn't feel that they had any autonomy, people with conservative or traditional or religious upbringing and the moral code that prohibits and prescribes casual sex, people in societies with such morals, where sex is a sacred union in male and female, people who, via casual sex, had violated promises, boundaries, rules and vows that they have made to themselves, violated their personal integrity or promises, boundaries, rules and vows they have made to others, people who get attached to sex partners or develop long-term expectations of a relationship following a single sexual and also people above the age of 40.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2023, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2023
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy