Background

Narcissistic Autoerotic Dating (Talk with Genevieve DiNatale)

Uploaded 1/24/2022, approx. 1 hour 2 minute read

Well, I've been a big fan of yours, I've read your book, and I've been listening to you for a long time. Please don't diagnose me. I've got so many psychological disorders I don't even want to start. If you don't include that in your uploading of this, that would be great.

So what I'd like to know is, based on what I've read, I'm not a psychologist, so I can't really say per se 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 placate the child? Or the child scrapes his knee outside and the mother doesn't come and put a band-aid 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 has created.

Well, I would hope that these minor events would not create narcissists, so we're in deep 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 of, just could you hold on for a second? I keep doing this. I have to plug in my computer.

Right, we're plugged in.

Caveat number two is any breach of boundaries, 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, it's abuse.

Now 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, sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse, these are the classical forms, pampering 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, agentic 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 disorders.

So narcissism is not preordained. It's just one of a panoply of possible outcomes of childhood abuse and the vast majority of children who had experienced 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 had one to three adverse childhood experiences and yet grew up to be perfectly healthy, boundaried, normal, regulated, happy people and able to have perfectly stable relationships.

Can you explain how the narcissist doesn't evolve beyond autoeroticism to object love? Why does that take place?

He never does.

I don't know where you got that notion from.

Narcissists remain autoerotic for life. 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, via the agency of another person. They also use people as sources of narcissistic supply even in sex. So 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? Et cetera, 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's imagination, as a snapshot.

So how would the narcissist interact and say the metaverse? I did a story about pornography NFTs. So now porn's entered the metaverse. It's going to be one of the first things there.

What does a porn NFT symbolize, say, for a porn star? Because you said that adult content creators basically are the tip of the iceberg of narcissism of the internet and the internet itself is just manifest of narcissism.

I wouldn't go that far, but of course there are manifestations of narcissism on the internet and of the internet, for example, social media.

And narcissism is all pervasive and ubiquitous. It's a mental phenomenon. It's a physical phenomenon. It's an organizing principle. It 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, it's all over. It's all pervasive. So it's on the internet as well.

Pornography, by definition, is an autoerotic trigger. It helps us to masturbate.

And when pornography will mesh and merge with artificial intelligence apps with sex bots, sex robots, and similar technologies, when pornography, for example, will become holographic, then there will be a convergence of pornography as an autoerotic 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 their needs fulfilled online and via the metaverse.

The metaverse is a very, very, very, another very dangerous phenomenon. Not because of pornography, not because of pornography, because it 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 bad sense. It would encourage us to migrate into what we call a paracosm.

A paracosm is a kind of fantasy which is all inclusive, self-contained, and creates an illusion of self-sufficiency. In other words, it will disincentivize us. It will take away the last remaining incentives to be in touch with other people.

And the metaverse will encourage us to become solipsistic and, in a way, psychopathic. Psychopathic in the sense that we will become defiant 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. They cannot be tailored.

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 if guys want to just get laid or whatever, they can go to the sex robots. And then if they want intimacy, they might actually go out onto 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 in short-term and long-term.

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. These are people who have pseudo-relationships, which last a few months or a few years. Then they move in between. The marriage rate, 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 probably doesn't include the pizza delivery men, but still.

So we are heading towards atomization and isolation, which are technologically enabled and empowered. And the technology is catering to our wishes and needs. It's not that the technology is creating these things. The technology is reflecting the demand. It's demand driven. It's not supply driven.

So there's a demand for this. People want to be alone. People discovered the joy of solitude, the joy of aloneness.

I'm sorry, not the joy of loneliness, the joy of aloneness.

And it's addictive. It's very addictive because you have to make enormous compromises to be with another person. People are irritating. People are beyond that. I mean, who wants to be with other people? It's horrible if you can avoid it.

I hear you on that.

Relationships are awful. I never got married or anything.

But I thought for men, but I thought intimacy was sex for men. So that's what they're conflated. It's not necessarily the same thing for women.

So I mean, how is there no intimacy for males at this point?

No, men definitely do not identify sex with intimacy. Women do. Men are opportunistic and they would have sex with any woman who is available. They don't even know the names of the women in 20% of the cases. And they are totally sub-centered and auto-erotic in bookups and one-night stands, which is why 10% of women experience orgasm in one-night stands compared to 75% of women in committed relationships. And that's why women regret bookups much more than men.

Because the sex is bad, not because of anything moral. I mean, simply sex sucks. The sex sucks. It's terrible.

Because men are sub-centered. Simply they're selfish. They 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.


Now, women had two choices, either succumb and become sex slaves essentially, which some of them do, or become even more toxic than men, which a 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.

So women are becoming more narcissistic and more psychopathic in an attempt to become, to out men, men, to become more men than men, that's 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 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 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. That's the only place where muscles still count. Muscles don't count anymore anywhere, not even in agriculture. So the only place where muscles count is in the bedroom.

And so men exercise muscles over women. They essentially 27% of first days end in rape. Another 23% end in 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. That's 35%. That's how bad it is.

So who needs this shit?

You have metaverse sex and you're safe. You have Netflix, you have a cat, you have your metaverse sex with the most gorgeous guy, you know, and end of story. No incentive to meet someone else.

Yeah, I know.

I hear on the relationship things. I think unless you meet 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 not even try.

So can you explain the sadomasochism of the narcissist?

So the superego is a sadist and then it causes narcissistic injury to the narcissist when the narcissist becomes intimate with the narcissistic supply source, right? So what is this kind of dynamic between the sadism and masochism? And also as an aside, how does this play into the OCD of narcissists?

I've noticed this. There is an obsessive compulsiveness that extends beyond just doing 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. Sorry, no.

You can't possibly talk as long as I do.

I think a great way to look at narcissism as 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.

The narcissist feels helpless because he's a child. He's unable to predict the behavior of the adults around him. He is subjected to all kinds of infringements and intrusions and so on.

So what the child does, some children do, they invent a deity, they invent a divinity. That divinity is the false self. It's a primitive God.

And like every other primitive God, it is very demanding. It is omniscient. It is omnipotent. It's perfect. It's brilliant like every God. And it is everything the child is not. So it's invulnerable. It's impermeable. It's strong, infinitely strong and so on.

So there's this God. And like again, every primitive divinity like the monarch, 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 false self is this new fangled divinity. And the false self becomes a lifelong companion of the narcissist and gradually supplants the narcissist.

And what remains of the narcissist is a giant black hole. A void, an emptiness. We call it the schizoid empty core.


So now the narcissist is autoerotic, but 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 hypersexed.

In the initial phase of the relationship, the narcissist loved bonds, grooms, and he's hypersexed. And that's a promise for the future. It's a wrong promise. 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. So there's a shared fantasy, which is a kind of a cult, two member cult.

And the narcissist is a leader of a cult and the intimate partner is the only follower and worshiper 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. He 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, criticize him, abandon 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 persecutory object. She becomes an enemy. She challenges his mental sanity.

So he wants her gone. He wants her 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 narcissist has to do with self-destructiveness and self-punishment.

The narcissist had internalized a view of himself as a bad 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 bad unworthy, worthless object.

So he punishes himself in a variety of ways. He has an inferiority complex and he 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 punish himself.

So 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. I'm going to push your 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. They end up as each other's mothers.

And at some point 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 idealizer.

And then abruptly he withdraws it. He withdraws everything. He's gone. He's avoidant. On the contrary, he's 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. He's 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 succeed, if you continue to love him despite all the horrible negating, vitiating abuse that is inflicting on you, then 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.

Like towards the, 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 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. Dead people don't hurt him. Dead people don't challenge him. The deader you are, the more likely he would be attached to you.

So the narcissist's attachment and bonding depending on your ability to kill yourself, 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 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.

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 happens again, that you know your place, that you know your tomb, you're allotted 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 his life.

Now we have clinical terms for this. It's called destrudo, the opposite of libido. And it's the force of death, thanatic force, nevermind all this.

There is one situation where the narcissist is exposed to his own destructive impulses, and that's called narcissistic mortification. It's 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.

The narcissist as a child is very ashamed because he'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.

And so in the process of narcissistic mortification, 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. And he just, he recasts and refrains 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 he's just trying to fix the world.

Narcissists 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 superman.

So 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 have 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 stratagems 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 that they had failed to deliver some promises or consequences.

But these promises and consequences are exclusively theirs. They're never the partners.

The narcissist internalizes the partner, creates an internal object, an 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 introject, agrees on goals with the introject, creates a joint life with the introject, and then he's shocked when you disagree. And then he would feel very guilty because he had failed to manipulate the introject properly.

So it's more shame than guilt.

I'm sorry, a narcissist wouldn't feel guilt for cheating on his wife, for instance.

So they're immoral.

They're amoral. Psychopaths are immoral. Psychopaths are 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 amoral.


Now, of course, narcissists are self-justifying. In other words, they seek, like everyone else, egosyntony. 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.

And 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 need help 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. The 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 contributing. 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. Narcissists 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.

Can you 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 unobtrusive. The chaos could be kind of subtle and very difficult to detect, but it's always there.

Narcissists maintain 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.

Psychopaths 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's critically dependent on other people, and he resents this 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, so he has a stable marriage.

But something must be stable. It could be his friendships. It 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's hyperstable because he needs the stability to avoid the separation insecurity, and he needs the 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 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?

Psychbots have no conscience. They have no empathy. They lack and they miss the multiplicity of psychological constructs. For example, they have disrupted ego boundary functions.

The psychopaths are a train wreck. Psychopaths are as removed from human, from what it is to be human as possible.

Psychopaths, therefore, are goal, are totally 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 goal. The goal could be sex, goal could be money, goal could be collection, goal could be anything.

And, but not all psychopaths are impulsive. Actually, the minority of psychopaths are impulsive. It is 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 a tiny minority of psychopaths.

The overwhelming vast majority of psychopaths are high functioning. Many of them are pillars of the community. They're overrepresented among chief executive officers of Fortune 500 companies. I worked on Wall Street, just FYI.

I thought the whole financial crisis of 2008 was caused by psychopathy. I got out of the mental hospital and I got hired on Wall Street three months later. Just bona fide proof. It was obvious.

We have all psychopathic sectors. Medicine is infested with psychopaths.

Oh, yeah.

Oh, definitely.

Would you say doctors, not to overgeneralize, but doctors, they seem to be more narcissistic than psychotic.

For example, surgeons, there's an overrepresentation of psychopaths among surgeons and neuroscientists. There's baby conducted studies about the about psychopathy in corporate world and we have studies by Dutton and others. So 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.

So this is the distinction between these two.

But narcissists, as opposed to psychopaths, don't chaotize everything. A psychopath could reach a position, for example, become a president of a country or become a chief executive officer and so on. And he would chaotize. 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 is a very clear distinction between the two.

But a psychopath is a narcissist, but a narcissist isn't necessarily a psychopath, right?

I mean, that's distinctly not true.

Psychopaths and narcissists share a single trade of cognitive distortion known as grandiosity.

Some psychopaths are comorbid with narcissists. So they have both diagnoses. Some narcissists have both diagnoses and they are known as psychopathic narcissists or malignant narcissists.

But the nonsense online that all psychopaths and narcissists, how 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 academe, all the studies we've ever made on narcissists and psychopaths.

So 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 what about the borderline?

Okay, so is this kind of like a sexist, people say, oh, it's a sexist diagnosis and so on. Can you explain how this is purely the secondary psychopath is purely attributed or largely attributed to women?

First of all, it's quite true that certain diagnoses were sexist at the beginning. But then in 1973, 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, it's 50-50, 50% of borderlines are men and 50% are women. So we're no longer, we're not only considered a woman's affliction. Same with narcissism, by the way. Narcissism was considered to be a male problem. But it's no longer true. 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 sexes equally, regardless of what it is.

Now, about secondary psychopathy.

This is a social 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 sex, the weaker sex, so to speak. They were subjugated, they were enslaved, they were maltreated. They still are in vast walls of the globe. They still are.

So they had the weapons of the weak. They were passive aggressive, for example. They never expressed aggression openly. They didn't dare.

And 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 who happens to be a woman, if she happens to be a woman, and she would need to express aggression, because she feels rejected or humiliated or 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. A female borderline would tend to react in a secondary way as a secondary psychopath. It's a psychopath whose behavior is tempered to some extent by empathy and emotions. So it's less defined, less reckless, less vicious, less cruel, less aggressive, less violent than a primary psychopath.

So it's a gender thing. It's just that women had been conditioned and socialized 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 supplies.

So they're like women. They would attempt to be narcissists and would become borderline because there was no validation, no way to obtain supply, because they wouldn't be a covert narcissist, because they'd have to be in a relationship with a narcissist to be covert.

So I mean, why the sudden change here?

First of all, no, you don't have to be in a relationship with a narcissist to be covert. A subspecies of covert, a certain type of covert known as inverted narcissist has to be in a relationship with a narcissist to express her covert grandiosity.

Women did obtain supply. They obtained supply within the household. They obtained supply from their husbands and from the girlfriends and from their extended families and so on and so forth.

But it was not full-fledged narcissistic supply, because they didn't have the premature and the affirmation of society at large.

So 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 a 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, Agatha Christie, the old women.

So there was a way to obtain supply in a socially acceptable way. In other words, women channel their narcissism in a socially constructive way. They use their narcissism to build and to create, while men leverage their narcissism to destroy.

And so this is why women are on the ascendants 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, 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 saw, which is a form of creativity. You had to create, you had to create. You were told as a woman, if you want to be admired, adulated, I mean, 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, this gave them the enormous advantage in today's environment, because in today's environment, we are constructively oriented. It's all about building things, creating things, putting things together, creating networks, networking and being empathic.

So these are all female, 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 under educated, 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're engaged in violence nine times more than women are. They're retards. They have nothing to contribute to current modern society. And they're 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.

But 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, 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, women are getting, they're moving up now that we can actually educate ourselves and actually, you know, move on.

Patriarchy is dying. So of course, it was going to take 200 years. This is not something that's going to take 20 years. But patriarchy is dying. And the vast majority of men are under educated, underpaid, unemployed, and unprepared for the modern society.

These men still make in the US, they makes women, a white woman makes 70 cents to the dollar of every, that's not true.

That's a myth.

Women are less likely to be promoted.

That's not true. Adjusted to time worked, women make 92 cents to the dollar. By 2030, women will make 103 cents to the dollar, more than men.

Yeah, 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 dates back to the 70s and 80s.

It's no longer true. It used to be true, of course. It's no longer true.

There are some glass ceilings that women hadn't broken, for example, in the tech industry, women are massively underrepresented. But that's true for many other minorities, for example, Blacks or Hispanics.

Yes. So there's a problem with minorities. It's not limited to women.

Now, women are not a minority. They happen to be the majority numerically.

Women are a minority, definitely.

By power, they consider power, the minority.

Yes.

So there are 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.

Women are taking over. I mean, it's not beginning of a debate. Women are taking over. Men are obsolete. There's only one 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 sluts in this environment because men rule. This is the only place, 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 the 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 days and hookups.

Why women do this, I have no idea.

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, he might stick around.

Why would you want the guy to stick around?

I personally don't. I think that's part of the motivation.

And more women want to get laid. You've got to be the keeper of the morality, and then the guys can 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.

This is the only field.

They have a biological predisposition to lie and to be immoral with respect to getting access to higher quality women, or any women. So guys have all these games they play, and they can trick the savviest woman in a social situation into sex. And it often turns out to be a semi-rape situation. I think that's what happens with a lot of men.

And what's the matter with women? They are retards? They don't realize that guys are lying? Or what? What's the point?

No. I just feel like sometimes with women, 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'll talk to you for years just for the opportunity to hook up with you once for a hit and run. And it's hard to tell. This guy I've been talking to for three years. We're going to hang out. Maybe he actually wants to get to know me. Maybe he really wants a relationship or friends. It's hard to draw this kind of demarcation between when are we dating and what his intentions are. Because I'm supposed to sit around and wait for a guy's intentions. I'm not really talking about that.

I'm 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 it's what happens. I don't understand the process here, but if you set up boundaries, at least in my personal experience, they just go away.

You have boundaries up. You go on a date. You never hear from 90% of the guys again. It's always a one-time thing. It's like you avoid that. It's a filter.

You need a filter.

Women don't filter. They are promiscuous in the sense that they are indiscriminate.

I don't think women are indiscriminate. I think that women are desperate to get into relationships and they want relationships.

I agree with you.

Why?

They want to have kids because of biological clock. They want to have kids.

Very few women want to have kids.

I'm sorry to break the news to you. Less than one-third of women want to have kids.

I thought only, there's only like, well, I guess only 29% of the world is having children now.

But I do think that a lot of women, there's at least a drive.

The evolutionary biology is gauging a lot of these activities. I think that a lot of women want to get married and a lot of it's financial. They don't want to be alone. They want to shack up with the guy living by yourself as a woman isn't fun.

I think there's societal factors that overlay these other things as well.

But I also think no one teaches anyone how to date. They don't do good, at least in the US.

There are dating assignments in Boston University and so dating assignments. You get credits. You study and get grades.

That's a class. I mean, I'm happy for anyone who does that.

They don't really tell people how to date, what you're supposed to do. But there's kind of like, sex is this kind of open context where there's no rules and it's not really an environment and you don't know what's going to happen. And consent is a wishy-washy subject.

So there's no defined boundary around anything anyway. And it's like, if you want to go out and have fun, it's like, you either have to succumb to BS or it's nothing. Or you're like, yeah, I want to get to know you. What's your name?

And then they run away.

So many women choose celibacy. 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 avoidance now. And there's men going their own way, women going their own way. And that's it.

The inter-gender situation had never been worse. Never.

Absolutely never.

This is the most horrible period for dating, I think, in human history.

I've 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 so it's a bloody mess.

I mean, I am so happy. I am not 20 years old. So happy. You can't imagine. I would hate to be 20 years old in this world.

Would you want to get married in the 50s though? In the 1950s US, you meet the first person you meet that you sort of like, you marry them, and then you just sort of stay together. That's another myth.

That's not great.

That's actually another myth.

People in the 1950s dated more people than today. Yes, comes as a shock. How is it possible with online dating?

I think it's not possible.

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 apps are bullshit because what you do in dating apps, you waste time. Less than one in 300 agrees to meet. And then 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 how did the women keep that under wraps? How did they get married after that?

Men can go out and have their tryst and go back to being a family man. Women can't do that.

This is a fact.

Young people today have the least sex in the past six years, and the fewer, fewest sexual partners ever in the last six years. This is a fact.

So do you think this is because of a lack of gender rules or structure?

No, because you have technology, you have pornography, you have self-sufficiency, you don't need anyone. 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?

I think that's okay. I mean, you can go to other places, you know, at least some people just, you have your own place just for the purpose of bringing some guy back. Don't fight. 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 age 35, 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 for up to four years without sex.

The majority of people under age 35 did not have sex the previous year, according to studies, repeated studies, peer center, other studies. They don't have sex simply a whole year before.

That's the vast majority of people.

So, you think that's bad? I mean, I don't think that's necessarily bad. I think the world's overpopulated. I mean, I think it's fine.

And also because of STDs. I like you because you keep bringing 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 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 financed the pensions of the old.

But now we don't have young people. So, all pension schemes around the world, they're in big trouble because there are no contributions by the young and they cannot pay out to the old.

Social security in the United States, for example, is in dire straits. So, we need 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 industrial.

In the developing countries, the situation is still above the replacement rate, but the collapse in growth rates, the collapse in childbirth rates, in the developing world, is much faster than in the developed world.

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 what I'm doing.

Yeah, I don't want to take up, I find it fascinating.

I wouldn't agree because past crises, 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 an 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 a plague or a pandemic or a war, there was actually an increase in childbirth.

Yeah. 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 auto-erotic, people not interacting, people not really being able to interact on levels that are satisfying anymore?

There's no direct benefit, you know? I mean, I don't know.

What is it psychologically?

If you ask the whining youngsters of the Gen Z and millennials, they will tell you that the economy is bad, this, that.

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 people. People had children in concentration camps, in the Holocaust. That's nonsense. All these excuses are nonsense.

When you talk to young people and you 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 II. You can't afford it 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, that's three 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.

This is statistics, simply. Majority of men settle down this age. Women develop a desire, a yearning for settling down after age 27, 28, and it reaches the peak at 30, 31.

Then they become desperate until age 35, and after 35, they give up. They're no longer interested.

That's the picture. The end result is that when men want to commit, women don't want to commit. When women want to commit, there are no men around.

We have about 50% of population, or singles, 31% of population, lifelong singles. 21% of relationships, marriages, I'm sorry, sexualists, and most relationships are much shorter than they used to be. We have many, many relationships of six months and four months, two months, pseudo relationships.

It's a bad story out.


Can I ask you about online dating now that we're on this topic?

If I'm taking up too much of your time, you just shut me up.

I'm a huge fan of yours. I think you're fascinating, anyway.

So with online dating, it seems like people get an ego boost, right?

So you're there, you see, okay, I'm validated, I've had these contacts, and you have these 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, 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 one's self out there?

I mean, I don't understand the phenomenon.

There are numerous reasons for being on dating apps. There are quite a few studies by now on dating apps.

Women and men have different motivations for being on dating apps. Men are on dating apps for casual sex. Regardless of what they say, by the way, women are on dating apps with a desperate hope for a relationship. Never mind what they say, by the way.

And there's a total mismatch. So typically, there's a ratio of one to ten for every ten matches with men. I mean, women are much more selective. They're like ten 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 this is a social medium.

Exactly like, I don't know, Facebook or Instagram. More like Instagram. No one has any real expectation to have sex or to have a relationship, definitely, when you come on. I mean, maybe you have such an expectation if you're a newbie, if you're an obvious. But after one month on a dating app, Tinder, for example, you realize it's bullshit. It's a waste of time. I mean, 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 apps suck as dating when it comes to dating. They suck. Absolutely suck. But they're great. They're 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 sext 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. And in one of 100 such meetings, he would end up having sex. And in one of 70 such meetings, 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 half of all marriages start with a hookup. So hookups do lead to relationships and marriages.

But the problem is, you need to hook up with a hell of a lot of people to end up in a relationship, let alone a marriage. 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 seriously with you, committed, invested in the long term.

All these technological advances don't mesh well with real life. 80% of all serious relationships, marriages included, that's 80%, 8-0. To this very day, this moment, have to do with introductions. You were introduced to someone by friends and family. That's 80%.

Introductions 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 app.

Simple.

Social media infidelity. This is something I wanted to write about. I've noticed on Twitter, it's 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're 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 them back, then they'll send the messages and they'll be doing this and that. They're all married, okay? 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-mastimatory 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. Or are they secretly 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 a woman, and I repeat any interaction with a woman, is geared towards securing sex. End of story.

Your grandmother was right. Men just want to get in your pants.

Now, this even has a clinical name. It's called sexual overperception. Men interpret every female gesture, every female word, every kindness, every remark as an invitation to a 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 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 there are gateways 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 trajectory.

So even when a man has sex with a total stranger, she would create a fantasy of this total stranger where he is, I don't know, amazing, intelligent, funny, witty. 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 whole body. That's why women keep sending you dick pics.

Well, I thought that was wasn't that a paraphilia, though?

No, men react to visuals and they react to body parts. So men would react to boobs or vaginas very powerfully. They would orgasm.

So that's why they send you dick pics because they think you're the same. They think it would react to the same way.

Oh, that's okay. 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 visual pornography consumers are women. That's one-third.

But if you add to this pornographic text, 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. He's mysterious, he's amazing, he's witty, he's funny, he's attractive, I don't know what, and then go to bed with him 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 man, 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 women. 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 are just the latest incarnation of a trend that is at least 100 years old.

So married men liking all those women on Twitter and Instagram. That's the equivalent of going into local for checking out the 40-year-old boyfriend.

They don't care. They don't give a hoot about you, 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 for six hours. They would pretend to be interested in you. 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 aggressive.

I just thought I was captivating, you know. I guess I wasn't.

So this is it. 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. And it is this mismatch between perceptions of the other gender or other sex, expectations, sexual scripts, social scripts. There's an enormous mismatch between men and women.

And never as large today, never as large. I mean, it's the largest ever. There's such a gap, such an abyss, such a chasm between men and women today, because they're not playing by the same rulebook. They're not playing. They don't share 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 people, I mean, people misread each other. They misinterpret each other. It creates a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of anger, a lot of frustration.

And people who are less, who have less impulse control, they end up sexually assaulting or raping or concentration is really bad, really bad.

So would you say that you are religious? Would you say that religion is good, that it had a good impact on sexuality and, you know, and curbing, you know, marriage was good? Or what's your opinion?

So you said earlier that you like gender roles and you thought that gender roles are actually good for defining positive relationships?

More, not gender roles, sexual scripts, sexual scripts and social scripts. It's 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 behave as a male. And social scripts have to do with social expectations and expectations from each other.

Gender roles are something completely different. Gender roles are socialized and they are used actually 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 is very bad because it leaves everyone to fend off for themselves and to reinvent the wheel in every single interaction.

And not everyone is 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, not societal, not cultural, but biology, that's okay.

But if you don't, then you have to negotiate and there's a lot of, there are many possibilities for miscommunication, misunderstanding. It 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 modify 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 utter insane inane nonsense, even if they do have beneficial effects on society at large and individual conduct more 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.

Hasn't worked for me. I tried other ways, it didn't work.

So I'm absolutely against religion. I'm an agnostic. I don't know if there is a God or isn't a God, I don't even have an idea what is a God. But I'm an agnostic, but I'm definitely against religion, which is the assumption or the pronouncement that there is a God for sure. And that the very fact that or alleged fact that there is a God should dictate behaviors and I think that's delusional disorder. I think it's very close to psychosis, it's mental illness.

It's only that we are politically correct, and we don't have the balls to lock up all these not- visits.

Is there anyone who claims that there is a God or angels or otherwise is 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.

Yeah, I think people won't be able to watch beyond this point.

Yeah, you're such a big fan. I love your book. You're brilliant. You know, I'd love to maybe if I can interview you sometime in the future, I'd love to be able to talk to you again. So it was a privilege. I look forward to putting this up. I'm going to be launching my site 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.

Thank you so much for your time. You're brilliant. You're my favorite YouTuber and have a great day.

Thank you. You too. Take care. Bye. Bye.

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

lovebombinggroomingLove Bombing and Grooming: In Crosshairs of Narcissists, Sadists, Psychopaths

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the concept of demon possession and its relation to narcissism. He explores the historical and linguistic context of demon possession, comparing it to the vocabulary used in psychiatry. He delves into the psychological traits and behaviors associated with demon possession, drawing parallels to narcissism, psychopathy, and borderline personality disorder. Additionally, he examines the impact of brain injuries on personality disorders and the role of the false self in the narcissist's psyche.


Your Threatening Love: Why You Stay, Why He Abuses You

In this video, Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the mispronunciation of the word "serotonin" and the misconception of Eve giving Adam an apple. He then delves into the reasons why narcissists and psychopaths abuse their partners and why the partners stay in such relationships, exploring concepts such as core complex, sadomasochistic fit, and toxic coupling. Vaknin also touches on the psychological dynamics of aggression and violence in these relationships, and the role of mentalization in understanding and empathizing with others.


Narcissist-Borderline: Take My Shadow, Give Me Love

Professor Sam Vaknin reads and reacts to comments on his YouTube channel, discussing the experiences of individuals in relationships with narcissists. He delves into the psychosexual behaviors of narcissists, their resistance to change, and their inability to maintain long-term relationships. He also explores the concepts of object constancy, ego incongruency, and the dynamics of borderline and narcissistic relationships.


7th Extinction Engineered by Psychopath Sociosexuals, Narcissist Asexuals

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the distinctions between psychopathy and narcissism, particularly in the context of sexuality and relationships. He delves into the concepts of social sexuality and proposes a new category, dysregulated social sexuality. Vaknin also explores the impact of psychopathy and narcissism on modern dating and relationships, highlighting the prevalence of transactional sex and its correlation with dark triad traits. He criticizes the societal shift towards toxic masculinity and promiscuity, and the resulting confusion between love, intimacy, and codependency. Vaknin ultimately paints a bleak picture of the current state of relationships and sexuality, attributing it to the influence of psychopathic and narcissistic behaviors.


Coming to Grips with Your Narcissist (with Coach Eleanor Schuyffel, Coaching Comeback)

The transcript is a conversation between Coach Eleanor, a therapist specializing in communication and relationships, and Professor Sam Vaknin, an expert on narcissism. They discuss various aspects of narcissism, including its development, the role of trauma, the grieving child within the narcissist, and the differences between narcissism and psychopathy. Vaknin explains the narcissistic cycle, the impact of narcissism on personal relationships, and the distinction between cerebral and somatic narcissists. He also touches on the cultural shift towards narcissistic and psychopathic traits being seen as positive adaptations.


Cuckolds, Swingers (Lifestyle), and Psychopathic Narcissists: Death of Intimacy?

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the psychodynamic background of psychopathic narcissism, the compromise of the malignant narcissist with their partner, and the psychology of cuckolds and swingers. He also explores the concept of intimacy and the prevalence of casual sex, swinging, and cuckoldry in modern society, and the impact of these practices on meaningful relationships.


Narcopath Leaders Took Over the World (4th International conference on Addiction Research & Therapy)

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the rise of narcissistic and psychopathic leaders, who embody the pathologies of their societies and cultures. These leaders foster a personality cult and often justify their actions through a sense of entitlement and grandiose fantasies. As their regimes come to an end, they often lash out at their own people, leading to a massive complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Vaknin argues that many nations have chosen prosperity over democracy, leading to authoritarian regimes that provide stability and security in exchange for citizens giving up certain freedoms.


INTERVIEW Narcissists, Psychopaths Are Among Us! (with MIKE CROSS)

Sam Vaknin discusses psychopathy and narcissism, emphasizing their lack of empathy and manipulation of others. He warns of the dangers of having such individuals in positions of power and suggests that Western society rewards traits associated with these disorders. He also discusses the potential for psychopaths and narcissists to rise to the top in certain civilizations, but remains optimistic about the future.


Narcissist’s Two Rejections Giving, Love, And Abuse

Professor Sam Vaknin delves into the relationship cycle with a narcissist, explaining the narcissist's perception of love, abuse, and rejection. He discusses the narcissist's internal struggle and the impact of repeated mortifications on the false self. Vaknin also explores the concept of self-love and its connection to loving others, drawing from the works of philosopher Soren Kierkegaard.


Narcissist Needs You to Fail Him, Let Go (with Azam Ali)

In this conversation, Sam Vaknin discusses the concept of narcissistic abuse and the dynamics of narcissistic relationships. He explains the narcissist's need for existence and the victim's hunger for love and intimacy, highlighting the irreconcilable nature of these two needs. He also emphasizes the importance of insight and empathy in understanding oneself and others.

Transcripts Copyright © Sam Vaknin 2010-2023, under license to William DeGraaf
Website Copyright © William DeGraaf 2022-2024
Get it on Google Play
Privacy policy