Where Have All the Wo/Men Gone?

Uploaded 5/15/2021, approx. 34 minute read

Where have all the women gone? Where are all the men? What happened? What happened to us?

What happened to gender roles? What happened to this magic between the sexes? What happened to this choreographed dance of approach and avoidance and delicate and subtle subterranean messages? What happened to courtship? What happened to flirting? What happened to flowers and to opening doors? What happened to our old-fashioned games, this play, that culminated in union? What happened to us?

To answer this question, we need to review the current scene.

No strings attached sex is today freely available from multiple women. Go on Tinder, go to a club, go to a pub, go to a bar, go to a party, and any number of women offer themselves freely, sexually, for the night. No strings attached, no attachment, no demands, no clinging, no neediness, no needs.

And of course, consequently, men no longer feel the need to invest in relationships, to commit to relationships, or to commit in any way. One night stands, including on first and only dates, hookups, these have become the dominant form of sexual practice in the West and now beyond. Agentic, usually drunk women, emancipated, liberated women who make their own choices, who pick up men.

So these agenic, drunk women now pick up men for casual sex the way men used to pick up easy women well into the 1960s.

And such emancipation and such equality among the genders is liberating. In many respects, it's laudable.

Both sexes should have equal access to decision making, to sexual decision making. Men should pick up women, women should pick up men. There's nothing wrong with that.

But women then proceeded to adopt a masculine self-identity. Women erase the differences in gender roles. Women upended sexual scripts, age old sexual scripts.

It's not a question of stereotypes. Stereotypes are bad. Gender stereotypes are obstructive, counterproductive. They hinder communication. They undermine proper interaction between the sexes.

So I'm not talking about stereotypes. I'm talking about gender roles and sexual scripts.

Women descended into dysregulated and defiant promiscuity.

And faced with such anarchy, faced with such chaos, men completely withdrew from the scene. Men are gone. Very few are left.

And so women have to compete for a much smaller number of men. And so women became more men-like, more narcissistic. And even I would say women became much more psychopathic.

Ask Minnie.

Militant radical feminists espoused precisely such an outcome.

A world where men are either gone and absent, or in the best case, they are sex toys. Sex toys for the night.

These feminists wanted women to be empowered, self-sufficient, and wanted patriarchal institutions, such as marriage and family, to be obliterated, erased from the scene.

And this dystopian view, this dystopian vision, came true. It's precisely what we have today.

But what women did not count on was the fact that sex throughout human history had been traded for goods and services. Sex was the currency between the genders. It was the coin of the land. It was the only denomination. It was a tradable commodity. Women provided sex. Men provided homes, income.

And then when women gained access to the labor market, when equality in wages was no longer a dream, when many glass ceilings had shattered, the trade took on other forms.

Women traded sex for emotional sustenance, for decor, for companionship, for love.

But still, sex never came as a no-string attached transaction. Sex was never commoditized and commodified.

It's the first time in human history where women are offering sex unbridled in a non-committed way, not asking for any investment from the male.

Very often, the parties go Dutch. The men don't even pay for the drinks.

And this was women's critical mistake, because the only thing that motivated men to create empires, to fight wars, to come up with technological inventions, to build civilizations and destroy them, to create homes, to raise families, to work, to work, to work. The only thing that motivated men to do all these things throughout history was the availability of sex.

And so women are giving away, freely, their only bargaining chip in the intergender game or intergender transaction.

And of course, men take what is offered. They avail themselves of the infinite supply of sex by very eager women or drunk women, or both.

But they have no incentive to reciprocate. They have no reason to carry it any further than in one night, or one week, or one month.

They avail themselves, they partake in the menu on offer, and then they go on to the next supplier, to the next available woman, who is brandishing her wares far and wide, free of charge.

That was a critical mistake by women.

And it undermines not only gender roles, it undermines not only stereotypical perceptions of men and women, it undermines not only sex, because sexual attraction is premised and predicated on a chase, on a conquest, and on this implicit transaction, long term transaction of procreation and family and home, even if it doesn't materialize, it's there in the air.

And the quality of sex crucially depends on this. The very fact of sexual attraction depends on this implicit vision of companionship for life, of creating a family, making a home.

And so it undermines, this new emancipated, liberated, agentic version of femininity, undermines sex itself.

And in the long run, this undermines civilization, and perhaps the survival of our species.

It's that bad. It's absolutely that bad. Birth rates, marriages, pregnancies are collapsing the world over.

And yes, we do need children. We do need children because populations are aging all over the world. 25%, 30% of the global population is above the age of 65. We need replacements urgently. We are on the verge of beginning to vanish as a species if we don't take care of it.

But why would a man create a family and have children? Why would he invest? Why would he waste away his life in jobs he doesn't want? Why would he create anything? If all he has to do is go to the nearest club and pick up the woman to the left, or the woman to the right, or the woman in front of him, and all three of them would give him what he wants free of charge that night. Why would he bother to do anything more than that?

And so their agenda accomplished, the radical militant feminists with their agenda accomplished, they said, this is the way to secure happiness for women.

But what had happened?

Anxiety, depression, suicide rates, substance abuse among women have skyrocketed. Quintupled. Do you hear me well? Quintupled, that's like 500% higher.

Women are not too happy, it seems, in this perfected feminist paradise without real stereotypical gender-rolled men.

Gender vertigo cuts both ways. Men don't know how to be men, but women don't know how to be women. And women increasingly try to compensate by becoming more and more men-like.

And so today we have unigender, a single gender with two sets of genitalia. And all the magic is gone, and all the future is gone. And there's no reason to have long-term relationships, and so there are none.

Lisa Wade describes in her studies how young people feign and signal casualness in sex also by getting intoxicated.

This had become the hegemonic, the dominant sexual script, by far the most dominant and widespread sexual practice among the young. The young don't have long-term relationships. The vast majority of them get drunk and have hookups, casual sex, one night stands.

And most of these youths, boys and girls alike, yes, boys also. They crave intimacy. They want to have relationships, but intimacy in relationships are considered to be bad taste, faux pas, and signifiers of revolting and ominous clinginess and neediness.

So not one of the young people dares to communicate openly about their needs and wishes. None of them dares to say, do you want to see me again? Can we have something? Are you up for a relationship?

They don't dare, because this is really bad taste. This signifies that you are clingy and needy and disgusting and revolting. Most of these youths deny their own needs and their own cravings.

And the alcohol, casual sex, and the inevitable sexual self-trashing, self-trashing, they serve to numb these young people's emotions. They serve to drown their recurrent disappointments, frustrations, and pain.

And the alcohol and the bodies of strangers help to resolve egodystonic cognitive dissonances. And the alcohol disinhibits.

Getting emotionally involved portends heartbreak. So only 6% of young people expect a second night stand.

But many of them fantasize. They impose on the dreary impersonal proceedings a narrative that caters to their denied emotional needs. We'll discuss fantasy a bit later.

And the intrusion of fantasy into casual sex renders the sex autoerotic, solipsistic. It's everyone on his own, even as there are two bodies in bed.

Only a small minority of participants of both genders actually orgasm in casual sex. Orgasm is extinct, especially among women.

It is a dystopian, barren landscape replete with extreme deficits in relationship skills and pervasive intimacy anorexia. Men play a part and women play a part.

But when I trace the history, the historical roots, it has to do much more with women than with men. The typical emancipated Western woman had gradually transmogrified into an imitative rendition of a somewhat psychopathic man. And the clinical term for this is the stalled revolution.

And men are reacting to this gender vertigo by adhering to either of the equally dysfunctional camps.

One camp is toxic, misogynistic or opportunistic masculinity. The dating coaches, MGTOWs, men going their own way, red pillers, incels. These are camps of disgruntled and in many cases mentally ill people. Mentally ill men, disgruntled or broken by the sudden kaleidoscopic, vertiginous shift in gender roles. And they give up on women, but they do so violently and aggressively and hatefully. This is one option.

The second option is complete withdrawal. Men had withdrawn. They had disappeared from the scene. Very few of them are still available for sex, let alone intimate relationships. And women find themselves competing for an ever shrinking pool of men. That is especially true in universities. And because they have to compete for these fewer and fewer men, women are pushed to extremes of sexual self-trashing promiscuity and misbehavior.

Studies have uncovered the stalled revolution. Women are increasingly describing themselves in hitherto traditional masculine terms. Women are adopting behaviors and traits that were once the preserve of stereotypical macho men. Many women in the West are aggressively defiant with their docile intimate partners, but at the same time, totally sexually self-trashing and submissive with abusive, disrespectful strangers, usually when they are drunk senseless or abuse substances.

This is a duality at home with a man who loves you. You're one kind of woman, aggressive, defiant, agentic, self-sufficient, self-catering and self-contained, equal partner, maybe even superior. That's with your intimate, with your mate.

But when you go out, when you go out on a date or when you go out on a hookup to pick up some men in some pub or bar or club, you become self-trashing, sexually totally available, submissive. And no matter how abusive and disrespectful the strangers you come across, you give them what they want. This duality is amazing.

It's like women are trying to reenact the old sexual script, the ancient gender roles, but with total strangers because they don't have to meet these strangers afterwards. They don't have to see them again. What happened there stays there. The shame is buried, the shame of not wanting to be an emancipated, liberated, agentic woman, wanting just to be a woman.

And these women give to predatory strangers freely what they adamantly deny to their spouses, intimate partners, mates, both sexually and emotionally. They withhold it home and they provide it freely elsewhere. Again, usually to total strangers in hookups, drunk hookups and so on. I think it's a way of having the cake and eating it at home with someone who is likely to be in your life in the long term.

When you play the agentic, emancipated, liberated, strong, masculine woman with a stranger with whom you share one night and one bed, someone you will never see again, you feel free to be yourself.

And when women undergo these encounters, they play a much more traditional gender role. In one night stands and so on, women ironically are less agentic, less strong, less emancipated and less liberated than in their long term relationships.

This bizarre duality is part of the power play in the intimacy war zones that such women call relationships, where the conflict between the genders is unfolding in full force. It is in relationships that the war rages on between the new man and the new woman.

No wonder the vast majority, overwhelming vast majority of relationships of all kinds, marriages included, disintegrate faster than usual, faster than in historical terms.

Sexual experiences can be agentic. In other words, when you make the choice, they can be negotiated or they can be coerced.

In a sexual relationship, you can play the role of a playmate and have recreational fun. You can be a partner in a reciprocated, intimate and emotional relationship, or you can be a sex object, sluttish and dysregulated, including with unwanted sex partners.

And studies have shown and are showing that a growing number of women are actually experiencing the wrong kind of sex, the wrong kind of interactions.

Most of them have sex outside an intimate dyad, an intimate relationship. Most of them have sex with strangers and this sex is very briefly negotiated and the question of agency is very open, is not clear. And in many cases, they end up with unwanted sex partners because they're drunk or because they're afraid to be raped or because they're sexually assaulted.

So, the situation out there is really, really bad. Anyone who has been to the dating scene, anyone who has gone on dating apps knows what I'm talking about. It's a cesspool. It's an absolute wasteland. It's the mother of all dystopias.

Agentic sex is when you initiate sex and control its circumstances. Negotiated sex is when both you and your partner reach a consensus on what sex acts to engage in and in which circumstances. And coerced sex is when you engage in sex because you had felt that you had no other choice and that you stood to lose a lot if you refrained from having sex. And this, of course, includes non-consensual sex. And regrettably, a growing percentage of the sexual experiences of young women are actually coerced.

The rest are recreational fun, agentic, one-night stands usually, hookups. A small proportion of the sexual experiences of women is within committed long-term intimate relationships.

What is the psychological background to all this?

I have described until now the social movement, the social anthropological background to these developments, these unfortunate developments. What's the psychological background?

Women were told that they should become agentic. They should assume agency. They should become self-efficacious. They should make decisions. They should have choices. And they should make choices.

Now, of course, this is a very laudable message. It's correct. It's true. And both men and women should support it and help to realize it. Women should have decision-making powers equal to men, and women should make choices as much and as many as men. No question about it. Women are equal to men as human beings, as persons, and they should be treated equally in every possible way.

But women fed by militant radical feminist writings, the academic establishment, women went astray. They misconstrued agency.

Women today identify agency with the freedom to act, with free will, with unbridled choice. But that's not agency. That's defiance. That's reactance. That's psychopathy. Psychopaths value their freedom to act. Psychopaths value unconstrained choice. Psychopaths value the unbridled exercise of free will above all else.

And this proclivity is known as reactance or defiance, and it involves contumaciousness, the hatred of authority, propriety, rules of conduct, and social mores.

When psychopaths are forced to choose between self-efficacious, disciplined, restrained, or self-defeating, or even self-destructive, in your face, my way or the highway behaviors, psychopaths always choose the latter.

So, if a psychopath has a choice between restrained, disciplined behavior, which leads to outcomes, favorable outcomes, good outcomes, long-term outcomes, when he has this as one option, and the other option is in your face, defiance, I'm going to do whatever I want to do, my way or the highway, psychopaths always choose the second option, even if it means self-defeat and self-destruction.

And this is what women are doing today. Women are confused. They misconstrue decision-making power and choice-making. They misconstrue this as total free will, unbridled choice, no restraint. I can do anything I want. It's my way or the highway. Women are becoming, and had become, psychopathic.

Ironically, as the word implies, reactance is determined exogenously from the outside. It amounts to a panicky loss of control over impulses and urges, anxieties and feared threats.

The psychopath is incapable of learning or modifying himself or his behaviors. The psychopath perceives any attempt to tell him what to do, any law, any regulation, any rule, any modification, any process of learning, the psychopath perceives this as restrictive impositions on his liberty.

And the same goes for any form of analysis, advice, love, insight or intimacy. They are all perceived by the psychopath as intrusive, invading, disrespectful. They constitute threats, not potentials for growth or happiness.

The psychopath's mantra is, I just want to be left alone. I need no one. In my dealings with people, I am strong, proud, agentic, self-efficacious and self-sufficient. I'm not meek. I'm not a victim to be pitied. I make my life. I make my choice.

But this is, of course, fantasy. Because reality always constrains you, even when you're a psychopath or maybe especially when you're a psychopath. It's a fantasy.

So women had gravitated. They went through a series of phases.

First, they had adopted a masculine identity that is documented in numerous studies. Women describe themselves today in masculine terms. So first, they became men.

Then they became narcissistic, especially women who had perceived themselves as victims of trauma by men, women who perceived themselves as having been traumatized by men, as victims of men.

So they became narcissistic and a bit borderline, the compensating, acting out. And then they became psychopathic. And the psychopath has this grandiose fantasy that his choice is his and only his, and it's unlimited. He's willing to pay the price.

But fantasy tends to metastasize. Fantasy co-ops and hijacks every resource available to the individual.

Emotions affect cognitions, memories, psychosexuality, even one's identity. It's all hijacked by fantasy. It's a form of cancer. It's mental cancer. Fantasy is addictive. Fantasy is anxiolytic. It reduces anxiety. Fantasy is safe. It buttresses the fantasts, the person who fantasizes, buttresses his or her grandiosity. It leads to self-idealization, which psychopaths and narcissists often engage in.

Actually, each of these dimensions of personality and functioning is mediated via the fantasy, colored by the fantasy, distorted by the fantasy.

And gradually, the more you spend time in fantasy, all direct contact, all direct interface, all direct communication with your inner experience, your psychological work, all of these are lost. You are cut off from everything that's happening inside you, from your internal processes. Your emotions are amputated. Your cognitions are distorted via cognitive filters, deficits, and biases.

And so, the more you spend time in fantasy, the more you become a robotic zombie. This robotic zombie emerges from within the fantastic space regulated by the narrative of the fantasy. And the emotional investment, the cathexis in fantasy is total. It comes at the expense of the person's reality testing.

We can easily spot the captives of fantasy because they avoid reality and they opt for substitutive action. They self-report these victims of fantasy, self-report emotions, hopes, wishes, and dreams, but these self-reports starkly contradict the actions of these individuals.

The individual says one thing but acts completely differently. Such a person may say, for example, I crave intimacy, sex, and love in a committed relationship, but the very same person chooses mostly objectifying sex with strangers as a dominant practice. His intimate liaisons dissolve and devolve into sexlessness, cheating, and dissolution.

Such a person who claims that he wants, he craves intimacy and sex and love in a committed relationship. Such a person also selects only inappropriate and incompatible and therefore temporary mates, mates who do not constitute a threat to the integrity and longevity of the fantasy by diverging from it, by undermining the idealized largely imagined snapshot.

Now these are all processes common to narcissists and psychopaths, and they can be spotted in agentic, liberated, emancipated Western women and more and more women around the world, because they now occupy a psychopathic, fantastic space where they are making the choices.

They are in control. They do everything. They pick up men. They make money. They don't need anyone. They're self-contained and self-sufficient. They are totally agentic. They have total agency, self-autonomy, and independence, and to some extent this is both true and welcome.

It's the way it should be, but they've gone too far.

Their brand of autonomy is malignant now, is psychopathic, and so they've lost everything.

They lost themselves as women, and they've lost men. Men don't want this. Men don't want them.

Men are gone. It's a men-less world, and the few men out there are predators or losers.

This is the choice a typical woman faces today, between predators and losers. The good ones, the men of yesteryear, they are gone. They don't want anything to do with modern women, because modern women are not women. They're men. Not only are they men, but they're psychopathic men, and no one wants this, not even men.

Very often when you read literature, and definitely testimonials and anecdotal descriptions by feminist writers, there is a great confusion and conflation of psychosexuality and sexualization.

Psychosexuality is the sum total of an individual's sexual orientation, heterosexual, bisexual, bisexual, gay, whatever. Number one is sexual orientation.

Sexual preferences, conventional sex, kink, BDSM, group sex, exhibitionism, etc., and sexual practices and choices.

So psychosexuality is sexual orientation plus sexual preferences plus sexual practices and choices. With few exceptions, like pedophilia, psychosexuality is always healthy and always functional, but when you read feminist writings, especially militant radical feminist writings from the 1960s onwards, 1970s onwards, and when you read texts in psychology, paparists, books, influenced by feminism, there is clearly a total confusion between psychosexuality and sexualization.

Psychosexuality is always healthy and functional.

Sexualization is never either healthy or functional. Never. Sexualization is pathological. It involves the use of sex acts to express and amplify underlying mental health issues and pathologies. It involves the misattribution of sexual content and sexual motivation to the wrong people in the wrong settings and circumstances.

Rape is an extreme example of sexualization. Self-trashing is another.

Sexualization often co-occurs with egregious and self-destructive substance abuse.

There are many ways to sexualize. I'll mention just two.

Number one, numbing emotions and disinhibiting oneself by consuming alcohol.

This leads to multiple cognitive and axiological dissonances, to anxiety, and to the activation of mostly infantile, regressive, primitive defense mechanisms. That's an example of sexualization.

Number two is sexual self-objectification.

Self-trashing is distinct from healthy or healthier promiscuity. Self-objectification, the outcomes are lifelong anxiety and depression and the abuse of alcohol and drugs to quell the underlying egodystony.

These two forms, alcohol, disinhibited sex and self-trashing, these are examples of sexualization.

One of the most disconcerting and at times infuriating aspects of mentally ill people, especially people with cluster B personality disorders, is that they mistake their sexualization for their psychosexuality. They identify their sexual acts as indicative of and comprising their psychosexuality when it's utterly untrue.

People with borderline personality disorder, for example, they sexualize.

They almost never have sex, actually. Same with histrionics, psychopaths, narcissists, schizoids, paranoid, schizotypals. These people don't have sex, not in the meaningful sense, not in the psychosexual sense.

Now, in borderline personality disorder, but not only in borderline personality disorder, also in secondary psychopathy, in narcissistic pathologies, there is an issue called identity disturbance.

I have transitioned now to cluster B personality disorders because I believe that the collective behavior of what we call agentic, emancipated, liberated, western women, the collective behavior, is essentially borderline.

I think what had happened is that women at first were exposed to the thrill and the discovery of agency, empowerment, validation, and that was very intoxicating. They had the pill so that they could have recreational sex. They felt free to pick up partners the way men used to.

So women were kind of intoxicated by their own newfound powers, and they became very narcissistic, and then they became psychopathic.

So I'm talking about Cluster B patients now, because I believe everything I say applies to the vast majority of modern, liberated, emancipated, agentic western women, because these women essentially had developed a collective pathology, and they are trying to cope with this pathology by drinking, doing drugs, becoming workaholics. In other words, via addictions. They're trying to cope with it via addictions, but it's not working.

It's not working. The numbers are terrifying. The explosion in suicide rates, depression, anxiety, they're terrifying numbers. It's not working. Something is not working.

The modern woman is not happy, profoundly unhappy, on the verge of suicide constantly.

Why? Because she doesn't have men. She doesn't have love. She doesn't have intimacy.

It's an old fashioned message, also happens to be true. Some cliches are true.

And so it behooves us to study borderline type disorders, borderline personality features, because the majority of women today would qualify somehow as borderline in one way or another, and they are definitely secondary psychopaths.

Now, is this a sweeping generalization? Not really, according to studies. According to recent studies, the answer is not really.

Yes, most women today display clear borderline psychopathic and narcissistic features. I refer you to my video on hookups, where I cite 91 studies in the past 20 years, including studies published last year and this year.

And these studies show conclusively that narcissistic psychopathic grandiose behaviors had become the norm among young women. They're normative. This is the dominant practice and the dominant psychological landscape.

We have engendered a mass pathology, mass psychopathology, the likes of which the world had never seen.

And so back to borderline personality, which I claim to be the typifying feature of the modern woman.

One of the main issues in borderline personality disorder is identity disturbance. Cluster B patients do not have a stable, immutable core or self. Instead, these patients are ensembles, collections, compilations of often contradictory, partly dissociated self-states. These self-states are also known as sub-personalities or pseudo-identities.

So cluster B patients don't have a core, don't have a unitary self, which is essentially unchangeable, resilient, and not amenable to environmental pressures and stressors. But Cluster B patients don't have this. They have a library of self-states. And these self-states are partly oblivious to each other, a process which we call partial dissociation.

The discrete personas, these discrete self-states, they assume control in response to environmental, exogenous, and internal process skews, endogenous skews.

Consequently, it is impossible to predict the behaviors, the choices, or the decisions of these individuals. No rules, no heuristics apply to all the self-states.

There's always been an exception. The borderline patient professes to have one set of beliefs, some values, some boundaries one day, and the next day totally contravene them with insouciance or gusto the next morning. So the evening before, the borderline patient will say that she believes in something or that she has values of this and this kind or that she has boundaries. This is something she will never do. And the next morning she's going to do it. The next morning she's going to believe in something completely, diametrically opposed, contradict herself, and not realize that she's contradicting herself.

And to paper over these gaping chasms, over these fissures, over these breaks, discontinuities, the borderline rationalizes her mutually exclusive actions by constantly hairsplitting, nitpicking, generating an endless stream of exceptions and excuses to justify her incredible behavioral summersaults.

Alcoholics and junkies are infamous for these types of verbal contortions, verbal exercises, and Cluster B patients are the same.

I think women, modern women, are engaged in exactly this type of exercise, hair splitting, nitpicking, generating an endless stream of exceptions and excuses to justify behavioral whiplash, behavioral changes. I think women are so disoriented, men are so disoriented, that any rule, any value, any boundary has a limited shelf light.

There's a kind of planned obsolescence involved.

Everything I'm telling you Minnie told me.

It's like you get up in the morning and you come up with a whole philosophy of life, a whole set of values, and a whole collection of boundaries relevant to that day, or maybe even to the evening, or relevant for the next hour. You reinvent yourself time and again. It's like shape shifting.

Studies have revealed this identity disturbance. I will try to illustrate this identity disturbance, which I say is now collective and more pronounced among women than among men, but definitely is affecting men as well.

Gender vertigo is essentially a borderline reaction to extreme dislocation and trauma.

What's the trauma? What's men's trauma?

Where are all the women? Where did all the women go? It's a major trauma.

And what's women's trauma?

The discovery and realization that they had attained many of their goals, but this has made them much less happy. And so I'm going to illustrate identity disturbance in action in sex.

Studies have revealed that we reserve certain sex acts only for intimate relationships, refraining from including these acts in the repertory of casual sex.

Now this is a boundary. This boundary, behavioral boundary, personal boundary, reflects values.

Intimacy is more important than casual sex with a stranger. So we have values here. We have beliefs. We have boundaries and rules. And actions in this case do speak louder than words. When certain sexual behaviors are reserved for that special someone, for the person you love, this exclusivity communicates love efficaciously.

So this is the ideal landscape where some sex acts are reserved for intimate relationships and others are shared in both casual sex and intimate sex.

But increasingly, increasingly, we are discovering in studies that people do anything and everything with near or total strangers. It seems that people are incapable of experiencing or at least understanding intimacy or emotions.

This is a psychopathic feature of psychopathic personalities. The same people abuse substances. The same people sexed compulsively, exchange sexually explicit material compulsively. All these behaviors are indicative of identity disturbance because the individuals involved profess claim to have one set of rules, beliefs, boundaries, and values, but then behave completely differently and justify their behaviors with a diametrically opposed set of beliefs, values, etc. It's a clear case of identity disturbance.

The unfortunate mate of such dysregulated, maximally inhibited individual is often told it may be the same sex act, but with you I experience it differently. It is filled with emotions, attachment, and affection.

Regrettably, such self-reporting is highly suspect. Most often it's counterfactual.

People with psychopathic features confuse possessiveness and competition with love. They use sex to manipulate and subjugate. Most promiscuous people, let alone whose sex is out of control and would do anything with anyone, most of them are incapable of positive emoting or coupling. They feel vaguely bad or vaguely good. They mislabel dim stirrings as bonding. At times they resort to faking affect and orgasms.

The more psychopathic women become, the more they acquire these features.

And there is a generalized trauma, because while a hundred years ago, you went through two, three heartbreaks in life. Your first girlfriend rejected you, then you got married and your wife died. So you were widowed. Then you got married a third time.

I mean, there were two, three heartbreaks in a typical life in the 19th century and well into the 1950s. Two, three heartbreaks. Three heartbreaks was considered to be horrible.

But today, many men and women undergo multiple heartbreaks. 10, 15 is common, very common.

And there are also the mini heartbreaks, the tiny heartbreaks that are involved in casual sex and one night stands. Because there's no such thing as meaningless emotionless casual sex. It's a myth. Biologically, hormonally and psychologically, there is attachment and bonding, even in the briefest, quickie. And then you have to say goodbye.

And somewhere, sometimes unconsciously, your heartbreaks, a typical average Western woman and a typical average Western man, experience dozens of heartbreaks in a lifetime. That's abnormal.

And people come to fear heartbreak, abandonment, and being cheated on. And the fear is so great. And they fear it to such an extent that they undermine intimacy. They bring on the very outcomes that they're so terrified of. They equate intimacy with pain.

So they throw intimacy to the trash in the hope of throwing away the pain as well.

They restrict their emotional expression. They appear to be called cynical, standoffish, transactional. They avoid commitment or investment in any relationship. They hedge their bets. They maintain alternative partners on the side. They reject sexual advances by their intimate partners. They abuse substances. They act promiscuously, recklessly. All these are intended to accomplish one goal.

No intimacy, please. We are modern. We are current. We are in the flow, in the flux. So please, no intimacy, because we don't want any pain.

And as they undermine and challenge the emerging intimacy in their relationships, as their relationship inevitably deteriorates, they feel justified to strain, to cheat, and to deceive.

And you have an emerging trend, a growing trend of sadomasochism.

There's a lot more kink, BDSM, a lot more, many more power plays, mind games, sick and predatory. Sex is becoming more and more of a battleground and more and more frightening and terrifying. The outcomes of sex could be really devastating nowadays. Sadomasochists tend to choose precisely such partners who are incapable of intimacy and undermine it.

Their mate selection is skewed in favor of the dysregulated and the dissolute.

The inevitable betrayal by the partner and the resulting excruciating pain, they are sources of addictive vindication and gratification.

So when we review the scene, and everything I've said in this video is based on studies, when we look at the emerging scene, it's horrific. It's mind-bogglingly terrifying.

It's dystopian. It's a nightmare. A nightmare reified, come true.

Both for men and for women. Women started it. Women started it by transitioning from demands for equality to demands for identity. There's a difference between equality and identity.

Women have eliminated the traditional gender roles, but offered nothing as a substitute.

What women had done, they had discarded the traditional gender role of a woman and they had adopted the traditional gender role of a man. And this destroyed every chance of meaningful intercourse, pun intended, between men and women. It's a horrible landscape.

Am I hopeful? I don't know. I don't know if women can go back. I don't know if they want to go back.

The confusion is so enormous, even in academic texts, even in the confusion between all these concepts, emancipation, power versus psychopathic behavior versus defiance.

They confuse power and defiance. They confuse psychosexuality and sexualization. They confuse decision-making and choice with lability and dysregulation.

There's a lot of confusion and this confusion is pushing women to become more and more borderline and psychopathic and pushing men to become more and more narcissistic. It is the collapsing gender roles that brought the narcissism pandemic and now the borderline secondary psychopathy pandemic.

It's still not too late. We can still save something. We can still restore something. I'm not saying going back to my grandmother's time. Women had been enslaved and mistreated. This should never ever happen again. Women should have equal power, equal access, equal pay, equal vote, equal everything. Women are as much persons as men, and women should have the right to choose to make decisions about absolutely everything, exactly like men. But women should never be men because this would be taking away the most enchanting and wonderful thing in creation.

Women should be women. Men should be men. We should rewrite the sexual scripts.

We should acknowledge the truth that there's no such thing as emotionless, harmless, meaningless, casual sex. There isn't. It's not true. It's a myth.

We should stop being politically correct. We should confront the issues bravely, courageously, unflinchingly. We should admit that we had strayed. We took the wrong turn in the road. We've gone far from home. I'm not sure we know how to return. And it's costing all of us happiness. It's costing all of us functionality. And it had rendered the world gray and ugly.

Today, there's no anticipation and joy in finding a partner for sex.

Only the mechanical, masturbatory, auto-erotic exercise among the sheets.

It's ugly. It's dull. It leads nowhere. People are isolated and atomized because they can't find counterparties for anything, even for good sex.

How long can we survive like this? Not long.

Already, we are paying a very dear price in terms of the species. I mentioned the demographic bump. The majority of humanity will be old in 50 years' time. Simply old people.

They're no families, no marriages, no children, nothing. We as a species would pay a horrendous price that we dare to tamper with, reverse engineer, and second-guess nature itself.

Because in nature, the distinction between genders is clear. In nature, there is sexual fluidity, ironically. The sexual fluidity, there's more than one sexual orientation or sexual identity.

But genders are always very clear. There's no case in nature where gender roles are fuzzy, blurred, or non-existent, where there's uni-gender. And I'm talking about higher-level animals.

We are the exception because we have, with our own two hands, thinking ourselves to be so smart, we have undermined, we have tunneled under the very foundations of our civilization.

And after all, we are social animals. After all, we crave sex and companionship, not only in order to procreate, but because we can't live alone well. We can't. We're trying to.

This is the greatest attempt in human history to become totally self-sufficient in need of no one and to see no one for the rest of our life.

It's not working. It's not working as we mental health practitioners, professors of psychology, psychologists, I mean, you name it, we are witnessing the tsunami of mental health issues that are the direct outcome of these misguided philosophies and ideologies, because they're philosophies and ideologies.

They're not science. They are pseudoscience or utter nonsense. We need to wake up and we need to get back on course, and we need distinct, clear, boundaried gender roles. Men need to be very, very different to women.

It is this difference that is the engine of our survival. It is this difference that is the magical kingdom of charm and attraction, including sexual attraction. We have eliminated the difference, thereby almost eliminating ourselves.

We are all forewarned and warned.

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

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.

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.

Women, WAKE UP! Feminism Stole Your Personal Lives!

Sam Vaknin discusses the impact of modern societal norms on women's behavior and psychology. He argues that women have been forced to adopt male values and expectations, leading to a shift in their behavior and self-perception. Vaknin also highlights the negative effects of casual sex and the influence of covert narcissists and psychopaths in victimhood movements. He urges a clear-eyed look at reality and a move away from political correctness.

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.

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.

Back to the Future: Spectacle of Narcissism, Spectre of Psychopathy (Convo with Alex Kazemi)

Sam Vaknin discusses the dangers of social media culture, the shift from narcissism to psychopathy in society, and the current state of gender and sexuality. He argues that the prevalence of screens has led to isolation and atomization, forcing individuals to be self-sufficient and cutting them off from empathy. Vaknin also believes that privacy is a modern invention and that the less private we are, the better off we feel psychologically. He predicts that a totally psychopathic civilization is on the horizon and that elites want to make everyone a slave, not because they are evil, but because it is in their self-interest.

OK, Boomer: Want to Be Young Again?

Professor Sam Vaknin argues that today's youth are facing a dystopian world and have given up on life, intimacy, and relationships. He claims that young people today engage almost exclusively in casual, drunk sex with strangers, lack basic skills for intimacy and relationships, and are incapable of forming long-term attachments. Vaknin blames older generations for creating a world without meaning or a future for the youth, leading them to reject life and reality. He believes that hope lies in much younger generations, and that older generations must carry on until those younger generations are old enough to take the torch and continue the march of humanity.

Why Do They Infuriate YOU? Promiscuity and Compulsive Sexting

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the reactions people have to narcissists and psychopaths, analyzing the phenomenon using concepts like life promiscuity and sexual promiscuity. He delves into the characteristics and behaviors of psychopaths, including their lack of insight, evasiveness, and lack of boundaries. He also explores the correlation between promiscuity and mental health disorders, as well as the impact of compulsive sexting. Additionally, he touches on the dynamics of intimate partner cheating and promiscuity in relation to schizoid cerebral narcissism.

Narcissism, Islam, Women: Our Future (with Karoline Gil)

Professor Sam Vaknin discusses the rise of narcissism in societies, its impact on foreign relations, and the historical context of these phenomena. He also touches on the COVID-19 pandemic, the decline of the United States, the potential rise of China, and the future dominance of women in society. Vaknin emphasizes the inevitability of historical cycles and the futility of resistance, advocating for acceptance and non-resistance. He also predicts gender wars as a defining feature of the future.

Adapting to Dystopian New Normal (Interview with Shot Magazine)

The transcript features a conversation between the interviewer and Professor Sam Vaknin, discussing societal trends, psychology, and the future of human behavior. Vaknin expresses a pessimistic view of current societal trends, suggesting that narcissism and psychopathy are becoming more adaptive traits in modern society. He argues that technology and certain ideologies have led to increased isolation, self-sufficiency, and a decline in empathy and intimacy. Vaknin proposes that limiting harmful ideologies and regulating technology could reverse these trends, but he doubts the political will to make such changes. He also notes that younger generations seem disengaged from life, showing less interest in traditional markers of adulthood. Vaknin believes that while there is potential for societal healing, the current trajectory is concerning, with a shift towards materialism and self-objectification.

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