My recent academic work, I emphasize academic work on gender, sexuality, men and women, had provoked a tsunami of responses from red pillers, black pillers, and other pillers of the manosphere community. They dejected and rejected men in the incel communities and the angry men in MGTOW, men going their own way. They congratulate me on my recent conversion and welcome me to the fold.
There's only one problem with that. I think absolutely everything these people say is rank nonsense, sheer unmitigated inanity based on nothing whatsoever.
And I'm going to dedicate this short video, because I don't think they deserve more, to refuting some of their claims and debunking some of the myths around which their puny minds revolve.
The people there strike me and I've wasted the considerable amount of time in their forums. The men there strike me as psychopathic and narcissistic in the vast majority of cases or depressive, anxious and exceedingly rageful.
And so this is not a good mix, it's a toxic mix. It's toxic masculinity at its worst.
And that is not to say that toxic masculinity is limited to men. It's my view that it had infected women and that they are now emulating actually these very men that they are castigating as feminists.
Okay, let's get to the point.
My name is Sam Vaknin. I'm the author of Malignant Self-Love: Narcissism Revisited. And in my other head, I'm a professor of psychology.
So everything I say to you now, I also teach in the various universities I lecture in.
Let's start with a few basic facts.
Many wannabe geniuses and cult leaders who shall remain unmade propound the idea that the Pareto principle, the Pareto mathematical principle applies to dating and to mating.
Put simply, 20% of men are going to garner 80% of women. Women's favours are going to be bestowed on 20% of men. And 80% of men shall remain unlaid.
In other words, 80% of men find it difficult, if not impossible, to get laid. 20% of men bed or have sex with 80% of all the women.
There are several problems with this with this idea.
One, it's not true.
But it's a minor issue. The major issue is the Pareto principle cannot be applied to this kind of analysis of population and behaviors. Anyone who applies the Pareto principle to dating has no idea about mathematics. And I strongly suspect has no idea about dating.
Here are the facts established in numerous multiple studies in dozens of countries with tens of thousands of women in all age groups. Women prefer what the monosphere call beta males. They prefer men who are not what the monosphere calls alpha males. What the monosphere calls alpha males, by the way, is not the same thing as the scientific alpha male. In science, we have the concept of alpha male, especially among primates. And the alpha male among primates is compassionate, a compassionate coalition builder.
What makes the alpha male an alpha male among, for example, gorillas or chimpanzees, is his ability to empathize and then to construct social coalitions. The alpha male of the monosphere is simply a brute, a fag, a muscle bound idiot, a narcissist and very often a psychopath. That's the kind of perception these men have about what it is to be alpha.
So women find this kind of men obnoxious and women prefer what the monosphere calls beta males, even for one-night stands, definitely for long-term relationships, but even for one-night stands.
There are numerous studies supporting this. When women select someone for a one-night stand, they put emphasis on his looks. That part is true, but not his good looks. His looks, whether his looks trigger them, whether his looks appeal to them, whether they find his looks compatible with their preferences. He doesn't have to be good looking, he just has to look the right way for that specific woman.
And much more importantly, his ability to express affection and compassion, to empathise, to converse intelligently. These are much more critical in the eyes of women than any good looks.
And that is true also for casual sex. This is why Friends with Benefits is the dominant model for casual sex and not hookups.
Actually, contrary to the rabid imagination of the members of the men in the monosphere, hookups are very few and far between. Hookups are rare. Friends with benefits are much more common.
Nonsense number two, hypergamy.
Women marry up or at least seek to marry up. They want to marry up. They want to marry men who are richer, wealthier. They want to marry men who are higher than they are in terms of social status, access, power, money, etc. That is unfortunately also another bit of nonsense.
In the last 40 years, women had been marrying down, not up.
First of all, the marriage rate had declined by 50% between 1990 and today. And in committed relationships and in what remains of marriage, women are marrying down.
Now women are marrying down not because they want to marry down, but because they have no choice. Women had become more educated than men. And women earn as much as men when we adjust the earnings.
So women have as much money as men. They are more educated than men, way more educated by the way. And they are as masculine as men. They are adventurous. They are sexual. They had become men in effect.
And so because they had become men, they now select men the same way men used to select women. Men used to marry down statistically.
Now women are marrying down because women are the new men.
That is not some reckoning. These are multiple studies by Lisa Wade and many others.
The next bit of nonsense. Women screw around. Women are all over the place, especially younger women, women under the age of 35. They are on the sea carousel. They accumulate a body count. They are unconscionable about it. They get drunk and they sleep around with dozens of men as well.
Here are the facts. Young women have much less sex with much fewer partners than their mothers and shock of all shocks their grandmothers.
I repeat this sentence. Younger women have much less sex with many fewer partners than their mothers and grandmothers.
Hookups are common mainly and only in college settings and mainly and only among white folk, white women and men. And even there, hookups are much more in the imagination of the participants than in reality.
On average, there is one hookup per semester. About one third of college graduates end up being virgins. And the average is two to three hookups for the entire duration in four years.
So hookups are a myth. Friends with benefits is much more common.
There is much more common arrangement, which of course precludes immediately the idea of Pareto.
And women now trade down. They marry down.
Next nonsense. Women do not consume as much pornography as men.
Wrong again. Women consume more pornography than men, but of a different kind.
First of all, one third of pornography consumption goes to women. Women consume one third of all pornography consumed.
So that's not a small number. But if you add to that sexually explicit romantic literature, yes, you know, the old kind, words and texts and books. If you add that to the mix, if you add to the mix online texts like literatica and other websites, then women actually consume more pornography than men, but not of the visual kind. They consume mostly text-based pornography.
And the reason is very simple. Men are triggered sexually by visuals. Men are able to climax. They're able to orgasm when they're exposed to a picture of a body part or a video of a body part. Women are unable to do that.
And that's why dick pics don't work with women, men of the monosphere.
Okay, Shoshanim, let's proceed in dismantling the nonsensical edifice of the monosphere geniuses.
They have a lot of brawn, but very little brain, it seems.
Studies in the past 40 years have upended everything we thought we knew about female sexuality in the West.
Here are a few nuggets for your edification.
Women orgasm mostly from digital oral clitoral stimulation. Penetration doesn't do it for them. Anal sex is painful. Choking is medically dangerous and terrifying.
And yet in hookups, most men attempt to have anal intercourse and many men choke their partners without any pre-advice warning or consultation.
So very few men give their sexual partners in hookups and in first days oral sex.
And this is one of the main reasons women are avoiding casual sex in increasing numbers. Casual sex is massively on the decline. Sales of condoms, for example, have been going down four to five percent a year.
So next truth, women are likely to cheat. You ask anyone in the monosphere and they will tell you the reason we are not getting married is because the government and social institutions favour women and they leverage these institutions to abscond with our hard-earned earnings and livelihood, children and what have you.
And the second argument is it's not a good idea to have a committed relationship with a woman because she's going to cheat.
Well, that's quite true. Cheating had quadrupled among women, but it still has to reach the level of cheating among men.
And women are likelier to cheat during estrus. The sun is in my eyes, so I'm going to switch and change the angle.
Women are much likelier to cheat when they're ovulating during estrus. The rest of the month they are much less likely to cheat than men.
What about homosexuality and lesbianism and so on?
Women prefer women. Yes, men of the monosphere.
Women don't want you, not even sexually. Women prefer women. Women are three times more likely to be lesbian than men are to be homosexual.
Women find in other women the kind of sensitivity, physiological, physical sensitivity and emotional sensitivity that they can find with men. Women are more attuned to each other's pleasure and women provide much better companions even in casual sex.
So women increasingly are preferring women as sex partners.
And as one of them told me, it may be an acquired habit. It is true all in all that women prefer good-looking men for one-night stands and men with stable income for long-term relationships.
Consequently, sexlessness in couples is at an all-time high, around 21% officially, I believe at least double.
And in fidelity of the charts, 45% for women and 60% for men. The numbers are likely massively under-reported.
But there are no studies, I repeat, there are no serious studies that support the belief that women choose sex partners or long-term partners based on looks. No studies support this.
On dating apps, matches usually gravitate towards good-looking men. In other words, women would tend to respond much more to good-looking men.
But here's the catch. They will not meet these good-looking men. They will not go to bed with these good-looking men.
In other words, it's all talk and no walk.
Actually, a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, shall I say again, tiny fraction of swipes end up in face-to-face real-life meetings. And an even tinier fraction of these meetings ends up in having sex.
These are the facts. So yes, women fantasize about good-looking men on dating apps. They chat with them. They match up with them. They even may consider having a drink.
But in the overwhelming vast majority of cases, this dating app action is not going to translate into IRL action in real-life action, in the vast majority of cases, as anyone who had ever used a dating app can confirm.
What about the sexual fantasies of women?
The two main sexual fantasies of women are to be kidnapped and raped and to participate in an orgy or a gangbang. But only eight percent of women act on the latter fantasy. In other words, only five to eight percent of women, depending on the country, participate in group sex of any kind, three sons included.
So women are not as emancipated, empowered, as liberated as they like to think of themselves.
Social stigma stills carry an important role and weight.
Which leads me to the next point.
Women do desire casual sex, but not as much as men do. I repeat, it is a myth. It's an nonsensical myth that women are more promiscuous than men or women are as promiscuous as men. They are not.
Across cultures, across decades, across different societies, across different settings and environments, women of all ages are much less likely, and this also applies to women who are lesbian, they are much less likely to want casual sex than men.
In other words, women are more socio-sexually restricted than men.
But as Terry Conley in her groundbreaking studies had noted, perhaps the reason is not sexual at all.
Women are afraid of risk. They are much more vulnerable than exposed because they are much weaker and smaller. So they are much more terrified of risk. They take risk into account much more than men do. They are subject to the double standard in social stigma if they sleep around.
And there is the minor issue of the orgasm gap. Only 10% of women orgasm in casual sex compared to 75% of women in long-term committed relationships.
So what happens if we remove these obstacles? What happens if there is no risk? There is no social stigma. An orgasm is guaranteed.
Well, if you do that, if you remove these obstacles, women's willingness to engage in casual sex increases dramatically. They are even willing to bed total strangers.
Given that there is no risk, orgasm is guaranteed or some fantastic sex and the social stigma is not there because, for example, the whole situation is anonymous and in another country.
So we are not sure yet whether if the situation for women and men were utterly equitable, women would develop unrestricted social sexuality up to the level of men.
But right now there is no equality, no identity. Men want sexual sex much more than women do and men are willing to say yes at the drop of a hat.
Actually, men don't care who is the woman. They bed ugly women, unattractive women. They don't care if the woman is a celebrity or an unknown and so on.
While women, for example, are much more willing to have casual sex with celebrities, luckily for me.
Okay, Shoshanim, ignore the last comment.
What about the circumstances of having sex?
Most young women have sex usually when they are drunk. There has been a coupling of drinking and sex. It starts in college but even outside college settings.
People today, not only women, men and women, especially if they are under the age of 35, they have sex only when they are drunk. So being drunk and having sex goes together. Sober sex is perceived to be a signal of seriousness, of commitment, of long term.
So if you are having sex when you are sober, you are saying to your partner, I'm interested in you in the long term. Most casual sex is drunk.
And so this creates a series of problems which I will not go into right now but this is a fact.
Women do feel empowered and do feel desired in casual sex and even in group sex.
Actually, what happens is men usually initiate group sex. Men coerce women in many cases to participate in threesomes.
Majority of women report that they did not want to participate in a threesome but they wanted to please their partner, the partner.
So men initiate it but then having tried it and having experienced it, men want group sex less than women.
In other words, once women had gone through the experience of group sex, once they have had, for example, the first threesome, they want much more of it and they want it much more than men do.
And so women become the drivers of group sex activity in couples after the first experience although they are very reticent and reluctant before the first experience.
Now here's a myth, here's a prevalent myth that women are relationship oriented while men are sex oriented. The truth is that both men and women are interested in long-term relationships although women are marginally more interested. It's about 10% more. Like about two-thirds of men want a long-term relationship and about three-quarters of women want a long-term relationship.
But women tire of relationships much faster than men. The magic and charm of a committed long-term relationship is lost on women much faster than on men. Men are much more invested and much more committed and they want to perpetuate the long-term relationship much more than women because men benefit from long-term relationships more than women do.
So women tire of the sexual monotony of monogamy sooner than men.
Many studies show this. Increasingly women are the ones who avoid committed relationships altogether. About onethird of women are lifelong singles. The majority of divorces today are initiated by women. The majority of female singles turn celibate but a substantial minority about 20% lead the life of hookups dating and group sex in sex parties.
So overall women are withdrawing, men going their own way, women going their own way but women had been doing it in much much larger numbers than men. Far fewer women are getting married and they're having far fewer children. The replacement rate in all the industrialized countries is unmet. Populations all over are aging and declining rapidly everywhere from UK to Russia to China.
Women place studies, career, travel and having fun with friends way above having a committed relationship. Even as a majority of women have this nebulous goal of getting married one day. Few women mention children in surveys and studies. Few of them mention children even as an aspirational goal.
So children are off the table completely and long-term relationships, they become a kind of this misty fantasy in the distant future if at all.
Women are bitter, many women are the refugees of abusive relationships and so there's a giant population, millions of women, tens of millions all over the world who vowed who swore off any future relationships and men. They don't want to have anything to do with men anymore exactly as there are many men who don't want to do anything with women anymore.
The genders are going their own ways, both. About one third of women, the lifelong singles and another six are lesbians. So about half of all women, women kind, half of all women folk are off the marketplace, off the sexual marketplace. That's a much higher percentage than among men.
And the reason is that there is a symmetry in the benefits in long-term committed relationships such as marriage. Men benefit disproportionately more. Men are healthier and make more money when they are in marriages, in marriage for example. And women make more money and are marginally healthier but they pay other kinds of prices. Their freedoms are limited, they are psychologically in much better, much worse shape for example, depression and anxiety and so on.
So there's a discrepancy here, a symmetry, and women are hellbent on dismantling what they regard as patriarchal institutions, liberating and emancipating and empowering themselves and then doing nothing with it actually as far as men are concerned.
Because they don't use this newfound freedom, emancipation and empowerment to hook up, to engage in casual sex and to go wild.
What they do actually, the vast majority of them, they retreat into solitary lives with Netflix and a pet, several pets and they lead single lives until the day they die.
Spinsterhood is the new chic, is the new cool.
In Victorian times there were spinsters and the phenomenon had returned full force. Young people are having less and less sex, dating had declined precipitously, hookups are done massively. Young people under age 42 have simply withdrawn. Fewer than 3% of men after age 32 are looking for a committed relationship and the number is the same for women under age 30.
This mismatch guarantees that people are going to lead solitary atomized lives, whether they are men or women and whatever their general equipment may be.
We are all men now, some of us have penises, some of us have vaginas, but it's an accident of nature.
Psychologically, socio-sexually, we are all men. It's a unigender world and this is why the whole manosphere is constructed on an entirely wrong percept, entirely wrong foundation.
This is not a battle between genders, between men and women, it's a battle between two types of men and this bodes ill for the species because men are aggressive.
Brisbane and others call those phenomenon the stored revolution.
Women had become men but men did not develop their feminine side, they remained men.
So now we have two types of men, vowing for supremacy, hating each other, conflicting, as men always did throughout human history.
And where this is going to lead us, I dare not think.