Modern Wisdom - #410 - Vincent Harinam - Why Is The Modern Dating Market A Mess?

Episode Date: December 13, 2021

Vincent Harinam is a data scientist, law enforcement consultant and writer on social phenomenon and the dating market. Between Tinder and OnlyFans, polyamory and Red Pill, incels, simps, sugar daddies and gold diggers, it's difficult to say that romance is alive and well in modern culture. Vincent has written some of the best articles and done huge deep data dives to uncover why the modern dating market is such a mess. Expect to learn why smart women are less likely to get married, why simping is such an unsuccessful dating strategy, how women's modern dating advice is mostly total trash, what Vincent's data uncovered around what women and men look for in a partner, how asymmetries in the dating market can create men who are dangerous for public safety and much more... Sponsors: Join the Modern Wisdom Community to connect with me & other listeners - https://modernwisdom.locals.com/ Get a $5 discount on Magic Spoon’s amazing cereal at https://magicspoon.com/modernwisdom (use code MODERNWISDOM) Get 5 days unlimited access to Shortform for free at https://www.shortform.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get 5 Free Travel Packs, Free Liquid Vitamin D and Free Shipping from Athletic Greens at https://athleticgreens.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Extra Stuff: Check out Vincent's articles - https://quillette.com/author/vincent-harinam/  Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hola amigos, welcome back to the show, what my guest today is Vincent Haranam, he's a data scientist, law enforcement consultant and a writer on social phenomenon and the dating market. Between Tinder and only fans, Polyamory and Red Pill, Insel, SIMPs, Sugar Daddy's and Gold diggers, it's difficult to say that romance is alive and well in modern culture. Vincent has written some of the best articles I've ever read and done a huge deep data dive to uncover why the modern dating market is such a mess. Expect to learn why smart women are less likely to get married, why simping is such an unsuccessful dating strategy, how women's modern dating advice is mostly total trash,

why Vincent's data uncovered some scary trends around what men and women look for in a partner, how asymmetries in the dating market can create men who are dangerous for public safety, and much more. This is one of my favourite topics that I've learned about this year. It's so fascinating. It's a bit uncomfortable, and it's the sort of thing that almost no one is talking about, and yet almost everyone has a sense that it's going on. It's kind of like the threat from China, it's just this thing in the background

that people kind of trying to ignore. And I'm really glad that someone like Vincent is going out there and doing deep data dives to actually give us some statistics around this. However, the solutions for how you fix this problem are a little bit more complex, but this is one of my favourite episodes from this year. If you enjoy it, share the episode with a friend, co-opt people into the modern wisdom cult, because we're a cult now. That's what we do. We get people, we cop them into

the cult, and then they become members, and we all go off and have orgies on LSD in the middle of California Hills. So help me get some more cult members, just share the episode or tag me in a story or do something else or just take some LSD and let me know how you get on. But now please give it up for Vincent Haranam. Vincent Haranam, welcome to the show. Chris, thanks for having me, buddy. Really appreciate it. My pleasure, man. So your writing is some of the favorite stuff

that I've read on the internet over the last couple of years. You don't write regularly, but the stuff that you put out is bomb. However, what you do during the day, you're like a hyper nerd by day, and then you write about social dynamics and trends and dating and culture and stuff, talk to me about how those two things blend together. Okay, one correction there, I'm not a hyper nerd, I'm a hyper geek.

Okay, sorry. There's a slight difference between it. No, no, don't apologize, don't apologize. It's like this typology that I've created to separate geeks, dorks and nerds. What's the difference? Okay, so I've come to the conclusion that in order to be one of these things, you have to have, or don't have to have, either intellectualism or function utility. So a geek as a person that is intellectual, but also has a level of function utility. So a coder, for example, does something which actually helps people.

But there's some intellectual rigor required there. A nerd has intellectualism, but lacks function utility. So reading a book on 14th century poetry doesn't really help a lot of people. There's no societal benefit to that sort of thing. And Adork has neither. Not a function utility nor intellectualism. All right, so that's the matrices that you've put together that explains the, what would you say, the computally inclined more than that? You could poetically incline. Yeah, okay, okay, cool.

Right, so talk to me, what's this marriage between these two worlds? Well, for me, I, all the articles that I write, I do in my free time, it's not something that I think about necessarily on a daily basis, or I even do for my day job. So what I do is that I maybe I have an interest in an idea, or something that I want to pursue further, and then I accumulate as much data as I can, and I apply the sort of research skills that I have as a data scientist, the data analyst, and I tried to take a complex idea and then simplify it as much as I can. So papers on white privilege, sexual dynamics, or simping, these are all things that I think people find interesting, but there isn't really any empirical rigor behind any of it.

And so my job, I think, as an intellectual, or a person that does data analysis, is to try to break it down such that people understand it in a cogent way. This gets around the sort of armchair philosophizing excuse that a lot of people have with this, right? They just sit and throw cod psychology, bro science out there. I mean, like this is me down to a T. And yet you have somebody that can come in with some hard data and actually back that up or refute it. Yes, correct. The problem with the cultural words, as I see it, is that nothing is actually empirical.

So they'll state that get will go broke is a principle by which these companies operate under. But in actuality, when I crunched the numbers, it wasn't the case, right? These companies weren't actually losing money's money if they engage in a sort of capitalism or if they pander to the hard left. And I wonder how much of all these concepts that people espoused in the culture wars are true and how many of them need to be back-tested or just tested in general. Yeah, so you're able to stress test these with actual data because they sound, go, get woke, go broke or whatever. Sounds, I mean, it rhymes. Like, that's powerful. It's a meme. That's why it's so popular.

It's a damn meme. And if anything is memeified, it becomes popular. So something like Dogecoin, which has no basic fundamentals, is incredibly popular because it is a meme. It's a dog. It's Doge. Well, yeah, okay. So get woke, go broke is like dogecoin, but for culture was. Sure. Yeah, sure. We could say that. Yeah, okay. We used to be the dark web as well, right?

You've done investigations into that. Yes, you've done a bit of research, my friend. I like it. Yeah, so my PhD thesis was on the dark web. So I looked at transactional networks on the dark web and tried to identify what really how they operated, what the structure of vulnerabilities were. And then the idea was sort of to come up with a dossier of strategies that law enforcement organizations could actually use to take these entities down. It makes complete sense going from dark web to learning about simping. It's just the perfect logical consistency between those two things. Correct. So what did you learn about simping then?

Well, that it doesn't work. That it's if one wants to engage with women and get into a meaningful relationship, simping is not the way forward. Because you're basically you're placating, right? You're your your pliable male that's trying to appeal to females and you're not actually engaging with them on an emotional level You're just giving them presents and undo compliments and these women are essentially using you for your resources Fundamentally, I don't really blame them right if if you throw a fastball down the middle of the plate You're gonna hit it. Are you not? So the same thing applies here, I guess Okay, what for the people that don't know the term

how would you describe what a simp is? Well a simp so the the in a modernity of the term actually goes back I think to the 1920s where simp was a shortened or condensed version of the term simpled it. But it was actually it was it was taken by in the 1980s, 1990s, and used in a couple of rap songs. It was, I think maybe two Parker Biggie had a song where they used the term, but in modern Parlon's, Simp is a term that is used to describe a man that is, you know, romantically hapless, right? He sort of gives presents and prays to women with the expectation of receiving some sort of sexual or emotional ratification, but receives none of it because he's he's pliable, right? He doesn't actually bring anything to the table emotionally or or really in terms of being a worthwhile partner

to have. Yeah, and only fans has basically monetized and weaponized this, right? Yes, all the fans is the industrialization of simping.H. That's basically how I would define it. And it's a fantastic business model. If we were to look at it purely from the lens of a business perspective, it is excellent and what it does because it capitalizes on something which is endemic today in the sexual marketplace. And that's emotional, that's this emotional connection

that young men desire. Yes, and they, the asymmetry, the fact that most men fear rejection, that they struggle with finding a mate, means that if they can pay to remove rejection, even if they know that the chance of genuine reciprocation is basically zero, most men are happy to pay that price. Absolutely, absolutely. They're more than happy to pay. And I think that probably speaks more about the nature and quality of men today than it does about anything else, that you would forego any sort of hardship for an easy win, or an easy win in their mind.

It's like video games, right? I'm not knocking anyone that necessarily plays video games, but the notion that the trophy that you'd win in a video game is tattooed about or similar to a, you to a winning a physical trophy in a sports competition are the same is nonsensical. And the same thing applies here in that you're foregoing rejection for what seems like emotional and emotional connection with a woman that you don't really know. I see this in the personal development world as well. So a lot of people, if you look at LinkedIn profiles and that data analysis of LinkedIn profiles found that strategizing was one of the most used words in all strategizing

or strategy, most used words in all of descriptions. And yet executing or executor wasn't even in the top 100 reason for that being that it is significantly easier to strategize and execute because by always strategizing and never executing, you prevent yourself from potential failure by inoculating yourself from success. If I just speak rhetorically, there's no chance that I'm going to fail because in my world, in the world that I create of words, that never actually needs to come up against reality.

Mm-hmm. You're completely correct. I don't disagree with that at all. I mean, action wins the day, right? Is that saying goes. And, you know, everyone has a plan, goes and you know everyone has a plan or excuse me everyone has a dream but no one has a plan and it's not only having a plan it's executing the plan right we can talk as much We want about things we want to do you know a girl we like to talk to it get into relationship of business We would like to start but if you don't put one foot in front of the other and start marching forward and actually taking the

Necessary step towards achieving those things you're never going to achieve it. Why do you think there is a current trend amongst men towards this easier route out, whether that be in video games or in dating? It's a good question and it's a complex question, which means that the answer is probably multivariate in the sense that there's no simple answer, one variable which explains why it is the men are the way they are in this sense. It's probably has to do with socialization, how men are socialized today, maybe coddling as well, the sort of parenting strategies that are used to raise young boys and rear them. It's a good question, but I would say those are probably the two things that I would probably point to, that we sort of bred out the warrior aspect, the sort of frontiersman

notion in men, right? That notion of going out there and getting after it's been bred out of a lot of men. And we're sort of afraid or hesitant to engage in things which make us uncomfortable. And I think David Goggins actually, who is a personal hero of mine, he talks about it in terms of suffering, that beyond suffering lies greatness. But in order to achieve greatness, you first have to suffer. And people are just terrified of discomfort and suffering, which, you know, they're scary things, yes. But if you want to of discomfort and suffering, which, you know, they're scary things, yes, but if you want to be where you want to be, you're going to

have to suffer, right? You're going to have to, you know, to pay the price. Not only is this happening on an individual level, but you've also got a cultural level of this with regards to the views around masculinity, men overall, what the definition of a man is. Yes, yes. That's a curious thing actually. I want to ask you about that specifically, how you would define what a man is or what it means to be a man.

Okay, well, I'm going to go back to our mutual friend, Rob Henderson, because he recently posted a stat on one of his newsletters. And again, like this is if anyone's playing fucking Rob Henderson bingo, because they should be. I brought Rory Sutherland on the show and he's one of the smartest behavioral economists on the planet. And he said that he was in awe of Rob Henderson. What is it?

So he said that there was three things that all men needed to do. And it was something like always being control, always show competence and something else. I mean, the definitions around masculinity and what it means to be a man, you're trying to encapsulate a felt sense and an embodied sense, lexically, which is always going to be a mess, right? Because

the words are always going to be slightly imprecise. And because we're looking for generalizations here, people are always going to be able to point out aberrations of the generalization. But overall, I think I agree, I can't find a particular quote, but I think I agree it's to do with a competency, a control of oneself and one's own emotions, leadership from the front taking responsibility. You know, these things, whether you're a man or a woman, a masculine man or a masculine woman, I think that anybody that embodies those traits, you would say, yeah, that's a fairly masculine way to be.

I like that, and I completely agree with it. So Jack Donovan, who is, I don't really know what you would call him, maybe you've heard of him or read some of his books, he's a fascinating figure, I think, because he writes on masculinity and two books in particular that I've read of his The tribe and the way of men and he states that masculinity is a combination of four things So we have honor you have strength you have courage and you have mastery and I like those But in my mind I have a Tripartite model as well. So I would say that it's based around

Courage which I think he's right. So I would say that it's based around courage, which I think he's right. So being afraid of doing something, but then doing it anyway, the second which relates to something you said is personal responsibility forging on extreme ownership. And extreme ownership is a term that is used by Jocke Willick. So taking control not only of the things within your world and your realm, but branching out and taking care of issues that are not necessarily your problem, but things that you must take care of. And the final thing, I believe, is conquest. So having a goal, having a name,

wanting to put a dent in the universe. And then the through line between all of these three concepts is emotional control. So for me, the hallmark of masculinity is emotional control. It doesn't matter how you feel when you get up in the morning, there's a job to be done and you have to do it. Right? So, you know, young men's story, the Beaches of Normandy, you know, didn't cry in the corner. They went out there and they won the war. They defeated the Nazis.

Well, conversely as well, if you were to look at a woman who had high emotional control, who had goals that she was going to go and get after, who was courageous and brave in chasing those things down, that would be, it would certainly be an outlier. It would be the sort of woman that you would expect would be rising up through a law firm or starting her own business. You know, that's, if you have boss bitch, like that's what would go next to it. Yes, yes. It's, it's, that's also fascinating as you have boss bitch like that's what would go next to it. Yes. Yes It's it's that's also fascinating as well that we typically apply these characteristics the males more than we do females and I think it's it has to do a lot with how we're socialized and the sort of me that we consume in that we we

Tribute these characters to strong men as opposed to strong women which as you pointed out It you know women can and do have these qualities, but they're typically at the very end, the very upper echelon of their fields. They dominate their dominance hierarchies as Jordan Peterson would probably put it. Well, the reason being that disagreeableness, to go down the Jordan Peterson, will disagreeableness and a bunch of other psychological traits will tend people in the emails toward having this type of an approach to life. Yes, yes. So, disagreeableness is a fascinating characteristic. So, the big five personality traits, if one wanted to be a success in a specific field or reach the top of their

dominance hierarchy, they would have to be low in agreeableness and high in disagreeableness. Because it's a matter of getting one's way and not being a pushover, being a monster in Jordan Peterson's fringiology. And a lot of that involves, I think, Peterson, he refers to Carl Jung, so he Jung talks about integrating one shadow, so taking the negative or dangerous part of oneself and using it to one's own ends, and disagreeability is, I think, a large part of that. Yeah, and I suppose that a lack of disagreeability is precisely what you're seeing with simps. Yes. Yes. So to that point in disagreeability, when we talk about economics,

one study demonstrated that if someone was a man in particular, was one standard deviation below A man in particular was one standard deviation below the level of agreeableness. They would earn 18% more than a man who was one standard deviation above the baseline agreeableness, which means that disagreeable people make more money than agreeable people. And also potentially get laid more or a more attractive to the opposite sex. However, I would say, and we can get into this, the converse would be untrue for women. That if you have a woman who is increasingly disagreeable, that she is probably going to be less attractive as a mate. Yes, yes, because it disagreeableness, I think, is more of a masculine characteristic, at least based on the psychological evidence, the cognitive psychology would indicate

that to be the case. And I think on average, on average is a term we're probably going to be using. Everything's on average. Everything's on average. Good God, dude. But on average, men are more disagreeable, and they're typically looking for a woman that is feminine. And if a woman, I would say possesses a quality of disagreeableness, it probably makes her more masculine than it does feminine. And if a woman, I would say possesses a quality of disagreeableness, it probably makes her more masculine than it

does feminine. And I think that's what puts a lot of men off to disagreeable boss bitches as you put it. Yeah, what's a dark gentleman? Ah, so dark gentleman is a term I've coined to reflect a man who has both dark triad characteristics in some capacity, but is also benevolent so he's not your you know psycho chat you know a narcissist that wants to sleep with women but also incorporates the three p's that is parental investment protection and provision so it's this it's this what i like to call a unity of contradiction so combining two things which are in logical contrast but molding them together such that they work in harmony. That's really interesting. So that's because there is a, there is a particular degree of attraction

that women have toward dark triad traits. Why is that? Yes, yes. Those men are sexy, right? It's the, it's the, these characteristics make people, make these sorts of people seem as though they're important, right? There's that danger that is often attributed to a man that is psychopathic or macchi-evalent. And with narcissism, it makes perfect sense, right? A guy that dresses well has, you know, smiles, is very attractive in other words. So he fulfills that shad component, but a man who is fully the dark triad spectrum doesn't necessarily fulfill the dad perspective, which women are also looking for on a long-term

perspective. So if you're actually combining the short-term, which is the dark triad aspect of it, and the long-term perspective, which is the dad, you know, the triple P perspective, you're getting the perfect guy, in a sense. You're getting that unicorn. Because you need an element or most men with elements of dark triad traits, a more successful in short term mating opportunities,

but make bad term long term mate prospects. So getting yourself through the door, so to speak, with the dark triad traits, and then continuing and adding longevity to the relationship with your three P's, so the chat and dad. Yes, precisely that. So I was actually having a conversation with Jordan Peterson about this where he was saying that women want a man that is disagreeable, but also agreeable at the same time because disagreeability is actually a law of diminishing returns where, you know, if a man is disagreeable in his workplace,

right, he's probably going to get an advance as we discuss in terms of economics, they typically make more money. But in a domestic setting, a high level of disagreeability doesn't work very well. So if your wife tells you, hey, baby, go take out the trash and you say, no, I don't want to do so. I'm disagreeable. It's probably not going to be conducive to a long and happy marriage. But it's as with everything, man, you need a balance. Yes. You don't want to be out on the top 10th percentile or bottom 10th percentile of anything ever really.

Like I said, I was sad. I tried to justify the number one competitive advantage in the modern world is to be 10% autistic over a Thanksgiving dinner. The other day, you just want, you just want, it's like, you know, that the saltbeg eye, you just want that much, you want that much autism. And it's, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, precisely, just a smattering, you know? I think there's, I think there's probably some truth That if you want to have that sort of gung hole kind of fuck you mentality where you kind of just go off and do your own thing

Yeah, and kind of just throw caution to the winner You kind of have to dial it back. Yep, and since you can't go you can't I'm gonna use a Is it gonna get me canceled by use it? But it's sort of a traffic traffic thunder thunder term. I think of the phrase, at the phrase, it's a go-full retard, as it were. Yep. That's fine. I've used that last week on the podcast. I've been talking about Jordan.

I'm not famous, not yet canceled, so I'm okay. So you've got a quote here from the article we're talking about. A man who is too ingratiating is ultimately a man who is too desperate. His inability to tell a woman know is a direct reflection of his overregeness to please. Contrary to popular belief, telling a woman no in specific circumstances is an attractive quality as its signals that a man is not a violent doormat.

Yes, yes. You'd be surprised how sexy saying no is to a woman, because you're sort of putting your foot down and you're taking a stand, you're saying I'm the man in this situation. And a lot of women, not all of them, but you know, again, we use a term on average, you're looking for leadership with an relationship. And sometimes that requires saying no and taking the bull by the horns and really taking the steering wheel. And also making decisions, right?

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. I mean, look, if you're in a relationship and you're constantly stressed and you're worried about life, would it not be better if you had someone who was able to make decisions in an occogenic manner and is able to lead you along? It's not to say the woman are incapable of making decisions or a man is more capable of making decisions, but it's just that less stressful when you have someone there that is clear of thought and clear of mind and is able to make decisions. Yeah, I mean, what would you say to the people that say, why is that the man's job? Why can't that be

the woman's job? Well, it can be either one of their jobs, right? It sort of depends on the relationship. I'm not, I guess the point I'm trying to get across here is that it's not different relationships work differently for different people. And so, abiding by this stereotypical notion that men should always be the leader in a family, I don't think it's true if it doesn't work for you and your partner. So it may work, it may be the case that it works for most people, but some couples might find it easier if the woman makes all the decisions financially, socially, whatever it is. You do need a polarity though. Having two agreeable people or two disagreeable people is a recipe for a fucker. Always you always need a polarity between the two.

It's a good point of race here is that one, one sort of guy that was writing on this idea forget what he is and what the book was, but he said that for a good relationship to work specifically when it comes to sex is that you need a ravisher and a person that's ravished. ravished. And the same thing applies here in a relationship, right?

You need that polarity, right? That unity of contradictions. I'm not sure that I would agree with regards to the sex thing, because what you see in gay circles is that the sexual protagonist and the sexual gatekeeper has had the gatekeeper removed and the gatekeeper, the gate's wide open. And they seem to have a lot of sex.

My buddies that are gay when they go to cruising grounds and festivals and stuff like that, they come back and they've got an abacus to try and keep track of how many people they've had sex with. Sure, but there's a subdombed dynamic, isn't there? Typically, yes, during the sexual dynamic. But certainly, the most interesting thing is, for me, especially with courting and mating and getting from date to sex,

is the fact that women are almost always the sexual gatekeepers, that men are almost always the sexual protagonists. And you may have seen Rob Tweet it's something the other day talking about the percentage of women in the percentage of men that prefer to be asked out on a date versus those that prefer to do the asking. And there is an asymmetry there, there's like a whatever, a six to ten percent variance between the number of men that prefer to be asked out and the number

of women that are prepared to do the asking. Yes, yes, I completely agree with that. I mean, I'm happy that Rob has posted something about that because I think in my personal experience that has always been the case that I'm the one that always has to make the first move in initiating a date or getting a number whatever it is, right? Because, you know, she's nice and she's out there in the corner talking to her friends, but I'm going to have to cross the Ruben Asker for a number. and she's out there in the corner talking to her friends, but I'm gonna have to cross the Roman ask for a number. But that's reflective of the dynamic that she holds the keys to the resource

that mostly people are trying to get, which is sexual access. But the dynamic gets reversed, right? That women hold the keys to sex, but men hold the keys to relationships. Relationships, correct, correct. I completely agree with that point. It harkens back to this notion or this idea that I've had is whether or not men are more powerful than women, based on the fact that women hold the gatekeepers of the sexual marketplace

as it were. That men are after sex, right? There's this economist that has this idea that everything men have done in terms of building is premised on receiving sex from females. So, you know, you jump out of a plane, you know, you build a company, you do it because you want to get laid, maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But I think there's some merit to that because we're all after reproduction, right? Spreading or seed, reproducing, you know, passing on our genes to the next generation. And if that's the case, well,

women are, in essence, powerful because they are, as you say, the gatekeepers to the sexual marketplace. And they determine who gets to pass on their genes and who doesn't. There's an episode of Futurama, where sex robots are distributed to everyone on the planet and nothing happens anymore. Everyone just stops working.

So that's the situation you're talking about. There's another quote that you put in here saying, according to Pew Research, 51% of men between the ages of 18 and 29 are single compared to 32% of women in the same age group. How the fuck does that work? Because the gender split of men and women is around about 50-50.

Well, it probably works because there's probably a small percentage of men or an outsized portion of men, probably a small percentage of men that are dating a lot of these women. And when probably perceived that they're in a relationship with these men, when an actual out, he's probably dating a variety of different women. And you know tied to that concept of that 51% of men is the notion that the reason why they're

single is primarily because they're too afraid to ask a woman out and it goes back to that concept we're talking about rejection. So guys using only fans it sort of takes away the sting of rejection. Yes, what was that? The ineffectiveness of sipping lies in its pedestrianization of women in the absence of genuine intimacy. While the gentleman holds doors and pays for dinner and engages in the women with the women on an emotional level, the simp inundates a woman

with extravagant gifts and superficial praise. The simp engages in romantic bribery, attempting to buy a woman's love. And that's just not gonna work. No, it doesn't, because I, look, I'm on the to buy a woman's love and that's just not going to work. No, it doesn't because I look, I'm up to believe that women are masters in spotting bullshit. They can see it in mile away, especially when it comes to romantic conquest. And if a man is not genuine in his intentions and his his courtship of her, she's going to spot that very, very quickly.

How would a simp not be genuine? Well, if it's always about giving undue praise and gifts, well, there's something wrong there, right? If there isn't any pure emotional interaction, if there isn't any need to engage her beyond simply giving her praise and attention, well, he's not really going to get through the front door, is he? So there's an underwritten expected reciprocation which isn't being adhered to. Yes, and there's sort of this cat mouse game that you could probably

play with the girl that you're trying to court, right? I think the push and push and pull process is what it's referred to. And if all you're doing is giving attention to a female, your attention is worthless. It's a getting getting too much of something makes it makes it essentially worthless. So you know, I don't know what your favorite food is, but let's say you love pizza. If you had pizza every single day, it no longer becomes your favorite food because you're eating it on daily basis and it loses its lustre over time. And the same thing applies with attention in this case here, where the value of a man's attention is lost if it's constant.

The number of men aged 18 to 30 who report having no sex in the past year has tripled between 2008 and 2018. So this is pre-pandemic and I imagine it must have gotten awful lot worse through the pandemic as well. Why do you think this is happening? It was probably higher than 31% or whatever it was when it was reported because that's not something that a lot of men would actually report to people. It's sort of a stigmatized, right? The male virgin is something which is stigmatized with a society. But I think the reason why this is, again, it's a complex question which probably has a multivariate answer. So it could be the case that it's men being pushed out of the sexual marketplace because women are typically looking for a guy at the 90th percentile, the power few as it were, at the end of the power law distribution. That could

be a potential reason. So they're not finding women that are necessarily interested in them because they are, let's say, average, socioeconomically speaking. It could be the case that they've actually dropped out of the sexual marketplace. So excessive use of pornography, playing video games, not putting themselves in a situation in which they can court women and actually engage with them. That is probably another reason why. For me, I think that's a big two. But go on, go on. That's interesting. So I think, you know, Blackpill, in cell culture, Redpill, Kevin Samuelels fans, everyone wants to blame the lack of sex or the vast majority of people want to blame the lack of sex on a women's

standards being too high, or at least for the people who aren't familiar with this corner of the internet, that's a big explanation. But the fact that some men have chosen to retreat from dating, because there's simply other more fun things to do. You know, it's not just about the black pills that can't and the red pills that won't. It's the migtows that choose not to. Yes, men that go their own way, absolutely correct. And like a lot of this comes down to effort.

If you actually want to have a girlfriend and actually have a meaningful relationship with a girl, you're going to have to try. You're going to have to put yourself out there and you're going to have to suffer rejection. Rejection, I think, is a large part about—it really is a masculine feature, so dealing with rejection. Of course, females as well can deal with rejection, but dealing with rejection and handling is how you build a backbone, right? It's how you develop a thick skin.

And the more times you suffer rejection when it comes to dating and courtship, the better you are at it. Why do you think we are so terrified of rejection as men? Hey, suffering. No one likes to feel as though they're inadequate. And John Jordan Peterson actually again, go back to going back to him. He has this fantastic line and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and But again, if you do want to actually achieve that, to spread your genes as it were, you're going to have to take hits. Do you think that women feel the same pain of rejection just that they ask less frequently than men and that they will passively get, they are, how would you say, they're getting passive traffic and men are having to create active

adverts to use the online marketing vernacular. Yes, good good good good terms there. I can phrase you all you. How many girls have actively asked you out? It's in due to over 15 years of being out and about a night so I can remember most of them. I'm talking single digits. Yes, ask a lie. It's like maybe two.

It's not that much, right? And so women aren't taking the active effort to engage with a man and ask him for his number. And so therefore, they don't suffer as much rejection. But when they do suffer the rejection, I can imagine that it's pretty damn painful because it's not in your nature, let's say, to actually put yourself out there

and initiate the conversation or initiate the engagement. So you've already overcome something. You've already decided to make an increased effort on top of what you think should be done. This is outside my normal operating schedule, and it still hasn't worked. Well, if there's, I want to hear the girls that are listening put a comment on YouTube or whatever and tell us what you think, because if, let us know what the pain of rejection is like, whether or not you think it's as bad as your male counterparts. Yes, fascinating.

I would love to see the other comment. Yeah, well, we need you to do a day to dive on it. Yeah, it's a weird one, man. Do you not think, is there something deeper than that? Is the, what would it be evolutionarily? Why would it be the case that a woman saying, no, is so painful? Is it that there is a limited number of women

and that this is a reminder of your place in the status hierarchy within the tribe of the hundred people that you know and of those hundred people, maybe four of them are available women that are of the right age for you. Yes, it's a, it's probably a mark of inadequacy. So being told, no, that one cannot reproduce is, is very painful. And evolutionary speaking, most of, we have more female ancestors than we do male ancestors, which indicates that a small percentage of men in antiquity in ancient times actually reproduced.

And so, this is a good thing and a bad thing in a way. It's bad, obviously, because a lot of men are dying without reproducing, but it's probably a good thing, in a a sense because women are selecting the best possible mate, and so it improves our genetic line when all the top stock males are selected. Virging terrifyingly close to people posting eugenics in the comments below here, Vincent, which is, dude, I agree with you. I agree with you.

The fact that selection pressures from women choosing things which are outward displays of fitness, charisma, I agree with you. I agree with you. The fact that selection pressures from women choosing things which are outward displays of fitness, charisma, all of the reasons, why is it that you think that the things that you find attractive, you find attractive? Why? Everything. My favorite example of this, right?

The preferred body size of women over time is fluctuated. You've gone from bigger women, you know, Marilyn Monroe wasn't a thin, famous actress, right up to the thigh gap desire of sort of the early 2000s, to now kind of the more like fit chick, insta-bum, BBL, chit that you've got now. However, throughout all of time, the preferred waist to hip ratio of women has remained the same.

And it's always been around 0.82, why? Because women that have a higher waist to hip ratio, on average, are more fertile. The same thing goes for large eyes, flushed lips, rosy cheeks, because those are signs of youth. Youth also equals fertility. With men, the V-taper is precisely the same. Preferred body size for men over time has changed, but an increase in width, an increase in jaw size, an increase in brow ridge are all signals of high testosterone, testosterone equals more status,

more resources, more go get a probably more disagreeable. I would imagine that men who have higher levels of testosterone are more disagreeable as well. So like all of the things that we happen to like, even symmetrical faces, it's genetically more difficult to grow a symmetrical face than an unsymmetrical face. And then you have the sexy sun hypothesis. If I'm attracted to this man, my children will be attractive. Therefore our genetic lineage will continue more easily. All of these things, the reason that you're attracted to the things

that you're attracted to is mostly because they are signals of fitness. And realizing that I had a Robert Pullman on the show, behavioral geneticist and people get real uncomfortable talking about behavioral genetics because it reminds them of eugenics in a way that it absolutely shouldn't. And the only person that you should complain about if you are throwing the eugenics term around at a behavioral geneticist is why aren't you dating that homeless four foot four jobless man on the street that doesn't wash?

Why aren't you dating that girl that you can't better look at and is super annoying and super disagreeable? Why? That's eugenics as well. Yes, yes. Well, that was a fantastic summary of the literature. That was great Chris. I really like that. But basically what this comes down to is ancient ideas and modern skulls. So a lot of what we do at the level of, of course, there are idiosyncrasies between people. We like what we like for a variety of reasons. It may be social. So there's that notion

that we marry people like our parents. But even still, that is a combination of biological determinism and sort of social rearing. But at the same time, the evolutionary lens here is incredibly important that a lot of what we find attractive, so you point it out youth infertility when it comes to men and their made preferences, is something which is borne out in the in evolution, right? These are things which we look for, men in looking for women. And for females, the same sort of thing applies with, as you mentioned, the V-taper, with men having certain physical characteristics which made them more of a protector and more of a provider.

Women are typically going to, and antiquity of them, as well as today, put their interest or their lot behind a man who is capable of taking care of them. And that was especially the case in an evolutionary age and time, but it's also carried off over today. What are some of the unique challenges that we've got with modern-made selection? Well, the primary problem, and I do think that it is verging into a very, very, very serious issue, is the imbalance in the sexual marketplace, where there is a presumably a small percentage of men who are receiving the most attention from women, that women want men in the upper echelon, socioeconomically speaking, right?

They want a man that earns top 10% in terms of income that has a square jawline, that has a six-back, is in the top 10 in terms of height as well. And these characteristics, when put together, equate for a very small percentage of men. And if the majority of women are vying for these men and ignoring the rest of them, that creates not only a large number of lonely women, but it creates a lot of sexually frustrated men. And those two things are

not necessarily, or not even very good if we're looking at a prosperous society. Why is that a modern phenomenon, surely these impulses have been with us throughout time. So the impulse is yes. The one impulse being hypergamy, so woman dating upwards is something which has been ingrained and constant throughout human existence. But I think the three things which have changed,

at least in the last 50 years are one female achievement. So women are typically earning more than men at a certain age bracket and they're going to college at a higher rate. So just to give you an example of statistics. So in the 1960s, there were 1.6 men to every female at a four year US college. By 2003, there were 1.35 women for every man in a four year US college and women are going to college and earning degrees at a higher rate than men and this also applies to postgraduate degrees where something like 12% of women have a postgraduate degree relative to 8% of men.

When it comes to the economics as well, the press association compiled a lot of data looking at economics earnings. And what they found was that women between the ages of 20 and 29 made on average 1,111 pounds more than a man in that same age demographic. So that's one point. The one factor being improved female attainment. The second factor is that there's a greater variability among males. And this is with regard to economic earnings and such, all the characteristics that you would look for in a viable partner, that there is a wider distribution

of men economically, so making more money, maintaining more sexual partners. And so this variability is, of course, going to play to that top 10% of men. And the third thing is, I think this is an important one because it's probably with regard or with relation to technology. So an expansion or globalization of the sexual marketplace and the collapse of local status hierarchies where things like Instagram, things like Tinder are making it such that there's

an international pool of partners with which you can select from, that you couldn't have before. So 50 years ago, you probably meet someone, a romantic prospect in a bar, local bar, or at a rec center, or whatever it is. Certainly my parents met locally, right? They were maybe from different villagers or something, but it was a local phenomenon, but today everything is international, everything is globalized. And that, all these characteristics together, along with Hypergamy, has resulted in this massive imbalance.

How is it, if there's women out educating and out earning men between the ages of 20 and 29, how is it that there's still a commonly held assumption in the culture about men out earning women, about women being held back? Do you want the sort of dude bro answer? Both, give me all of them. Well, the dude bro answer is that people are dumb and un-informed and they typically go along

with memes and messages. That's a joke, by the way, I don't think people are dumb. I think it's a matter of just the amount of information that's being presented and how it's being presented. Because if members of the media are just presenting that narrative over and over again, it's going to stick, right? We're just playing off heuristics here.

I think that's the main thing. That's the reason why this narrative sticks. This notion of the gender pay gap is sticking around despite the culpice amounts of research done about it. The fact that if you actually disaggregate the data, if you looked at our work, if you looked at industry, if you looked at job type occupation, these sorts of things, you would see that there's a reason why it is that men on average make more than women. Not to mention the fact that women between the ages of 20 and 29 make more money than men within that age demographic,

what happens at age 29 is after that is probably motherhood. So it's not even a question of men and women making more or less than the other, it's a question of everyone else making more than mothers. The interesting thing to me, I've been thinking about this for so long, is the presumption amongst common culture and people that put forward this, the idea about the gender wage gap, is that the inherently masculine frame is the attainable, admirable, preferable one that everybody should be playing on. It's like the values that we've typically associated with men, or with masculinity, or with men's trajectory through life, is the one. Those are the rules of the game that everybody should be playing by, and now we need to kind of manipulate it so that everyone gets to play that game.

Does that make sense? Yeah, Sora. Well, think about the fact that there are a lot of women out there who might want to wipe the floor with men and get their postgraduate degree and earn, you know, a grand and a bit more per year throughout all of their 20s, but can't, can't wait to become mothers and don't actually mind about the fact that they get to become mothers. And yet, the woman that decides to do that is seen through this particular lens as lesser because she's decided to play the game that isn't the typical masculinity approach.

Well, why haven't you only taken your three months maternity leave because you know in, I think it's in Australia, you kind of have like this big block of time and you can repurpose it between the man and the woman across both jobs. I don't really know how that works because the two companies are going to be different. But anyway, yeah, why is it that you're not going straight back to work? That, to me, I must imagine, for women that really can't wait to be mothers, must provide a level of ambient anxiety and maybe even guilt around the fact that they have decided to either be a mother or go back to work when they should feel like they're doing the opposite.

That probably has to do quite a bit with societal pressure. So, you know, women needing to work or not even societal pressure, but just an economic pressure. Yes. So, the fact that both adults in the household need to work in order to provide for everyone else is a clear factor here. But to your point, that is also an interesting thing where it is assumed that a woman should go off and get a job and do all those sorts

of things, but what if she doesn't want to? All of this comes down to personal choice. If you want to work and achieve a PhD and be a captive of industry as a woman, you're free to do so. Do it. But if you decide that at the age of 21 or even at the age of 18 before you even go to a college that you want to be a mother, you can do that also. I don't see the problem with it. The issue is that people have to understand that there are consequences and benefits to doing certain things. And we all have to

live with it. You can't simply do something and then complain about the action or the results of the action. Rolling the clock forward then, you can only have long term realistically, you can only have at one time one man to one woman unless you're in some crazy polygamy retreat somewhere. With that in mind, you would expect women to adjust their dating strategies in order to be able to find themselves in mate, but based on the stat, it doesn't really seem like that's bearing out. No, no, that's correct. And I think this probably comes down to hypergamy as well, is that women won't settle.

Well, the average woman probably won't settle. She'll probably go after the type of man that she wants. And if she doesn't get him She's more than happy to be single It's more than happy to work on her career and do what she needs to do Which is again perfectly fine. You do what you want to do. You do what you need to do But it obviously becomes an issue when there is a lot of men out there without a partner without a you know a person that

You know is there for them. Societies where young men or without partners are ones that typically become to stabilize and crumble within a short period of time, a short span of time. What's an example of that? I think in antiquities as well, I'm trying to remember the, there's a nation society that had this particular issue, but certainly it's the case that when young men operate and when they don't necessarily have a productive means of actually conforming or totalling themselves, they will typically tear a society apart.

I mean, everybody knows the dynamics that you're talking about. Everybody knows the guy, friend, who is a complete savage and doesn't really care about who he goes home with after he's had a couple of drinks. We all have that buddy at university. Not many of us had that girl buddy at university or far less, so, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah, I don't know, it strikes me as a particularly sort of unfortunate combination of circumstances. Another one being that if you have more lax rules around casual sex before marriage and birth control, which means that you can have sex without fear of having children, that means that women can have sex with high-value men

who are outside of their typical dating pool and perhaps higher value than they would usually have access to which then skews their goals moving forward about who they want to be in a long-term relationship with what they don't understand is that that man was prepared to give them sex but not prepared to give them a relationship yep yes yes that's a incredibly important point here understand is that that man was prepared to give them sex but not prepared to give them a relationship. Relationship. Yup.

Yes, yes. That's an incredibly important point here. It's a matter of knowing what's available and what you can actually attain, being realistic about your romantic prospects. So that high value man that is a top 10% earner that drives a Bugatti was probably never going to entertain a romantic relationship with you. So why try to court him at the outset? What was the benefit there?

Maybe it was a fun night and maybe you do enjoy engaging with him, but you are right when you say that it probably distorts their perception of what then is available. Because if you do have this experience with this guy and it was a fantastic experience in your head over heels for him, You want to replicate that experience in the next sort of relationships you have, but if that guy that you're dating doesn't quite reach that standard, you're never going to be happy. Well, which girl wants to admit to herself that this guy with the nice car and the good abs only wants me to fuck me?

No one wants, no, no girls going to be able to do that. Not only would you probably not know, but even if you did know, you wouldn't be able to justify it to yourself in any case. You know, it's the same as the guy, the same as the guy that sleeps with the really, really ugly girl. He'll probably justify it to himself as well. Actually, she's not that bad and it's this and you only think, no, dude, it's because you've had eight pints and you're in a city that you've never been in before and you're lonely. That's why. Yes, yes, yes, dude, it's because you've had eight pints and you're in a city that you've never been in before and you're lonely. That's why.

Yes, yes, so it's a lay right? Yes, correct. I don't know, man. I think it'd be very difficult for a girl to kind of concede that point. You know, one of the main reasons would be men give off signals of long-term mating strategies. Very few men, you know, no matter how alpha you are, are going to say, hope that you've got your Uber booked for 3.30 a.m. tonight. Type thing. As you're on the way back or higher mate, can you just wait outside in the cab while we get this done and then you can take a home? Most men

aren't honest and open about their short term mating intentions, which let's lead with leading women on. Yes, I think that is true, but at the same time, does being open make a man more or less attractive with regard to his intentions? So if you met a girl right away and you took her out on a first date

or maybe even a second date and you said to her, my intention is to marry you, does that make you more or less attractive if you are that transparent? I mean, what do you think? Maybe. I would say that's probably coming on too strong. That's coming on too strong. Right. So that sort of transparency may not necessarily work in that particular situation. Well, the most bizarre thing is that the men who have no intention of being in a long-term

relationship with you usually give off signals that they do, and the men who do want to be in a long-term relationship with you try to give off signals that they're not. Yes, but that's the thing though, is that it's a strange way that I suppose that the female mind perceives attractive males, and it probably comes back to the point about attention Is that you want that which you cannot have? You know, and if you can't have the the man that is you know the upper echelon of band the high value man You want him even more Roll the clock forward for me then like there's gonna be a lot of single women in future

What's gonna happen there because do you think that women can reset their high-pogamous nature? No, no, that's that's an evolutionary fixture that's going to stick around for quite a while. Things are probably going to get far worse than they are better before everything is said and done. What's that mean? Well, it means I think we're probably going to see a lot more violence with relation to in cells. I think that's probably going to go up as a result of the influx of lonely single men. And of course, you're going to see quite a bit more depression among single women. In fact, I think there's a statistic out there that indicates that women Caucasian females between the ages of 40 and 45 have the highest rates of antidepressant use. And that is probably going to increase as time goes on, but probably spread out to other age demographics. 40 and 45. I believe so. So do you think that that's

women who have perhaps not dated or dated unsuccessfully and made it to the wall without a partner and are now accepting their sort of childless future? Yes, I think so, but there isn't saving grace. So if I were to add a contradictory statistic here, it's that the only demographic among females where there's been an increase in fertility and children being born, is that same demographic? Is women between the ages of 40 and 45?

I wanna say that more women in 2019 had children over the age of 40 than under the age of 20. Correct, correct, that's exactly correct. I think, so peer research actually put out a study not too long ago, if 2016 was 80% of women between the age of 1445 that had a child and that actually increased by 6% as of 2019. That's crazy.

Yeah, it's slowly ticking upwards. And to be honest, the average age of women having children increasing is probably due to the fact that we're having less children out of, not quite children out of wedlock, but children born to teenage parents, let's say, to teenage women. Is that happening? Yes, yes. It's not the case that children are not being born out of wedlock. That is actually going up.

It's quite a substantial amount, but sort of a safe sex practice is that sort of thing has been instrumental in reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy. I read in the moral animal by Robert Wright about how monogamy is a sexual redistribution strategy. Oh yeah. Yeah, so this really fascinated me the fact that if you have one man with many women, you allow one particular man to capture most of the market. Whereas if you have one man with one woman, you actually end up allowing man number two to get woman number two. Whereas previously he would have been looking at woman number 11 because women 1 to 10 would

have been with man number one. And that kind of explains, I think, some of the resentment that you see in the black pill culture and in the in-sell culture around these chads, these high-value men that are able to sleep with many women, because they see them as tying up available women's reproduction potential during fertile years when they could have been dating other people. And also, how would you say, kind of bunching up the line, moving the queue tighter and tighter together in a way which has trickle down effect that has potentially competed them out of the dating market?

Absolutely. So these blackball guys will, as the meme goes, they hate Chad and Stacey. And it's funny you mention that because you are correct. So, and the research, I forget the name that you mentioned. Robert Wright is the book. Robert Wright, yes, entirely correct, I think, in that monogamy in the grand scheme of things is probably a newer concept, a newer thing that's come about. It was never the case in antiquity that we engage in monogamy.

It was typically polygamous, where we had harms and such. And I do think that there is an argument to be made about returning to that. Specifically, when we talk about imbounds to the sexual marketplace with a small percentage of men hogging a large percentage of women. So if we look at Tinder data, for example, most of the men on Tinder of the profiles they come across, females, they'll swipe right on, I mean, 60% of them. When it comes to females, they'll only swipe right on 4.5% of them. So that is a massive imbalance just on Twitter usage, and that is even compounded by the fact that 78% of individuals they use Tinder are male, and so 22% of individuals they use Tinder are male and so 22% of people that use Tinder are female,

which means of the demographic of the smallest demographic in terms of gender, the vast majority of these women are being selected by the vast majority of men. And the opposite is not true for females. Dude, I've just realized the implication of what you're saying and I've never thought of this before. I think about this shit a lot, right? I've read everything that you've read. I've read a lot of stuff around red pill and black pill. And I've only just realized that one of the potential solutions to this is to go back to a polygamous culture

because if women can't get rid of their hypergamous nature. If we can't raise men's level of competition up in order to be able to match the women, one of the solutions to make fewer people overall be single is to have many women with one man at the top and then just leave the men at the bottom to be cast away. That's fucking terrifying. That's terrifying and it's not what we want to do. That is a recipe for disaster. That is a recipe for social upheaval and just societal disintegration. If men are simply cast aside because they're inadequate. Fuck, but that's the case at the moment. That's the case at the moment with it being non-piligamous.

Non-piligamous, correct. So imagine a society like China where there is a massive gender Yes, I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem.

I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. I'm going to say that's a very serious problem. all of this if our hypotheses here are correct and this plays its course. Do you think are you talking about if you have one man with many women? Yes, so in essence, so as we just pointed out, it's that polygamous setup where it's one man with many women and the rest of these men who are incapable of attaining a sexual partner are being left in the dust. Well, the only thing that they have to bind together over is their mutual hatred of Chad and Stacey.

Of Chad and Stacey, yes. Fuck man, that's, so I never thought of the fact that a potential solution, and I'm gonna guess there'll be a utilitarian rationalist out there who would say that this is actually an optimal outcome as long as you can control this underclass of sexless men. That you actually end up reducing the number of people overall that are single by doing this. But you very, very much create a bifurcated society.

You have the haves and the have-nots. And the Matthew Principle comes out with this as well. So as an example, I think Robert Wright explains, I can't remember, it was in 1994, he wrote this book, man, it's so pressing, it's amazing. And but at the time, maybe the richest man was like Warren Buffett or something, it was like a really unsexy example. And he talks about the fact that you could have

the richest man in the world that's worth however many billion, and he could fund the lives using money as a proxy for resources, which is one of the fundamental things that women want from a man. He would be able to fund 10,000 women's lives the same as one millionaire. And when you think about that, you go,

well, okay, obviously women want more than just monetary access, they women want more than just monetary access. They actually want emotional connection. They want to be able to feel like they're part of a working capacity, family and so on and so forth. But when you think about it like that, and if the choice is between being completely single as a woman, as you get into your 30s, or being one of many with a man who you know can look after you because he's one of these super owners with all of the resources and all of the status.

I don't know. I don't know how tempting that ends up sounding. Incredibly tempting, I would assume, because it's the prospect of being funded pretty much winning the lottery ticket when it comes to these Warren Buffet types and having to raise children with a man that you're not necessarily attracted to or attracted to or even happy with that doesn't necessarily provide the sort of life that you want. Well, the third option is obviously to continue leading a solo-ranger life.

I think that the, from a utilitarian perspective, it would, like, why isn't everyone in a relationship with Elon Musk? Like, I should be in a relationship with Elon Musk based on utilitarian approach. Well, it's because he's building, he's busy building rockets. I think that's what the issue is. He's not, he doesn't have the time for those sort of things. But a terrible joke aside. Yes.

Your point is well taken. Yes. Um, because it's, you know what it is, I think it's just, it's a matter of unfamiliarity. So this sort of dynamic that we're describing is not something that people subscribe to normally, right? Something which is entirely foreign to us, given the fact that the nuclear family and monogamy's, given the fact that these two things are still ingrained within within the way we do relationships today. So while it may not be palatable today, it might be palatable in 10, 20 years time, 50 potentially. That was the aftershock of the Renaissance, right? The as roller-tomassy

founder of the Red Pill calls it the oneitis. The belief that there is one true love and this was very much pushed through the Renaissance. And then if you think about popular recent culture, you've got Disney movies like Aladdin that really, really just fundamentally create this. There is someone out there that is perfectly built for you and you will spend the rest of your life together. Yes, so I have a bone to pick with Disney,

I have an axe to grind with them because I think the disneyification of romantic relationships is incredibly dangerous. So are you, your parents still together? Yes. Yes, so our grandparents on our parents are, they typically have lower rates of divorce because the basis of the relationship

was not necessarily based on their happiness per se. It was more so getting things done and ensuring that these children were raised in a correct manner. And that often meant putting up with the opposite sex, putting up with your partner, despite the fact that they're behaving like a dickhead on that specific day. Today, things I think are different because, again, it's that disneyfication of romantic relationships where if it's not perfect, if it's not a fairytale, I don't want it. And so it is subject to divorce. And it again goes back to the concept of suffering and hardship and rejection. Now, how good was the relationship to begin with if once you hit a rough patch, you immediately

give up. I think that you see this as well with the increasing masculinization or the masculine frame that women are being encouraged to take to, you know, don't settle for less, clap back, be a boss bitch. I know that these are all kind of funny Twitter memes, but they permeate, you know, phenomenologically, they're in the back of someone's mind, they're in the back of a girl's mind.

The fact that he doesn't deserve you, babe, all of that sort of stuff is a verse to working through challenges with a man who is on a par with your sexual marketplace value. And the same thing goes for the guys. It's like plenty more fish in the sea, get over your last girlfriend by getting under the next one. You know, there are men and men on both sides of the fence here. Now, they're being played in different ways. The men are being reminded to reinforce their masculine traits and the women are being reminded that a protectionist strategy

is to adopt masculine traits. But again, what we're seeing, I need to, I need to ring Rob for like three hours and talk it through, but there is a masculine frame, a masculine preference, which is being... it's like when you vanish a table and it's just, it's just like a smattering across everything or it's like the direction that the wind is pushing, whether that be with how you're supposed to spend your relationships, how you're supposed to think about education, how you're supposed to think about your career, all of these things, they really do seem to be

pushing in that direction, but with the women's side of things, yeah, they're being encouraged to not accept a, not a subpar mate, but a difficult situation with a equitable mate. Yes, yes. It's a problem. Obviously, you're making the point here about ideas and memes. And it's not just a meme. It's a mode of thinking that is being inculcated by young women and also young men to an extent. And it's incredibly problematic that this notion that one must not necessarily settle. It's fine, right? I don't think you should ever settle per se, but it's more so that you should be very realistic about what it is that's attainable and what it is that's out there. And life is unfair, and you're not always going to get what you want, and you're just going

to have to deal with it. And if more people... Sorry, I was going to say that if more people were to come to that realization that they would just have to get on with things, and just accept them as to how they are, well, it'd be a lot simpler, wouldn't it? What do you mean, Bada? Well, if one, if, you know, the average female out there who is after, you know, Gigalfa Chad realizes that she can't actually

attain Gigalfa Chad, and she may in fact have to go with, you know, Storm and Norman as an example, Joey Bagadona's, she'd have a, she'd have a romantic partner, but it's that notion of settling being the boss bitch which comes into conflict with it, that what she's told and what she may necessarily need are two different things. So there's such a tough pill to swallow man and increasingly as I've spent more time with this, I do feel for women as well. You know, it's easy I think in this situation when we're

talking about stuff like this to men are the obvious victims of this because they're not the ones that are choosing to not be in relationships. They're often, on average, they're the ones that are being overlooked for being in relationships. But the experience isn't that much better for women either. Women didn't choose to have a hypergamous nature. They didn't choose to fundamentally find attraction in men who are across and above their dominance hierarchy. And as you put it in one of your articles, it's very difficult to date up and across a dominance hierarchy if you stand

to top your own. And as women begin to rise up through theirs, as they become better educated, they become richer, they have more status, and you now have a culture which is encouraging women to value that. I mean, you talk about another set of stats you had was there's a 50% increase in the use of erectile dysfunction medication amongst men who are in a relationship with women who out earn. Make more money, yes, correct. So you have all of these dynamics that are bearing out, that's got sweet fuck all to do with culture.

That is exclusively physiological, right? What is the function that's occurring that causes a man who's in a relationship where his wife out earns him to need to use a rectile dysfunction medication? You have significantly higher rates of divorce. I thought about that. The answer again is I think is a difficult one because it could be one of two things. The first thing could be that he probably feels inadequate. He doesn't feel as though he's leading a relationship.

He's put in a position where because he's not the primary breadwinner, there's a reduction in serotonin, for example, and he just feels inadequate. That translates to his ability to actually perform in the bedroom. But it could also be a reverse causality thing where his inability to actually make money in the first place actually costs the selection effect. Yes, yes. So it couldn't be the case that he was actually unable to make money for a variety of different reasons.

Maybe he was just completely agreeable. And so that probably relates to his inability to actually get it up. So he wasn't actually, you know, it wasn't the case that he was predisposed to get it up in the first place because of the variety of characteristics inherent to him. Wasn't there a start around, is it 30% of women said that they wouldn't get into a relationship with a man that doesn't have a job, or was it the 30% that said that it was a man that wouldn't earn more than them? I can't remember. So there are a number of statistics here. So these studies go back to 1939, where they found that women were twice as likely as men to want a partner that made more than them, or made a significant amount

of money, and this sort of finding has been replicated in studies in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. And I think the study that you're referring to specifically was that the, I think it may have been, was it Pew? Pew put out a study that said that 78% of women would not date a partner or not get with a perspective made that did not make more than dated, and only 48% of men shared that view.

Fuck, man. And you know how? No, sorry, go ahead. You have an ever increasing group of high performing women competing for an ever decreasing group of ultra high performing women, competing for an ever decreasing group of ultra high performing men. And the choice is, the analogy that I always use is, it's the same as being the tall girlfriend. Now, if you're a six foot one without heels on woman, you're looking at professional athletes, because on average, women want to date a man

that is about 21 centimeters taller than her. That's another recent Haranam statistic poll there. Interestingly, men prefer to data woman that's, I think, 16 centimeters or 12 centimeters shorter than him. So even in that, and this is such a perfect example, right? Women want to data man on average that's 21 centimeters taller. Men on average want to date a woman that is 16 centimeters shorter. In that, we have a disparity. We have the preference of a man and the preference of a woman, both moving in opposite directions, but not marrying up. Yes. Yes. So the missing point here is not just the preference of a woman, because from the conversation we're having, we're discussing female made preferences.

But what is loss here are male made preferences. What they're looking for in a perspective made. So we talk about what we're looking for. I'm not even spoken about that. Yeah, men don't matter. Yeah, men don't matter. But when even looking at what men desire in a partner, there's that notion that there's a new 18-year-old everyday.

And so these women that are achieving quite a bit, you know, economically speaking, educationally speaking, are going to be on average much older than women just entering the bloom of their life. So they're competing against women who are on average more attracted or more attractive to males. Because if it is the case that men are attracted youth and fertility, you're down, you're behind the eighth ball, if you're 35 with a PhD competing against an 18-year-old, that is just, doesn't have that much life experience, but is quite attractive to a... Works at Starbucks, but she's fertile as fuck.

Exactly. Exactly, it's a tough sell. It's a horribly unfair dynamic. The eighth symmetries go all the way down, man. I mean, you said, so here's another thing that some of the girls that are listening may have realized, if being smart and rich and high status is negatively correlated with men being attracted to you and with success in relationships, that may lead some women to signal that they are less smart and less educated and less wealthy than they are.

And I think that you found a study that showed women under reporting their education level in certain circumstances when around men. This is correct. So this is referencing, I believe, a Harvard business school study. So looking at declarations of personal success, a wanting to become something later on down the line. And when it was the case that women could confidentially report their ambitions, they would do so honestly. But when it was known that people would actually realize or recognize them, they would actually tamp down their ambitions so as to not make it seem as though they were ambitions. And it logically links the fact that they'd be less

attractive to a man because she was a boss bitch career, career woman. It's a John Petersonism to say, is it for every standard deviation that a woman goes above the normal IQ point that she's 30% less likely to get married? I can say that the exact statistic. So it was studied conducted by four universities here in the UK and it was found that for every 16 point increase for a man in IQ, his prospect of marriage increases by 35 percent. But for every 16 point increase in a woman's IQ, her prospect of marriage decreases by 40 percent. What do you do about that?

What do you do about that statistic? I don't know that you do anything about it. Again, it's all of what we're discussing here are just inherent facts of the human condition about dating sexual dynamics, and all of this is premised on evolutionary precepts, and there, I don't think there's anything you can do about it. I don't think there's anything you can do about it. The sad is that sounds unless you want to settle, because it's almost like you'd have to, if you're a female, and I do feel for young girls, particularly if I have a daughter in the future, I definitely would feel for her because

that you have ambitions and you want to be something and you want to be someone you want to achieve all these things and make quite a bit of money, good for you. You should aim for that sort of thing. But it comes with the consequence of knowing that men that you are looking to get with in a long-term relationship are not interested in those things. And you're not going to be as attractive as, again, the 18-year-old. It's a difficult thing that competence in many domains is not something which is seen as attractive by the sex that you're trying to attract as a woman.

And also, actually, can be detrimental. That you being competent, working hard to get a job, to grow a career, to get status, to earn money, to become educated, all of these things are actually making it more difficult for you to do it. And on top of that, they use up the single most important resource and the most attractive quality you have, which is time and your youth. You spend your twenties getting educated, building up your career and earning money to find out that men don't care about your education level, your career or your wealth and now you're older than some women

who you're now trying to compete with. But it's not kicking the balls, it's a kick in there's something else about... It's a punch in the tit. It's a punch of the tit. It's a punch of the tit, you're correct. Ah. Um. I have a fuck man. This entire subject area fascinates me because of how uncomfortable it is. You know, we are bound by our evolutionary precepts,

as you called them, to just... And the final thing as well is, like, the fundamental choice that you have left as a woman is to, as most women on average, if this hypergamous nature ends up continuing, and if the, how would you say, the over-success of women continues to accelerate, you have two choices as far as I can see. One of them is to move through life and be single, and the other one is to settle with a mate that you are fundamentally unattracted to. Neither of those seemed particularly good situations. The only advantage that women have over men in this, you know, average value women and average value men, the only advantage that the women have is the fact that they can settle,

and the men don't even have that opportunity. It's a tough, piled swallow, but the worst part about it is that it's not that it's a reality, and it will most likely move to being more palatable as time goes on, at least that's by contention. What do you mean? It's the fact. Well, in the sense that the worst part about is that we don't know about it. That's the worst part about it, is that it's assuming the shark in the waters, right? It's jaws and that this is a creeping disaster that is on the frontier that no one is particularly

informed about. And the whole point of this article was to, or the set of articles was to ring an alarm bell to say that this is definitely an issue that we need to be taking a very close look at, because it's not just that it's an issue that can be, that is, that damages an economy, for example, not my damage an economy, but it's an issue that damages a society and long term. Civilization. Yeah. Yes, civilization ending.

One potential remedy. I know that we can't reprogram our sexual desires. I know that hypergamy is going to stick about. I know that it's going to be so unpalatable as to make it a moot point to suggest that women should either be held back or should choose to hold themselves back from achievement because it's negatively correlated with mate success. One thing that you could do, a remedy that you could find that would keep everybody fine, would be to reinvigorate a goal of nuclear family and of child rearing and of sort of

more traditional like conservative values. Because that means that nobody loses out, but everybody now places the value of having a family so high that both men and women begin to work together collaboratively. You're not referring to enforcement, Ogamy, by any chance, are you? I'm not referring to enforcement, Ogamy, because Jordan nearly got cancelled for that and I'm not going to get done. That's a cancelful offense, my friend. Correct, yes.

But no, to take your point seriously, you are entirely correct, is that having conversations with people about this particular topic about what is the solution, that is the solution that is often presented, a reinvigoration of marriage, and maybe we won't use a term in force monogamy, but taking marriage seriously. Instead of that, you would be able to say not enticed monogamy, but celebrated monogamy, because people desire what they think or the people desire. And the best enforcement mechanism is admiration and desire and social renown. If it's now the cool thing to have a family, to have a secure life, to the two dogs, two kids,

white picket fans, shit, then you don't need to mandate shit. People are just gonna do it because they want to do it, because other people want to do it. Yes, Memelek. Exactly that. I mean, if that is what is desired by most people or perceived to be desired by most people, it's likely the case that everyone else is probably going to want it. I mean, this is Memelek Desire 101, right? This is Renas Gerard in a nutshell. And but that has to do with mores, cultural mores and perceptions and beliefs within society, what it is that we

prioritize. And it seems at this point in time that we don't necessarily prioritize having a stable and healthy relationship, having a stable and healthy marriage, raising children, and having to deal with the child's intribulations that come with being a part of a family and being a part of a healthy marriage. I mean, I'll talk to friends about this and they'll see to me, I don't want to stay up, you know, change diapers or wash dishes or do this and that and take the necessary blows. They're acquired to actually maintain a healthy relationship. And, well, those are the things that you have to do.

If you want to maintain a healthy relationship, it acquires a bit of pain. But ultimately, you know that the pain results in some form of reward or gratification, that being a healthy and happy family, and to an extent a healthy and happy society, potentially. We've thrown so much shit out of the window that we shouldn't have done, man. Absolutely. Absolutely. Not just in terms of marriage, but probably in terms of religiosity as well. Hold on.

I would say. Talking babies and bath waters, right? Oh, dude, the baths gone. Like, everything's gone out of the window. And this is why I find it so difficult. Now the liberal impulses and the progressive impulses that I have in me, I find them getting dampened down by increasing wisdom that I have in me, I find them getting dampened down by increasing wisdom that I find in the past. And that's a, or do you say like an internal struggle that I'm dealing with at the moment, where I'm just so tentative about whatever the next piece of progression

is, because I'm like, well, what if we, what if we throw away yet another thing that we desperately needed, but we didn't know about? Yes. Well, the notion about progressiveism, I find interesting. And we don't necessarily have to have a discussion about politics, is that where are we progressive to? Just because you're progressing doesn't mean you're progressing the right direction. You could be regressing, in fact. If you're throwing out ideas and concepts and institutions that are long held and vitally

important to the society or to survive a lot of family and societies, you're probably going in the wrong direction. Oh, come on. I don't know. I don't know. It's a, some sort of cultural revolution like that, I think, would be a pretty cool thing. We were talking before we got started about the fact that you have a red pill for men that only takes you up to the point at which you fuck a girl and then it goes away. And you have, I think it's like the pink pill or women's dating,

like so red it's and stuff. That is basically the same thing for women. But there's no equivalent learning using the understandings of evolutionary psychology to encourage an effective and foster a successful marriage and then family life moving forward. Like, it's just, it's a huge, huge problem swimming underneath the water that most people don't know about, that the culture is actively working to pull us away from. Yes. And now it's being reinforced. It's feeding the most base elements of our, it's limitically hijacking us in the worst

way possible. And taking us further and further away from a destination, which is not only good for individual flourishing, but also good for civilizational flourishing as well. Completely correct. And maybe the reason why that is is that it doesn't sell. It's not sexy enough. It's not memetically pleasing to want a family per se and to the 2.5 kids or whatever it is

and a white picket fence. It's just not something that is encouraged for people to want. They'd much rather engaging hook-up culture. Do what you like, but understand that there are consequences to actions. I think that's probably the fundamental lesson here is that actions have consequences and you're gonna have to you're gonna have to be those consequences. With the single biggest predictive for extra marital sex is premarital sex.

Premium sex, correct, correct. And one of the biggest points of or factors that that's lead to divorce is exactly that is the amount of sexual partners you had prior to marriage, with that in economics. I've got some friends who are absolutely fucked. I've got some friends who are not going to be able to hold. I just have a conversation. I've done a marriage at all. Dude, stop it. I know that you're not thinking about this. You're 25 and full of testosterone and just sleeping with anything that moves. But I promise you, in 25 years time, when you're etching, gripping onto the bed sheets in the middle of the night because you're so torn, you're going to thank me.

Stostro is a hell of a thing because as a criminologist, it's fascinating when we look at the rates of crime commission between the ages of 15 and 25, is that's when most guys will commit the vast majority of crime. And then it's sort of tapers off beyond the age of 25 and it's because of testosterone, right? Your testosterone typically decreases at the age of 26. Why is it the case that people who are on TRT, which is super physiological levels of testosterone, aren't committing tons of crime then, or are they?

I don't know. I don't know if that's a great question for a criminologist to answer. I think the reason why that is is that men that typically take TRT are probably in their 40s, maybe their late 30s, and they already have a career in a family. And so that is one of the main, or several main factors that would prevent you

from engaging in crime, is having a stable family and a stable livelihood. And so you don't want to destroy any of that by engaging in crime and having a stable family and a stable livelihood. And so you don't want to destroy any of that by engaging in crime. So what we don't want is a big bunch of roving bands of in-cells who are all on TRT in their 40s, jacked out of their minds with huge forums. Yeah, definitely that. I do worry about that though, particularly the rise in insultum and the effect is going to have on a crime because we could probably talk about a crime statistics around this and the sort of things we're seeing at the fringes in terms of in cells engaging in crime. And all the indicators would tell me that there is going to be a looming crisis with regard to this.

It may not be as serious as, let's say, you know, rampant drug dealing, for example, but it is going to be an increasing problem moving forward. Do you think that in cells should be considered a terrorist group? Ooh, that's a good question. I don't want to wait until that one, because that's all I'll give you an answer. It's not that I'm afraid of providing an answer. It's there has to be an ideological opponent, a component that is attached to whether or not a group is labeled as an in-sell or or excuse me as a terrorist. And is it an ideology? Maybe, maybe. I have to give more thought to that. I don't

quite know the answer to the question. It's a good question. I had this great question. Namakate's who does the, I think it's the in-sell podcast or the Black Pill podcast. And it was briefly after that guy in Plymouth or Portsmouth that went on a shooting rampage and he was associated with some in-sell Black Pill forums. And they started calling it a terrorist attack. And yes. If we have a Black Farring Effect actually actually thinking about it now because you have to imagine

that this demographic of people is already downtrodden to begin with and further labeling them as terrorists may actually metastasize further from an activity. This is— This is— This is the thing that the press and the media and government needs to understand that it is not a. It's no longer the case that the media are just a broadcast platform. They are it's a two way street whereby they actually influence the behavior of people on the ground. So I had Andrew Gold on the show and he was partway through a documentary

series about non-offending pedophiles in Germany. So I think they call themselves pedophiles and they call the group that act on their impulses, pedocriminals. And that's the bifurcation. I think we've seen a minor attracted person now, map as the academically very strange, academically justified or labeled term. So he was talking to them and he said that there's three main risks that these pedophiles, not the criminals, that they suffer with. One of them's being intoxicated. The second one is proximity to children and the third is ostracization by society.

And he says it's like a reverse self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want to push me away so much and you say that there is no place for me in this society, I'm reprehensible and I'm disgusting and I'm terrible and I've not got any future at all. Why should I play your game? Why should I play by your rules? Why should I? Why shouldn't I go and shoot up a school if I'm an in-sale that doesn't feel like he's got any culture at any future? Why shouldn't I

do that? Yes, absolutely correct. This is a massive issue, isn't it? Look, for me, when it comes to public policy, we don't really think clearly about the negative externalities of the policies. When it comes to actually putting forth good policy, one has to think clearly about what the consequences are, the benefits and the consequences. And the economist Thomas Sol, Thomas Sol said that public policy is not you implement something and it's immediately fixed. It's actually a trade-off. You're giving up something to get something else. And so whenever a policy is implemented, you have to think very critically about the effects not only in the short term,

but in the long term. Think not just about AC and B, but the rest of the letters in the alphabet when it comes to probable outcomes. Talk, man. Well, I mean, I don't know. I don't know. for all that it's post-apocalyptic and makes me terrified to my back teeth about what's going to happen in future, it's endlessly fascinating. I really appreciate the work that you do and for guiding me through this little back and forth today. What have you got coming up? Have you got any ideas about areas that you're interested in for writing next?

Great question. I'm of two minds on it because I am interested in returning to Walt Capitalism and looking at Hollywood and whether or not, Walt Messaging in films actually reduces the amount of your ship and the revenue that is earned by movies. That'd be interesting to look at, but I'm slowly moving away from writing, writing as sort of a public intellectual. And I'm sort of going in the direction of finance and industry of doing my own thing on the side. Because look, I don't want fame, I don't want to be seen.

I don't tweet at all. And as you pointed out at the outset of this, I will publish your paper every two, three, four months. And granted, it takes a lot of work to actually write these fucking papers, like, good God, it takes months to actually research things like an academic paper. But it's, it's, it's slowly becoming a time constraint and a strength, a constraint on my cognitive capital is that I could be doing things which are more productive and beneficial

to people as opposed to simply writing papers. Well, from one reader that has at least found a little bit of joy in the stuff that you've put out, man, I think, you know, whether this is close to the twilight of your writing career or not, I think you've put some awesome stuff out there, and it's really, really interested me. So, yeah, I hope you've got a few more left in the tank and then we've got an excuse to do this again. I really appreciate it, Chris. Thank you for having me on the podcast. It was a fantastic conversation. I should actually thank Rob Henderson. That son of a bitch has bought me a cigar and it's probably waiting for me back in the house. They'll smoke it, but I'm going to thank him because he's actually, I was actually hesitant because I don't really do podcasts, but he said, Chris is a great guy. You got to talk to him. I trust him. He's one of the dude bros and I'm a bit of a dude bro myself to be honest. So I guess we got on well.

I've got that Asian seal of approval, man. That's all I'm here for. That half Asian agent is approval. Is the joke that we make. Half Asian, Rob Henderson, is that it? Half Asian, yes, half Asian Rob. I love it. Dude, catch you next time.

Wonderful buddy, take care. All best.