The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - When Men Behave Badly

Episode Date: July 17, 2021

David M. Buss is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Buss previously taught at Harvard University and the University of Michigan. He is considered the world’s leading scientific expert on strategies of human mating and one of the founders of the field of evolutionary psychology.  His new book: When Men Behave Badly: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment, and Assault (2021) uncovers the evolutionary roots of conflict between the sexes. Buss has more than 300 scientific publications. In 2019, he was cited as one of the 50 most influential living psychologists in the world.

This is live from the table, the official podcast of New York's world-famous comedy cellar, coming at you on Sirius XM 99. Raw dog. And on the Laugh Button Podcast Network, Dan Natterman. That was one of my better intros. I didn't, there was no stuttering or stumbling. Everything was enunciated well. I'm Dan Natterman, co-host of the world-famous Comedy Cellar official podcast

Live from the Table, and I'm with Noam Dorman, owner of the world-famous Comedy Cellar, the ever-expanding world-famous Comedy Cellar, with Perry L. Ashton Brand, our producer, and we have with us tonight a Comedy Cellar regular, relatively new here. I think he's been around here about a year or so. Eric Newman,

everybody. Say hi to the people, Eric. Hey, guys. Two and a half years. Well, two years and four months. But do you count the pandemic? I was here the pandemic, so I would have to count it. Okay. You mean you, you performed during the pandemic? Yeah. A little bit when we were doing the, the drop-in shows. There's some interesting comedy, the comedy seller once again, and I've said it before and I'll say it again when any any uh any man any

any man is accused of me too violations there are no winners except noam dorman because bill cosby excuse me uh once again the comedy seller got a blast of publicity because noam was asked oh the sound is all fucked up. Okay, Dan, you sound great. Okay. Who was it? The New York Post asked you whether you would. It was originally TMZ. TM, did Harvey Levin himself call you? No, it was a woman.

I don't remember her name. Very nice, very personable. But she called you up and said, would Cosby be allowed to work here if requested? And you said. Yeah, they said, would you say you book these other guys? Would you book Cosby? And I said, no, I this was my exact answer. No, I wouldn't feel comfortable booking Bill Cosby. And besides, the audience wouldn't tolerate it. But I think comparing him to those other guys is ridiculous. That's all I said. That's 100 percent what I said. And from that, the headline is

Dwarven to Cosby. Stay the hell out. By the way, I was literally about to tell you that I hated the way that person phrased that is you let these other guys perform these other. It's completely different. It's 100% different. Yeah. So so but but it is pretty interesting because I mean, just it shows you what's going on in the press. So actually, I wrote a Facebook post about this. And then I got an offer from The Wall Street Journal to write about it in the journal. But I'm not going to do it. But you said you're not going to. I'm not going to do it because I don't want to bring attention to the specifics of the thing.

So anyway, but the thing is, like a reporter gets something in his head. It's like a total hypothetical. Cosby never had any interest in playing the comedy seller. Why would Cosby? I mean, Cosby can, if he's going to do something, he can do it for millions, he can do a pay-per-view event or whatever. He doesn't need to do.

Well, he might come here to test material, even though he never did before. It's absurdly unlikely. He doesn't have any connection with, there's just no reason he would, right? He's never done it before. Never done it before. I mean, it's possible he could, but it wasn't,

but it didn't come. So they come up with a hypothetical. I'm like, no grandstanding, just like very mild. No, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. And from that, they generate a worldwide story as if something happened, as if he wanted to, as if I turned him down. It's like she might have just said, you know, would you put Hitler on? Like, it's nothing. If Robin Williams came back to life would you put Hitler on? Like it's nothing.

Robin Williams came back to life. It's like. And also in the New York Post, it said that it said that you said that you wouldn't put him on because the audience wouldn't like it. And yeah, well, they took they took this. They didn't say what you really said is I wouldn't do it. And also the audience wouldn't like it. Yeah. And actually, but funny thing is, I said to her, I said to her, I wish you wouldn't use that because people are going to say, oh, the only reason he's doing it is because because it's bad for business. That was a TMZ woman.

No, I said it to the Postwoman of the New York Post. And then they still sort of put it that way. No, there was some people on Twitter said that actually she. No, no. The New York Post article said Noam Dorman said he's not going to. He wouldn't use cosby because because the audience wouldn't like it i mean there's no winning these things the media is really corrupt and it's all because um maybe it was always corrupt but now it's like pay-per-click

so they need to have something like if the headline was dorman says he's uncomfortable right nobody's gonna read that norman says norman says he's uncomfortable with with the possibility with the remote possibility you know then yeah you're right so Norman says he's uncomfortable with the remote possibility. You know, then yeah, you're right. Norman said he's never heard from Cosby, but if he did, he'd be uncomfortable. So they make it a headline. Norman says, get the hell out.

But then, of course, now I'm being called a racist on Twitter. And some people refer to the fact that I assume that's a very minority opinion. Usually it's the minorities, but sometimes white people. And then and then. But also some people said a few people mentioned the fact that I'm Jewish. And it just just shows what a cesspool this world is like.

It's just well, Twitter in particular. But I do imagine that most people on Twitter are actually on your side on this one. Yeah. Well, as opposed to other things I've done, it's like, it's really not bad publicity to be told that you, you wouldn't book Bill Cosby. He's one of the most reviled men in America. And TMZ has 5 million Twitter followers.

So you're mentioned and that's yet more publicity for the seller. And the post has however many million that they have. To be honest, when they asked the question, you know, the thing zoomed to my head. The first thing is, well, if there's always a risk, they'll say no comment. And no comment can always be construed as I would book him. So I didn't want that. And then I thought, well,

or maybe they'll just call another club. I said, well, I don't want another club to be seen as the go-to club to ask about a question like that. I like the idea that we're the club to go to. So I figured it's better to answer than not to answer. And I said, well, how much trouble, after all the trouble I got in the past, how much trouble could I get in by saying I wouldn't book Bill Cosby? So I think it was the right thing to answer. I just didn't want to, by answering, call attention to the other guys.

Like they don't, they don't need this coming up yet again in their lives, you know, but I don't think really, I didn't, I don't think I contributed to that. I think I would have contributed to that if I did a wall street journal article, that's why I turned it down. Right. But I also think you're setting a very good example for like every other club. I know that you don't think of it that way.

No, I, I actually have a bad, like if people knew what I really thought, they might not be happy with me because I don't want to book him, but I don't, I wouldn't get mad at another club for booking him. I feel like that's none of my business and I don't like this social norm

that people think they have a say. Like he's a free man, Bill Cosby. I don't like him. He's a rapist, like he's a free man bill cosby i don't like him he's a rape like he's accused of rape is he rape he was he was convicted of rape but then technically he's now innocent of moving guilty again right i mean no but okay well all right that's it that's it like definitely definitely not but but you know but he's no more or less likely a rapist than like bill clinton or mike tyson or and's, or done things on the par with Chris Brown. I mean, there's no consistency to it, but better off, I think as a society, if a free man can do whatever,

someone will hire him to do. I don't think we all ought to have a say in that. I just don't believe that. Right. As a business owner, you can choose not to have them in your business, but, but, but I, I don't want, I don't believe that right as a business owner you can choose not to have him in your business but but but i i don't want i don't want i don't think regardless of what the the morality the moral qualms of a club owner i just can't imagine anybody from a business standpoint is going to book this guy i don't think any audience i think he's the one that doesn't get booked and i don't even think theater is like a theater is a different sort of a situation where they rent the theater

and then they they bring the audience that wants to see them i don't even think theaters like a theater is a different sort of a situation where they rent the theater and then they they bring the audience that wants to see them. I don't even think a theater will touch. Well, I'm going to tell you that I that I know firsthand of somebody who wants to book him a theater. No, I don't want to say what it is on the air, but something significant. And I told him I spoke to him. I think that's a terrible decision. Well, you can't say if it's a theater or I can't say. But the point is that you would think that he would be radioactive for everybody. But but, you know, people want to make a buck and there's a lot of money probably to be made in like a Bill Cosby pay-per-view event. It's so, so, so like one and done retirement money in a thing like that, if you think about it. So. Right. I mean, it's just absolutely just astonishing that people are even having

this conversation. Like, should we give this guy who like fucking raped 60 plus women like a show like the fact that that's even a conversation? I mean, O.J. O.J. Simpson wrote that book. If I had done it, this is how I would have done it. Right. And that got published. No, I thought they that was Judith Regan, wasn't it? She put the kibosh on that. No, it was published. I mean, you can buy it on.

I don't know. I mean, whatever is like maybe she chose not to publish it. I don't remember the details, but I like having the conversation, though. I think the conversation is necessary, even if it's a completely, you know, in one, like, you know, 99% of the conversation leads in one direction and the 1% has a different take on it. I like that we're talking. So, so. Okay. But so then where's the line? Like if he had raped 60 children,

like is then it not? No, no, I know. I know. I know you're not saying that. But like as a just as a conversation piece, the fact that people are considering booking this guy for whatever reason, like where is the line? Look, there should be no line because I liken it to the exclusionary rule in the law, which, you know, that's when happens with some regularity where somebody is a murderer and the evidence is obtained illegally. And then the conviction where the evidence is thrown out and they're not convicted and they're not convicted. Right. And there's and we know why that is, because the social norm is important and we tolerate it. And it's also similar to the idea of a thousand innocent men, thousand guilty men go free rather than one innocent man be convicted. So, you know, once you start encouraging private actors

to make these decisions, to hold people accountable, it's just going to spin out of control. And they're going to start like, like they were, listen, when we put Louie on, you had people attacking our waitresses on the subway. They were holding them accountable. No, it's not the same thing. I said that's insane.

Right. It's insane, but it's, but it's an inevitable part of that kind of social norm where people think that there should be societal punishment beyond the institutions that are set up to punish people, civil and criminal law. So in my opinion, as much as it's distasteful for Bill Cosby to sit in a restaurant or Bill Cosby to perform somewhere, I think we're better off if we could just all learn to say, okay, he's free and he can do whatever the fuck he wants. I don't have to book him. I don't need to sit next to him, but because otherwise you think it's going to stop at Bill Cosby. It's, it's, it's,

it's open season and it's inconsistent. Like they won't do it to Bill Clinton. They won't do it to Chris Brown. They'll do it to Cosby. It's like it's all it's all a bad idea. We don't need it's just not the end of the world. We can just like we tolerate a murderer going free when the evidence is when the cops when the cops torture a confession out of somebody, whatever whatever the reasons are, are they are they going without a warrant or whatever the reason is that we find out these things. Somebody is free. They're free. And, and, and we should be proud of that as a society.

We're not, we're much better off that way. It's ridiculous to think that, that everybody should just, you know, try to make sure that nobody, that we think somebody is guilty. We think Cosby is guilty. Right?

No, he's guilty. No. Yeah. But I mean, no, he was convicted actually in this particular case. And I,

he was guilty to some degree. He was convicted, but the conviction was turned up. But let's say he was guilty and he did his time. What about then? Like, like, it's just why? Right. I hate why your logic is so sound. Why do we have this thirst for blood?

It's it's I hate to use the term, but it is virtue signaling to some degree. We can survive if free people can go to restaurants and work. It's like, you know, we can know that he's a horrible person. I don't want to hire him. But I'm not going to start boycotting the place that does want to hire him. Right. I get it. I know. There's no end to that. There's no limiting

principle to that. I was talking to a comic about this the other night, how like as an experiment, I would love to be able to announce him just to see how the crowd Would react I'm not going to do it I'm not going to I would never do that

I would like to Because I'm genuinely curious Because okay if I announce Louis They probably think you were kidding No they wouldn't because now it's the press That he's out of jail I've announced Louie. Well, they probably think you were kidding. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, or whatever. Fine. I would be genuinely curious like just what his reaction is. I think the reaction, I tell you what I think it would be, because since you're not going to do it, we can only speculate. I think it would be horror. I think it's a made up. I think it would be horror. I think it would be utter horror. And I think you don't think even the people who want to applaud to see him or curious to see what

it said is or whatever wouldn't because they'd be afraid of what they're around them would be. Yes, I think that's number four. I don't know how many people would would really genuinely. I mean, I'd be curious to see him, but but, you know, I wouldn't be applauding. And and I think I think you might get some some gasps. I think you'd

get some horror gasps of horror and all that stuff. Yes, I think you'd get all that. Listen, the logical I said is it. I think you might get some tears to be honest, to be quite Yes, I think you'd get all that. Listen, the logical. I said, is it? I think you might get some tears, to be honest, to be quite. I think people would go crazy. It would be horrible. I mean, you'd have to put

Mateo on after him. You cannot. Bill Cosby cannot go up except in front of an audience that's there to see him. That's why Bill Cosby tickets. But I wanted to say that the logical extension of this idea

that Bill Cosby shouldn't work, of course, is that, well, then we should be writing him a check to stay home. I mean, like, you've got to eat like, like nobody thinks this stuff through. What's he supposed to do? If, if you really think it's like what con your philosophy major or something, weren't you? I studied philosophy as an undergrad. Talking to Mike. Yeah. So, you know, like, yeah.

So, you know, like a manual Kant. Yeah. Talk about the categorical imperative. Is that what it is? And you're supposed to like, you're supposed to think of morality like that, whatever it is for yourself, if universal to everybody. Yeah. So if we think about the fact that I think nobody should book Cosby there, or I think I think I shouldn't book Cosby. Therefore, nobody should ever hire Cosby. OK, what is that? So now what? So now Cosby Well, I mean, I think that if you've raped 60 women You sort of lose your right to do a lot of things

Right, but I'm saying if we think that nobody If there's a person out there That nobody should do any commerce with You shouldn't be allowed in a store Nobody should interact Now, the government has to support them, right? No Or you should just starve to death

Sure I'm saying, okay, you know, it's frustrating because you have to think these things through. No, I don't actually. I don't really. You're right. By the way, just to clarify, just to clarify, Noam is obviously Bill Cosby's at no risk of starving.

Noam's saying if that's a general principle and if somebody that doesn't have money is released from jail under those same circumstances and nobody will hire him, then should the government I get it? Well, he would be qualified for government benefits. Let's say Cosby figures out how to do a pay-per-view event. And he and he needs Amazon Web Services to, you know, an Amazon Web Services says, no, no, no, we're not going to let you buy bandwidth. Like, it's a great idea. No, I wouldn't agree with that.

We don't need Amazon Web Services, because now they've set themselves up as some sort of enforcer here. Is Cosby the only bad guy on planet Earth? No, I said I hate that your logic is so sound. But what happens is, like, what happened with Louis, right? Like, again, I just want to clarify, I don't think these are close to the same situations. But what happened with Louis is when he got canceled,

FX pulled out his show, right? And then all of a sudden he wasn't seen anywhere. You couldn't find him anywhere on a streaming platform, anything. Just because one network decided it, every network followed suit, right? My question is, if you as a representative of the comedy seller the best

comedy club in the country in the city the best comedy club in the city the world eric the world no no but i'm just using new york you go ahead if you said you would book cosby okay do the other comedy clubs follow suit because the seller's the gold standard right so so how influential do you think your decision is it's interesting because if i if i if i said and by the way i would never book cosby like like just anyway um if we said we were gonna we would book him the other clubs would have two options either they could try to do it under the cover of the fact that we had kind of normalized it, or maybe more smartly, they would use that as a way to distinguish themselves from the,

in other words, to help bring us down. Like we are the non-Cosby club. You should not be going to the comedy cellar. I think that's what they would do. That's what I would do. But that's what I'm saying. I think it's setting a very good example. The other thing that I think you the three of you should know is I think you're woefully underestimating how little people give a shit that women are raped. I think that the crowd I don't think you're right about the crowd. I think people would be totally fine with cause. I think a lot of people would be. They're barely fine with Eric Newman.

I think very, very... I've done way worse. In my defense, I've done a lot worse. But we're waiting for our guest to arrive. I just want to briefly discuss Eric Newman's role here at the Comedy Cellar. He is an emcee.

Can I just be a comic who goes first? Well, you emcee. Yeah. An emcee is a comic. Can I just be a comic who goes first? Well, you emcee the show. You emcee the show. Now. I happen to think I do it very well. You certainly do. But but do you wish to no longer emcee? Are you saying are you?

No, I actually love the sellers. The only club I host where I host and I actually love hosting there. And also, I've developed relationships that I never would have developed if I wasn't there the whole show, bringing every comic up, everything. Well, don't,

listen, if Cosby, the thing is that, just to reiterate, so when Louis came in the first time, I would, I definitely would have put him on, but they didn't tell me.

They just put him on. Like, I didn't know about it. People didn't believe me. Like, I woke up the next morning and said, found out that my world had just totally changed. Like seriously totally changed. But if Cosby should walk in and I'm not there

Eric, I just want to let you know. I cannot put him on. No one's not here tonight. But he can't eat in the restaurant. He is authorized to eat in the restaurant. Even though that's not eric's call as a theoretic as a hypothetical i don't i don't even know legally what the i don't want a meeting in the restaurant i don't know but i i definitely feel like can you can you can he wear this can you give him a disguise you can eat here but you got to wear this i don't know legally what our rights are about turning people away actually to tell you the truth. And that's a tough one because in principle, like in like remember they asked Mike Dukakis,

you're too young, but Mike Dukakis was running for president and they he says he's against a death penalty. And he's like, he's the first guy I ever voted for. And they said, well, if you're you're saying if your wife and daughter were raped and killed, you'd be against a death penalty. He goes, yep, I'm against a death penalty. And it tanked him in the election. Like people like you, you're saying if your wife and daughter were raped and killed, you'd be against the death penalty. He goes, yep, I'm against the death penalty. And it tanked him in the election. Like people like you, you're not supposed to say that.

Like, but he was just saying what he was saying was like, if I'm against the death penalty, then I have to be against the death penalty. Even if it's something horrible, my own family, he was trying to be consistent and people didn't respect that. So I'm trying to I'm trying to be consistent. I do think that free people. Ought to be able to do commerce and society and they should be able to go into a store, go into a restaurant, rent a car, whatever it is. And I and I. So TMZ is going to pick this up. Yeah. So you understand. Welcome in restaurant. I just I don't think it would be a good idea that there's pressure now to identify people. So this person could do no business with anybody. I can't go it would be a good idea that there's pressure now to identify people. This person can do no business with anybody.

I can't go to a restaurant. He's not coming to the restaurant because you don't have the jello pudding. You have to get a jello pudding in there. But when push came to shove, would I try to keep him out? I might. I don't know. I don't know. I don't.

Please. No Bill Cosby in my life. I don't need this. What about just New Joke Night? Well, that's up to Will Silvans. That's not. He hasn't done comedy in a while. I believe that Will would probably want to put him on. And he'd stay on stage with him.

I don't know. I shouldn't say that, but I don't know. Maybe we should have Will or some of these other guys. Is the guy here? You got the intro? I got it. Well, hold on now. Let me get the intro.

I want to get it right. I want to get it right. Because it's kind of my. Something this side view makes my shoulders look, my shoulders look almost as big as Eric Newman's, but I'm like, I'm wimpy. But look at that. Does that mean you're calling me wimpy? No, no, I'm saying like it's something about the side view.

It's the camera at 10 pounds. Camera distortion makes me look almost, almost masculine. Okay, David Bush, are you there? Where is he? We'll see him when he's... Noam's very excited about this guest. I don't know much about him, but if Noam's excited...

Okay, here I am. David Buss, how do you do? Hey. Well, you had a bit of an echo in there. Oh, sorry. I don't know if you could... No, that's not as... That's an acoustic echo.

It's okay. You sound godlike. Let me... I try. Can you turn him up a little bit in the booth there? Let me give you a proper introduction, David, because our raw dog listeners may not know who you are. David Buss, everybody, professor of psychology at UT Austin, which, by the way, my nephew just graduated.

I don't know if he was in any of your classes or not. And he was also taught at Harvard and the University of Michigan. This guy is all over. This guy is a big, big deal and considered the world's leading expert, leading expert on strategies, strategies of human mating. And one of the founders of the field of evolutionary psychology. He's got a string of books that you can find online, including the evolution of desireire and The Dangerous Passion.

Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. That sounds like a good one. Please welcome to our podcast, David Buss, everybody. Thank you. Glad to be here chatting with you, Matt. That's an accent of some sort. Is that Canadian by any chance? No, no. Indianapolis, Pittsburgh.

Midwestern. It's a very pilot voice. It seems like you can do it like a pilot. So let's get into it. So, Periel, you're not going to like this at all. No, that's what I'm here for, right? Because. Maybe she will. Well, that's what I'm here for. Right. Because maybe she will.

Well, let's see. Mr. Buss has written a book, essentially. I'm going to encapsulate my own, but obviously you're probably going to correct me saying that most of the differences between men and women are inborn and and genetic. And most of those differences are kind of the cliche differences that we have always thought they were. Is that kind of correct, sir? Well, that's not the way I would characterize it. But yeah, I think there are fundamentally evolved sex differences. And the notion that sex differences, when it comes to mating psychology and sexual psychology, they're profound and they're evolved. And the notion that somehow these are arbitrary cultural constructions is just not supported by the evidence, let's say. So let's take one of the topics that we've debated here. And I got a lot of flack for this on this show. I've always, for whatever reason, felt that when a male teacher had had an affair with a young student, a high school student.

That that was traumatic in a way which I just didn't imagine that the male student would be traumatized if his female teacher had sex with him. Yeah, yeah, that's absolutely fair enough. I mean, because men recognize and even in cases, I follow those cases, those high school cases where there's a teenage guy who has sex with a very attractive high school teacher. The other guys are congratulating. And, you know, this boils down to one of the most fundamental evolved sex differences in our sexual psychology, which is captured by the phrase desire for sexual variety. That is, men have a larger desire for a variety of sex partners larger number of sex partners they let less time elapse they're more comfortable with casual sex

sex with no emotional involvement no commitment no entanglement etc and and these things i mean they play out in across every culture across the, and they cause a lot of havoc. I think it's actually a terrible thing that these sex differences exist. I mean, the world would be a more harmonious place if men and women were identical in their sexual desires. And this gets very interesting because the law, more harmonious, but nobody would get anything done. Yeah, possibly. Yeah. Well, sex, sex is a driving force for getting things done. Men especially are willing to do go through hell and high water to get sexual access. So so so what I find interesting and nobody's quite worked it out. So because the

law insists on pretending that none of this is true, they insist on pretending the law insists on pretending that or pretending is is not the word I should use. The law insists on representing that it doesn't matter which direction these things happen. Now, feminism has always stood for the idea that women can do anything that men can do and exactly the same as men. And yet. Time and time again in the news with me to things, but I think even a feminine with me to the things like that, there is always the feeling that somehow there is a protectiveness going on of women. This this guy touched this woman. This guy tried to kiss this woman. None of these things.

Like if a male if a man said she tried to kiss me, we would not as a society really react like, oh, my God, that must have been awful for you. But when it happens to women, we do actually. And I'm actually I'm actually I've always been comfortable with that because I'm kind of sexist, I guess, in the fact that I do think that men and women are different. And I do think it's different when the male boss tries to kiss the woman the other way. Yeah, it refuses to recognize. Yeah, yeah, exactly. If I could if I could answer your question. So a perfect example is the sexual harassment laws. So sexual harassment laws are written according to what's called the reasonable person standard. But it turns out that exactly the same pattern of sexual behavior, so leering, touching, grabbing, cornering, things that men are more prone to do, especially some subtypes of men,

would a reasonable person view these as harassing? And the sexes differ on that. Women are more likely to identify exactly that same pattern of conduct as more harassing than reasonable men. So what this means is, and these are very consistent findings, what this means is, is a reasonable person standard adequate? And I argue exactly not, because, in fact, sexual harassment, most tend not to sexually harass men the same way that men or some men sexually harass women.

So what it is, is this sex neutral law, which is its intention is noble, but it results in harming precisely the half of the population that is most victimized by sexual harassment. So I argue that the science of our sexual psychology probably should be reflected in our laws and policies around things like sexual harassment and sexual assault. I agree. The irony is that I want to say, listen, men are creepy and dangerous and can't be trusted. And I think the law should be grown up and recognize that and societal norms ought to recognize that. And then feminists will say, how can you say such a thing? We're just as creepy and dangerous as you are. I'm sorry, forgive me. I didn't mean to offend you by saying we're creepy. Okay. But it's important to identify that it's not all men.

And so my book, you know, When Men Behave Badly, it's not a male bashing book. All men are not creeps. All men are not rapists. All men are not sexually harassers. What we've identified in my book is the subset of men who are most likely to be sexual harassers and sexual coercers. That is men who are high in what we call the dark triad personality traits, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, combined with a dispositional pursuit of the short-term mating strategy. You get those four elements combined and a small subset of men

are serial sexual harassers or incursive. Maybe just define those terms, Machiavellian, psychopathy, and narcissism. Yeah, sure. Narcissism, I think everyone knows what that means, but the other one. Well, not everyone, but narcissism is actually a really interesting personality variable in that, yeah, most people have an intuitive sense of what that means. So these are people who have a grandiose sense of self. They think if they're male, they think they're God's gift to women. They have an inflated view of their own intelligence, attractiveness, and desirability to women. And importantly, though, they feel a sense of entitlement, and that includes sexual entitlement. So that's narcissism.

Machiavellianism are people who pursue what I call an exploitative social strategy. So these are the liars, the cheaters, the deceivers, et cetera. And then psychopathy is a personality trait, and these are normally distributed, where one of the hallmarks is a lack of empathy. So most normal human beings, when someone gets hurt or a dog gets hit by a car or a child skins his or her knee, we feel compassion for the pain that they are experiencing. Psychopaths do not. They might laugh when someone gets hurt. It's like the empathy circuit that is characteristic of most normal humans is absent in psychopaths. So you combine this dark triad, these dark triad traits with a short term mating strategy and this small minority of men commit the vast majority of acts of sexual harassment and sexual coercion.

Now, what about I want to see what Perry has to say about all this, but what about this? And don't take this the wrong way. I'm just going to repeat something that's out there. I'm agnostic on it. But it's very common that if a man is very promiscuous, people say, oh's damaged in some way. She has father issues that something is wrong under the hood that would lead a woman. It's like slut shaming, right? That would lead a woman to want to go have a different sex partner every night. What about that? Yeah. So that's a good point. And I discussed that at some length in the book, under the topic of sexual level standards. So yes, there is a male versus female sexual level standard where males are given a pass for even things like infidelity, or he cheated on his wife. Well, it's, you know, there was a movie, I can't remember the name of it. But he said that he said, my hormones, it's my hormones made me do it. I got a lot of hormones. So, and of course, you know, there,

there's something to that, but there's also something not to that. But, but there's another sexual level standard that I talk about in the book, which is the me versus the sexual level standards. So, okay. If I do X, if I have a little oral contact with someone else, but not if my partner does, and it turns out this me versus the sexual level standard, that women are very similar to men in holding that me versus the sexual level standard. So there actually are multiple sexual level standards, and it's not just men versus women. But you are correct in your observation, we've shown this cross-culturally,

that women sustain greater reputational damage from exactly the same pattern of sexual conduct that men do. But is there also a grain of truth to the idea that if a woman is highly promiscuous, that maybe that indicates published by some colleagues of mine show that that's not the case. That is that there are, I mean, of course, you get psychologically damaged men and women who pursue a short-term mating strategy. But there's no evidence, for example, that women who pursue a short-term mating strategy, in my language, suffer from lower self-esteem than women who pursue a long-term mating strategy. Dave, what if a woman said to you, she was, say, 25 years old, she said that she's had 200 partners. She's not a prostitute. She's just had 200 partners. And a man that's 25 years old said, I've had 200 partners. What would you say in each case in terms of how you would view that? Hurry up and go get an HIV test. Yes, exactly. Yeah, well, yeah, that's a wildly above average for men or women.

But the here and this boils down to an issue that you raised at the very beginning, which is evolved sex differences in our sexual psychology. And that is that a man who is able to have 200 sex partners is a man who is either very high in status or he's one charming dude, you know, whereas a woman will have no trouble. A woman could go out within three weeks and have two hundred sex partners if she wanted to. Men can't unless they have certain qualities associated with status or charm. Well, so just that very fact shows that if a man and woman have the same number of sex partners, a normal number of sex partners, that means that the woman has been actually foregoing a lot of sex where the man may have been having 100% of the sex that he could. Well, well, I mean, she'm putting down sex all the time. Well, yeah, but but but women have a lower desire for sexual right.

Meaning a variety of different sex partners. But didn't you didn't you just say that? Take it easy, Danny. I'm just saying, didn't you just say when Noam asked you if there is if a promiscuous woman would be more likely to be damaged than a promiscuous man. And you forgive me for the word damage. When I said I'm agnostic, I really mean I'm agnostic about this. I'm trying to. Well, I mean, but didn't you say that actually your colleagues have discovered that that's not the case, that a promiscuous woman is not necessarily damaged? Yeah, that's correct. But you're also saying that women have less desire for variety on average.

So these are on average sex differences so um and and that's an important qualifier so yeah there are 10 percent of women who pursue a short-term mating strategy and they are very to use the cliche very male-like in their sexual psychology okay so but you're saying those women are not necessarily mentally ill. They're just outliers on the variety scale. Yeah, that's right. Or have a more male-like sexual psychology. So I used to make an observation.

Maybe I did this in college even, that when a couple wasn't working out and they would agree to see other people. And my observation was that the man would go out and see other people. And my observation was that the man would go out and see other people. And the woman would have agreed that she would also see other people at the same time. But basically the woman would still see only this guy

and she would just kind of cry about it. But I would just notice right away that the woman would agree to it because she kind of had to. But really I've always often felt she was just trying to hold on to the guy and the guy would go out and have his way. Is that right? So that's a signal of what I call in the book, make value discrepancy.

So if the guy's higher in value than the women, then women will allow the guy to do things. And polyamory is another example of exactly that, where women will go along with that in order to keep the guy. But we do need to hear it from Eric because he is a coxswain of the highest stud right here. I wanted this to go at all, but, and he's damaged. He's a rare combination. But I wanted to explore. Well, first of all, I was just going to second what Noam said, because I was going to bring this up right before he said it. I went through a breakup. I was in a six year relationship and I got caught cheating. It was sexting. It wasn't, you know, the highest degree of cheating. But but my ex slept with somebody within the first month of us breaking up. I was I knew I had I knew this was going to happen continuously. So I didn't fight for the relationship. I definitely could have saved it. And I decided to pull back. And so she like slept with someone and then called me and told me about it, which is like, okay, clearly you're not doing this for the sex. You're doing

this to tell me about you having sex. So that was very clear. And I also wanted to sort of explore this idea of sexual harassment and creepiness. Obviously sexual harassment is more of the, I guess, definition, uh, definitive term and creepiness is more of a loose, I guess, nickname. But how much of creepiness, because I talk to a buddy of mine about this all the time. How, like, it's hard to put a percentage on it or whatever. But from my experiences, it seems to me like women tend to use the word creepy when they're being hit on by either someone who they don't want to be hit on by or in a scenario where it's just uncomfortable. You know, the woman knows the guy's married or so. So the first class is what I would call low mate value guys.

So and women are more easily sexually disgusted than men. This is another sex difference. I mean, huge magnitude of effect. And yeah, so women on average, again, this isn't on average, prefer sex within the context of a meaningful relationship. Whereas men are more comfortable, in contrast to most women, with impersonal sex with no context, no involvement, no psychological entanglement. And so the creep factor, though, is basically low mate value guys so and so one example that i talk about in the book is uh we did a study where okay a guy makes persistent sexual advances even though the

woman says no um but the guy is we vary is the guy a janitor uh a rock star uh you know, a boss, a colleague, et cetera. And what we find is that the status of the guy, the job he holds affects that creep factor. So if he's a janitor, women are more repulsed than if he's a rock star, for example. So, yeah, but this gets to the issue of women's preferential mate choice or selectivity. Women are just more selective when it comes to sex than men.

And this is a fundamental principle. This goes back to Darwin's theory of sexual selection. Can we present company excluded? Can we, by the way, bring it around because we are a comedy club. So we can bring things around a comedy. That's always a comedy. That's always a plus. Yeah. Well, everybody says that women love funny men. Is it true or do women like men that are successful comedians because they're successful?

Or is it the funniness itself that's attractive? And if so, why? OK, well, that's a great question. It depends in part on the type of funniness. So I mean, if it's a foolish clownish, whatever, not as good, but, but the ability to make other people laugh is actually an absolutely fascinating thing. And it signals one mind reading ability. Okay, that is your sorry, I'm gonna spam call mind reading ability. Okay. That is your, sorry, I've got a spam call. Mind reading ability. So to make someone else laugh, you have to be able to put yourself in their psychological mind frame and know what's going to tickle their funny bone. Second, social verve. Okay. Men who are willing and able to command the attention of the group. And these are things that women find very attractive. But but of course, it depends

on the type of humor. So I don't know, like Woody Allen type humor is probably not as attractive as I don't know, Richard Pryor or Chris Rock type type humor. But but Woody got I mean, among the people that were into Woody, I mean, Mia Farrow was no dog. And Keaton, you know, he got a lot of women in those days. Doesn't it depend on whether you prefer black dudes or Jews more? Doesn't it all come down to that? Well, I think in Woody Allen's case, though,

he had the qualities that I just mentioned. I mean, he was he was was and is to some degree a successful movie maker. He has high status. He has high resources and he has the ability to make other people laugh. So that's a good job. He even got his daughter to have sex with him, but not the most attractive daughter. Oh, what the hell is the matter with you? Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. All right. So I have a, I have two more questions. Then I want Perry L to ask some questions. I have two quick questions. So again, I'm agnostic about this.

I'm actually interested in the, if there's data on it, I've heard it said that adopted girls tend to be more promiscuous. Is there anything, is there any truth to that? I don't know of any, any, any scientific evidence on that question. Okay. And I don't, I don't know why that would be the case, but. I heard it somewhere once. From Woody Allen maybe. The next question is this.

What can you tell us about the difference between pedophilia and what's the other word? A fibophilia. So so like you have you have men who are attracted to young prepubescent girls, they're pedophiles. Right. And now and this wasn't always the case. Now there's a very, very strong social norm that a man who an older man who has sex with a 16 year old or a 17 or 15 year old developed young girl is they'll they'll call him a pedophile but really he's he's a creep more than a pedophile but he's a creep by today's standards um for instance when woody allen did the movie manhattan which depicted him as a like late 30s, 40s, 17 year old girlfriend. Of all the criticisms of that movie, nobody at the time said, how could he have a 17 year old girl? It was kind of like she was 17, 17 in the movie. I watched it. She was in high school. Yeah. And people were like, OK, well, that's that's a storyline. They didn't say how dare he.

Right. So what does the science tell us about that? Is pedophilia an actual condition? And the other one, that's the way I see it, that pedophilia is actually like something. It's a different sexual preference that people may have no choice about. And the other one is that we just learned that psychologically this is a bad idea. So we have a very strong social norm that even though she might be a fully developed woman, she's just too young. It's not a good thing. Yeah, yeah.

I think that, I mean, it's an important distinction. Prepubescent, it is a psychological disorder. Right. So attraction to females or males who are prepubescent, that's a psychological disorder. And unfortunately, it's a disorder that is very difficult to cure. And so there tend to be recidivists as they, in the language that they use, repeat offenders. Attraction to post-pubescent cues that are associated with youth and fertility is very common across cultures.

So in the Yanomamo, for example, in South America, females hit puberty 13, 14, 15, and they tend to get married as soon as they hit puberty. And so, of course, sex happens at that time. So I think that your distinction between pedophilia and attraction to post-pubescent females is an important distinction. Okay, but they do that in many countries. I mean, all over the world, they're marrying off 12-year-old girls to 40-year-old men. Well, I was just going to say, I hope nobody takes it from me saying it's okay well i don't i don't think but i mean it's insane just because they're doing it doesn't make it okay yes you see yes right right and i think this is this is a an important distinction between um what men are attracted to and what our morality or ethics or values tell us we should do well that that was like that louis i don't mean was i cutting you off now go ahead i don't mean to like bring louis bit into this or whatever but louis has a bit that's a brilliant bit about like

you know and i think there was even like books about this or whatever like if you're attracted to underage you know boys or girls or whatever like and you don't do it and you don't take that impulse or don't take that urge and you hold back like you should get the most credit. Right. Because like, oh, God, no, no. That was Louie's joke. That was OK, because here's the thing. Right. Like I I'm attracted, thankfully, to any to not anyone. I'm attracted, thankfully, to only people who are legal right only women who are over legal and underweight but but my urge for what i'm attracted to is a very strong urge

and it's and it exists throughout the day and it's strong okay no i'm sorry i don't want to sound like a creep here but i'm just being honest. So if somebody has that level of attraction, an intense level of attraction towards something that's illegal, morally wrong, illegal, whatever, like. They should be euthanized or castrated. Or chemically castrated. Just a great deal of discomfort to deal with on a minute to minute basis. Right. And that's what they do. They chemically castrate a lot of those people. Do you concur that chemical castration is the appropriate solution? Well, I don't have an appropriate solution, but I think there's the issue that you raise is the distinction between desire and expressing it in actual behavior. We desire a lot of things, you know, if we expressed all of our desires,

including sexual impulses and homicidal impulses, the world would be a crazy state, right? I mean, for every sexual desire, for every homicidal impulse, you know, we have thousands of these for every that are, that is expressed. And so fortunately we inhibit the expression of those desires in, in behavior. So, so that's an important distinction and, you know, and that's probably where morality and ethics and values come in. Okay. But what I would say is that there is a way in which men suffer. And I'm sure you've all heard of this phrase, the rage of the incels, the involuntarily celibate guys. And part of that is that there are women who provoke their desires by their mere existence.

But yet they can't they can't act on it because women are not interested in them. They're, they're below in their subpar and mate value from women's perspective. And so, but even with men who are somewhat attractive to women and successful, they still experience desires. So I got this email a couple of days ago from an 85 year old guy who said, you know, my brain punishes me. Because every time a woman passes by or I pass by a woman, I evaluate her on her sexual attractiveness. This guy's 85, probably hasn't gotten laid in decades, but still he has this feature of his brain that punishes

him for desires that can never be expressed. By the way, I spent much of the 80s as a man. And my standards were pretty low at the time. Didn't really help out.

But there is. But rage. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. A lot of these serial, I mean, mass shooters seem to be low quality mates. Correct? Well, we're guys who are spurned or rejected by women. So Ted Bundy is a perfect example of that.

He was rejected by a woman who was, he perceived to be high in status and he had this intense rage. But I'll tell you, this goes back, you know, the band, you guys may be too young to remember this. There's a band called The Doors and a guy called Jim Morrison.

We all know The Doors. Okay, okay. But anyway, he had this lyric. Ariel just slept with a manzarek. But anyway, he had this lyric. Muriel just slept with a manzirak. Go ahead. He had this lyric, women seem wicked when you're unwanted. And so this is like

Jim Morrison. That's a beautiful lyric because it's so true. Yeah. So, yeah. Men who are rejected by women. And the Santa Barbara shooter, or I guess the Isla Vista shooter, as he was called and killed, I think six people, wrote that exact thing in his manifesto. You know, that ever since I hit puberty, there are all these women that I desire. They have no attraction to me, but yet they sleep with these other guys who I think are assholes.

So, yeah. So so sexual rejection does provoke rage in some men. Now, now what we're getting at, what this is all can't get laid, where men, women and men have no compatibility in terms of their set? As you had said earlier, what a better world it would be if men and women were more similar in their sexual desires. This is an absolute it's it's a pandemonium down here on planet Earth. Yeah, yeah. But the causal process that created these sex differences in our sexual psychology is the evolutionary process. Right, but an intelligent designer wouldn't come up with this mayhem. Probably not. Can you explain to Perrielle and speak slowly how it is that evolution has made us this way and why?

I've tried to explain this to her before. I'm going to start explaining a few things in a couple of seconds. Okay, let him go ahead. Well, so it starts with the evolution of sexual reproduction itself. And this is something most people are not aware of, but sexual reproduction is something that it's one to two billion years old. But we evolved from asexual organisms. So asexual reproduction was around for about two and a half billion years before sexual reproduction evolved. Once sexual reproduction evolves, you have two sexes. And the sexes are defined by the size of the gametes. That is the males are defined in the human case is the ones with the small gametes, this basically a small packet of sperm with an outward motor, you know, designed to, you know,

get up to the valuable egg. Females are designed as the one with the large gametes, the nutrient-rich eggs. And so you find in the human case, these fundamental sex differences in our reproductive biology, which start with the sperm and the egg, and then they extend to the profound, obligatory investment that you need to produce one child, which is nine months in the case of women. It's one act of sex, the minimum. Fortunately, men often do more than the minimum. But this is a vast difference. And so from an evolutionary perspective, it would be astonishing if you found these sex differences in our reproductive biology, our reproductive anatomy, our reproductive physiology, and no corresponding sex differences in our mating strategies. And in fact, we do find the corresponding sex differences in our mating strategies.

So it all ultimately stems from this division of sexual reproduction and the asymmetry in investment. Wow. Which, which is why women would be tend to be less promiscuous than men. Right. The cost. Yeah. Sorry. No,

no, no, but go ahead. I'll, you know, I was just going to say the costs of making a bad sexual decision are much steeper for women than, than they are for men.

So you, you go on a Tinder date, you hook up, and next morning, you realize that was really a bad decision. Well, at least ancestrally, for a man, it was a low cost situation, in fact, a reproductive opportunity. From a woman's perspective, she might be stuck if she got pregnant with a guy with inferior genes, meaning like, say, for example, genes for bad health or high mutation load or schizophrenia in his family line, or a guy who's not going to invest in her and her children. So the cost-benefit structure of making good and bad sexual decisions are different for men and women. Are you getting a lot of flack for this book? This seems like a kind of thing that would, at this particular point in history, would

get you in a lot of trouble. Are you getting that? Yeah, not so far. Wait a second, Professor Voss. Yeah, yeah, okay. Wait a second. So maybe I will get into trouble very soon. But it's actually gotten very positively reviewed. I, you know, I, I bend over backwards in the book to say that I'm trying to describe sex differences in our mating psychology from a scientific perspective, with the available evidence for that and the available theory that we have, which is distinct from endorsing it as a moral injunction or an ethical perspective.

So there's that is-ought fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, as it's called, which we absolutely need to avoid. And I think actually ignoring the sex differences is harmful to women. You know, even though it's been a kind of a pillar of some political ideologies, it's actually harmful to the 50 percent of the population that is most harmed by sexual violence. What society benefit, do you think, from a less severe attitude toward female promiscuity? We were talking earlier that some women are promiscuous and there's nothing wrong with it. That's how they are. Would we benefit from a sex positive attitude as opposed to a slut shaming attitude?

Well, I well, my guess is is the answer is probably yes. But what's interesting, and my research and others have shown this as well, is that women are equal participants with men in the slut-shaming domain. So women derogate other women on precisely these issues. And so it's not just that men are doing it, that women are equal participants in that. And so, and part of it has to do with sexual competition, you know, that, that, that from a male perspective, men are the primary reproductive competitors with other men and women are with other women. And so, and so that's why notions of, you know, males somehow being

united in their interest in oppressing women is a misguided formulation from an evolutionary perspective. It can't happen. Men are in competition primarily with other men. Well, I mean, there's no end to internalized self-hatred. I mean, the word promiscuity doesn't exist other than as it relates to a woman's sexual behavior, right? So I think that in addition to what you're saying, I mean, there seems to be something very important that's being left out, which is the fact that we are socially conditioned from the time we're born that this sort of behavior is acceptable for, and also I think it's important that we're talking about, I think, cisgender heterosexual behavior and nothing else is even, I mean, I'm not talking about your book. I'm just saying in terms of the judgments of these behaviors. So there is an acceptable form of behavior for one and then another form of behavior for another. So, I mean, I didn't study psychology, but I did spend a good deal of time studying promiscuous, being promiscuous and studying gender studies.

So I Philip Roth turned her down. And this is one of the most she was feeding Philip Roth cherries. Now, Philip Roth was feeding me, eating her cherries. And then he wouldn't he wouldn't follow through. And this has shaped her. But it did. You know, it was a good chapter for my last book. So I'm not complaining too much. But that does seem to be entirely left out of this conversation. Well, go ahead. Go ahead, sir. Yeah. And I was just going to say, it's not left out of

the conversation, but we have to ask the deeper question, where do these values or social norms come from? Okay. So why is it the case that, for example, women do as much slut-shaming as men do? I just said, I mean, why are there self-hating Jews? Well, no, no, it's not. The answer is that from an evolutionary perspective, women are sexual competitors with other women. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah. And men are sexual competitors with other men. And so, and so they're, they're implementing a strategy that is,

that is self-interested, you know, saying that it's, you know, socially conditioned doesn't really, doesn't really get you anywhere because you have to ask why do these norms exist and and sexual selection theory provides the answer to those questions but things that are norms are also social constructs well well partly but not entirely so binary is a social construct i I mean, there have been many other genders in all different cultures throughout the history of the world. Don't do that. We all do this. No, don't do that. Number one, it's rude. And number two, I'm right. You're not right. I am right. And what about intersex people? I mean, I know it's a small percentage, biologically speaking, but it exists and it's important

and it's relevant. I'll let him answer. Go ahead. Okay. So, so from, uh, if you're an evolutionary biologist or a biologist, as I said before, sex is defined by the size of the sex cells. So there are two and only two sexes, uhes in sexually reproducing species. And intersex is a different condition.

It's a developmental condition that is partly a result of a different hormonal bath that the individual develops in, but biologically you can identify whether they're male or female by the size of the sex cells. Developmentally, are there, um, deviations from the, um, from, from the binary? Absolutely. Uh, but, but that doesn't really fall into question the fundamental difference. So, so I would say absolutely, yes, I'm describing, you know, the 99.5% of individuals among humans and not explaining these other conditions. Well, I mean, I think the social construct thing, I have a couple of things I want to say, but the social construct thing seems to me to just not hold up. And one of the obvious examples to me, although maybe it's something I'm missing, is that if you see a very young boy acting like a woman, very feminine, people will say, oh, I think maybe he's trans.

But if it's just a social construct, you say, what do you mean? Why would he be trans? He's just acting like a woman. What does that have? Why would that be any indication that he's trans? Because the way you're acting is just a social construct. I don't think that people would say that if you or the or the the contrary is like if you saw a boy who was acting like like just all boy, nobody would ever suspect him of being trans. I don't I mean, I don't agree with what you're saying. I don't think that's true.

First of all, I know plenty of boys who are gay and are super macho. But even gay, it's very common among in a gay world to have a lot of very feminine acting so so if i could if i could just jump in here to the uh in my view i mean saying something's a social construction is not really an explanation of anything okay of course you know the way we interpret the world is we interpret the world through our brains through our psychology and so forth. The issue is what are the causal origins of the phenomena that we are trying to explain? You know, so saying it's a social construct, I mean, you could say everything is a social construct, but nothing's a social construct. So in my view, it doesn't, saying, invoking that label without specifying the causal process that you think led to that condition or phenomenon doesn't really account for anything.

But she kind of I think she believes it's like we're just a clean slate and the very concepts of femininity and masculinity don't exist, except that we've taught them to people. Right, right, right. And we know that that we know that that that that blank slate position is is incorrect. Isn't that isn't that really the way that is so common now that science, people like you, we had Robert Plowman on and as all science is finding out more and more that everything is just baked into us in one way or another, while at the simultaneously elite opinion is veering more and more towards the idea that everything is just environmental and societal and we can just influence people to be differently in every aspect of themselves. And there's a big conflict there. It's as if one side just has their hands over their ears and is not listening to what the other side and their research is showing on a daily basis. Yeah. Yeah. So I think there is a conflict between certain ideologies and the scientific

evidence bearing on those issues. So, and it's been a little bit frustrating for me because the purpose that I set for myself in writing this book, When Men Behave Badly, is precisely to reduce conflict between the sexes and specifically to eliminate sexual violence toward women, which is, I think, the most widespread human rights violation in the world because it occurs in every culture, period. And it affects not only 50% of the population, but affects

everyone who cares about the women who are victims of sexual violence. And from an evolutionary perspective, what sexual violence does is it bypasses female choice. And what I argue is like, you know, we say, you know, we should have freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly. What I argue is that a fundamental human right should be freedom of sexual choice you know that is that men and women should have the freedom to choose when where with whom and under what circumstances they have sex and male strategies male evolved sexual strategies sometimes attempt to bypass female choice and so and so the book, I talk about sexual deception, intimate partner violence, stalking, sexual harassment, sexual coercion.

All these are forms of sexual violence that bypass female choice. We got to wrap it up. I got to buy this book. My last question, and I'll go around the table real quick. Given everything that you know, what would you tell a couples therapist that they ought to be cognizant of that that they probably are not learning in their therapy school? Like it must give you some insight into marital relations. Yeah, absolutely. So I would say chapter three of my book, I have a 12 step recipe for evolutionary harmony between the sexes within, within a long-term committed relationship.

Awesome. That's a great, that's a great tease for the fire. So Dan, your last question, Dan. I don't think I have a last question, but if I come up with the last question whilst they're asking their last question, I want to ask this. I was unfaithful in my relationship, right? I sexted with somebody else. I was unfaithful. We broke up. I, I do not think it is right. I think you should 100% be honest in relationship, whatever you want. I think you should be a hundred percent honest about it. And, and that big misstep is what costs me a lot of pain and grief and suffering

and suffering that I heard. So the question, the question, my question is question is, I don't have a question. You just feel better to get that off your chest. My question is, did this just help me? I do talk about sexual deception and men intentionally or unintentionally misleading women into believing that they are more invested, more involved, more psychologically or emotionally committed than they really are, is a very common strategy. I've often thought that it's interesting that from a moral standpoint, what could be more, very few things are more immoral than telling a woman you love her and having sex with her and then saying

yeah i just you know and and not and not uh and not meaning it and yet it's it's the it's completely legal you know there's no law against it even though it's far more immoral than many things many things probably then you know if i if I walked up to Eric Newman and punched him, I mean, I don't pack much of a wallop, but theoretically, you know, that would be illegal. And yet telling a woman, I love you and taking her to bed.

And then in the morning, we like beat it. Yeah, right, right. Well, that's why there's a distinction between morality and ethics and the strategies that men and women deploy. Perrielle, we didn't actually hear enough from you. I'm sorry about that. No, no, it's fine. My only thing that I want to say is that I categorically do not think that we

start off as a blank slate. I mean, that makes me sound like I really know nothing. And even though I know that you think that I don't want I don't want the professor. I don't want to keep the professor, but we have like one of the big arguments we had. She she actually she actually believes the following. She actually believes this, that if I am a heterosexual man, it should not matter to me whether the woman whether the woman I sleep with has a penis or not. It should not matter to me whether the woman, whether the woman I sleep with has a penis or not. It should only matter to me that she identifies as a woman. And I've told her, actually, it's the opposite. I don't care whether the woman I'm sleeping with identifies as a man. But she thinks she actually believes this crap. and i'm like no that was your your your

praising i totally disagree i literally look this happened to me recently i was uh i was showing this this my buddy a picture of this girl that i just that i went on a date with and he made the comment that like oh she looks like she could be trans or whatever and i like i i feel bad that i did but i kind of freaked out over it like i was just like oh I don't like I can't help how things affect me. Like I don't. And I also can make the choice about what I'm OK with. Well, what if you didn't know the whole basis of being heterosexual, that you're attracted to a female?

Yeah. But I submit that if you're attracted to a woman with a penis, you're even more heterosexual. You love women so much that you don't care if they got a penis. That's what I'm up against. Anyway, do you ever get to New York? I do, actually. Before the pandemic, I mean, I get to New York usually a couple of times a year.

Oh, well, we would love to have you come down to the Comedy Cellar. Do you drink at all? Absolutely. Oh, my God. He's from Indiana. What kind of dumb question is that? You'd be the best drinking partner ever. But I would love to invite you down to the club

and see a show and hang out and tell us. Yeah, that'd be great, man. You're a bourbon man, and my name ain't Dan Natter. Okay, well, let's do it, man. That would be a lot of fun. I, this pandemic has not been kind to the,

to the traveling issue. And I miss New York city. Oh, that would be, that would be fantastic. And there's a lot of, we have a lot of intellectuals as it were people, writers and journalists and stuff who hang out down here.

I think you'd, you'd really enjoy it. So anyway, thank you very, very much for coming out. Let me get the title of the book, right? What's the title of the book? It's a women behave badly. The hidden roots of sexual deception, harassment, and assault.

Just like the fun, the fun parts of human mating. Available everywhere. Fine. Books are sold. So thank you very much, professor. And I hope we'll see you in New York. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Great talking to you all. You as well. So I guess I guess we'll say maybe, you know, I just I just want to exit him. And then he can say and listen. But but oh, I saw it. Speaking of all this, all what we're talking about, Jim Norton, I I never watch comedians.

It bores me. But Jim Norton, I find fascinating because he's doing something that other other comedians were doing. Most of us were doing shtick and jokes and well-crafted jokes in my case, I think. But but but Jim is Jim is is just the raw honesty is is just something that you that most comics aren't doing. And he talks about the professor still here. He talks about being attracted to trans women. And, and actually he said, I don't want to do his joke, but basically what he, he's trying to, he's poses the question, does that make me gay? And his answers is ambiguous in that regard. But he's, he's saying, you know, you're, you're, again, I don't want to do his joke, but, but he's tackling that

very question, whether, whether being attracted to trans women makes, makes him gay or not. And it's just sort of a fascinating, I mean, have you, have you seen him do, do that? I've spoken to him about it.

I asked him, I said, Jim, but, but she's naked and naked. It's, you know, indistinguishable from a man,

like, you know, she's just a man, a naked person with a penis. I said, how is that not gay? And he says, you sound like me in the mirror.

But that got Professor Buss out of there really fast. But yeah, listen, I don't I don't know if it's gay. And of course, I think we all agree. Who cares? You do what you do, whatever makes you happy. That's obviously we all believe everybody should do whatever they want. I mean, I've tried to explain this a hundred times. It's not about your genitalia.

Yeah, that's crazy. No, it's not. Let me ask you a question. Yeah. Would I be judged? I think I would be judged by a fair number of people for saying, let's say the girl I was I went on the date with was trans. Yeah.

And let's say she got an operation, didn't get an operation, whatever it is. Like, I think I would be judged by a large number of people if I didn't want to pursue dating her. But I'm allowed to pursue dating. You're allowed to do whatever you want. But can I tell you why this is crazy talk? So obviously crazy talk. What you're saying, you know, have you noticed from an engineering point of view, the relationship between the penis and the vagina. Have you noticed anything? Is there anything, any coincidence there to that? Like on the drawing board? Do you know, I could ask you the same thing

about the penis and the anus. Let's say they draw, let's say they draw the penis first. Yeah. Now, we're going to give this to the man. Now, let's see. Let's see. Let's get the engineers here. What should we give the woman?

Why don't we give her the same thing? No, that makes no sense because the penis is how the man's gonna be looking for pleasure. What about the asshole? My point is that What about the anus? Yes, I understand what you're talking about. It's not relevant. My point is that the vagina

is obviously created to be a self-lubricating perfect receptacle for the penis. That's that's this was this. And yet sometimes I prefer a hand. I'll be honest. And not only that, but it also is the pathway to reproduction.

So to think that a man would not that the normal situation would be not be that. Of course, he's attracted to a human with a vagina, A, because the vagina is actually created to receive the penis, and B, the human race would discontinue if not for that attraction. The human race would not continue. This is crazy talk. Okay, so what does that do to blowjobs? I mean, you're right.

Too toothy. It's not the tooth. Very few women can do that right. I think God beat himself up about the blowjob. He didn't see that coming. You know, the blowjob is like the same thing. You know how you give your kid a present and he opens up the present.

It's really expensive. And then he'd rather play with the box. That's what God's like. He's like, I gave you the vagina. Why are you playing with the box, you idiot? The president is sitting there. I mean, anyway. You'll catch on eventually.

You'll eventually come around. You don't get my point. Obviously, it's encoded. The problem with that last part of your argument, though, is that that's the same thing that people say about gay couple, about a two men. What about it? That they'll be like, oh, well, you know, it's not it'll end the population of everybody.

Well, if everybody were gay, it was a fundamentalist right wing Christian without logic. He's not saying it's morally wrong. He's saying it to say that a man is attracted to a vagina is right wing fundamentals. Christianity. Have you lost your fucking mind? Well, when you're saying, when you're saying that, isn't it obvious that like God created the vagina?

He was kidding about God because he doesn't believe in evolutionarily receptacle. I'm saying, what about anus? Like, what about anal sex? Anal is not self. Adel's not the perfect receptacle. Well,

it'll do in a pinch. A lot of people who would respectfully disagree with you. No, the anal. I don't like anal sex. I don't understand what the anal sex point is. You can create an orifice of many kinds and satisfy a man. What I'm saying is that to think that the only reason a man prefers a human with a vagina as opposed to a human with a penis, you think that the critical thing is, no, no, no. It's important what they're thinking.

A normal heterosexual man is attracted to the woman or the human who who is thinking their psychology, they're thinking they're a woman. They're identifying as a woman. And that's what a man is supposed to be attracted to, as opposed to the obvious thing, which is we're attracted to each other's body parts. So what about a post-op trans woman who has a pussy and you wouldn't know the fucking difference? Yeah, I might. You know what? Give me a few drinks. I mean, the not the need a few drinks because the knowledge might. Well, what if you didn't know the fucking difference. Yeah, I might. You know what? Give me a few drinks. I mean, the not the need if you drink because the knowledge might. Well, what if you didn't know?

What if you didn't know? If I didn't know, I wouldn't know. Yeah, it went on for a year. If I and then you found out, I'll go on record. I'll be a man. I will be honest and say if I can't tell physically, even if I know intellectually that if I knew that somebody looks that looks beautiful and is a woman in every way,

but she has an X, Y chromosomes, I would I wouldn't care. No, but, you know, I mean, that's the only thing that makes sense, Dan. Like, that's the only logic that makes. But I mean, but I've also had my pillow. You could you could date like why can't if like gay if if gay people are allowed to date whoever they want, like if we support the fact that gay people are allowed to date whoever they want, you know, and get married to whoever they want. Why can't I have my own opinion about what I'm attracted to? You know how stupid what she said just was. Let me tell you why. Let's say Perry says I am not attracted to Norm at all or anybody who looks like Norm.

And I say, well, what if Noam presented exactly like Brad Pitt and you fucked them? Aha. Therefore, you are attracted to Noam. That's ridiculous. You feel like you're attracted to Brad Pitt. Do you feel like Brad Pitt right now? No, but I'm saying like if you get it, that's your logic. If I if I if I could pretend if I if you could take a dude

and give him a vagina and by the way, and it was a perfect vagina and you also you had no idea he was ever a dude. Aha, you see? That's not a point. That's making my point. No, no. You're saying that the thing that you're attracted to is you don't care how somebody identifies.

You want tits and pussy. That's what you just said. Put it that way. Yeah, I mean, that's what you said. Also, there is a. That's right, of course. That's what I'm doing. But there is a. That's right. Of course. That's what I'm doing. But there is a big difference between accepting someone who identifies as a woman and then

also saying like, OK, maybe personally for me, that's not like like I'm not a trap, like it'll bother me or whatever. Sure. But I'm talking to his point of physicality. That's the only thing I'm talking. I feel like we're kind of we point to all the points that need to be made have been made and either we talk about something else I just want to say again

I cannot believe she actually believes this stuff okay anything else and our next guest will be Bill Cosby any comments from the engineer no okay good night everybody Thank you very much.