Dating Doctor On What Women Really Want & The NEW Dating Rules To Attract Women | Dr. Orion Taraban

What's the one thing most men

misunderstand about what women actually

want when it comes to dating? In other

words, what do women want?

Wow. I I just came out with an episode

on this like three days ago. So, that's

somewhat serendipitous. So, this is a

question that has flamed thinkers for

generations. Freud famously said that

there was no answer to this question or

at least not one that he could figure

out.

My

unsatisfying answer to that question is

that women want what other women want.

It's it's less to do with men than it

has to do with other mimemetic desire

that women are presenting around them.

And I think that's part of why even

female attraction is subject to some

fattishness. It certainly seems that

certain types of men become more popular

among women uh from one season to the

next, almost like they're changing

fashion. We have to also balance that

against maybe the evolutionary

psychology arguments that men uh women

want men with good genes. So you know

bigger stronger good facial symmetry.

There's some suggestion that facial

symmetry in particular is a indirect

indicator of like fetal health in the

sense that the baby was less insulted by

outside pathogens which may have

corrupted the facial development in the

small person.

So there's these indirect me metrics of

physiological health that I think women

also want. But when it comes to like the

day-to-day, women tend to want what

other women want. And so

female interest to sort of like an

emerging phenomenon that arises out of

like a bunch of individual decisions at

the population level. Women are

constantly looking at other women very

closely to kind of know what is safe.

When there's a critical mass of women

doing a certain thing, that's like the

fattest part of the behavioral curve.

They know that they're kind of in the

middle of the herd, the middle of the

shaw, and that's the safest place to be.

When women start to deviate in

significant ways in their presentation

and their preferences and their behavior

from that behavioral center, they get

more and more exposed, which can lead to

women feeling vulnerable and anxious. In

fact, I make the argument that's part of

the reason why there's such a spike in

depression and anxiety in women today.

Because when women look out and see what

other women are doing through social

media, it looks like women are doing all

of the things. Um, that's certainly a

highlight reel as we know, but what are

they seeing? They're seeing women have

babies, but also go to the seells and

also get master's degree and also give

TED talks and also sit down and have

brunch with the girls, but have time to

take a Pilates class. And so women are

looking at other women and they're

getting this constant signal that

they're not doing all of the things,

which is what all the other women seem

to be doing, which gives them this

unconscious signal that they're kind of

drifting out of the center, which is

where the greatest safety lies. And I

think that might be an unconscious

reason why we see significant upticks in

depression and anxiety in women of late.

They've always been higher than men, but

there's several issues uh around why why

that that might be the case. So that's

kind of like my my shorthand answer to

that question.

Yeah, it's it's so interesting, right?

Like I wonder if there is is there some

sort of an evolutionary explanation for

why

women in particular, I don't know if

this applies to men, I'm sure it does in

some way as well. Is is it just a

shortcut way of just showing that

without doing all the investigation, as

long as women have selected a certain

type of man, it gives them the security

to know that at least there's been a

filtering process from another person or

multiple people and it's just a way to

shortcut what is in high demand.

Absolutely. So, if we're talking

specifically about sexual relationships,

I in my book use this extended metaphor

of the dock. I call the sexual

marketplace like this big dock where

captains are mooring up their ships and

passengers are walking up and down the

pier looking for passage on the right

boat and there's just way too many ships

for any given passenger to examine

personally and certainly not at any

length. So one of the fastest huristics

like rules of thumb that passengers use

is to make decisions based on the size

of the crowd that's already standing in

front of a given boat. This is dangerous

because every other passenger who's

standing in front of that boat might

also have chosen to stand in front of

that boat because other people were

already standing in front of it. But you

might make a reasonable case that at

least someone in that crowd has done

some due diligence, has done some

research, has actually seen the ship and

the captain and has made a decision that

this is actually a good place to stand.

But this is a way to cut to the chase

because you can assume that other people

whose time and opportunity is in limited

quantities aren't going to want to waste

them. And so people are going to go

where people already are. It's like the

Matthew principle with respect to sexual

relationships. The the me are you

familiar with the Matthew principle?

I'm not.

Um it's from a a verse of the Bible. I

think it's attributed to Jesus. I'll

paraphrase it. It's basically like to

those who have even more will be given

and to those who have not even the

little that they have will be taken from

them. So it's almost like the rich get

richer the poor get poorer kind of a

thing. And that seems to be in many

cases a fundamental

um law of reality in ways that are still

surprising and uncomfortable to

encounter. So basically the the men who

don't need any more sexual interest from

women are the ones getting the vast

amount of sexual interest. Most guys

when they're growing up they know this.

It's like in high school there's like

two or three guys who were very very

popular and all the girls were gunning

for them. Um this is also why when I

talk to men they tell me that they get a

huge uptick in female interest after

they get married which they always find

very frustrating and confusing. But they

say that the ring really draws women to

them. And there could be a number of

reasons for that. But visav what we're

talking about, one of them could be at

least one woman in the world said, "This

was the very best man that I could

possibly get and I thought I was safe

and excited enough to move forward with

a lifelong commitment to him." So at

least one person did significant vetting

with respect to this one man. And if you

can scope that woman, even better.

Because if she's a very attractive

woman, that's going to suggest that she

has lots of different men that she could

have chosen from and this was the very

best one that she could get, which is

going to make that man look really good.

There's going to be a huge target

pointed on. So, it's always easier to

kind of like it's like recruiting.

Sometimes it's easier to poach someone

from a competition than to train them

yourself from scratch, which can take a

lot of time. And time is something that

is generally more limited quantity with

respect to women and uh reproduction and

mating and dating.

Yeah. Because I wonder how much of that

desire from women is from the filtering

process that women have already done. So

it's more of a shortcut to understand

what is potentially a high quality mate.

or it's this idea like I have a niece

and anytime

I can't give her something, she wants it

more. And it's this idea of not wanting

not being able to have something places

a higher value in her mind. And a lot of

the ways we're showing uh you know that

we are attracted to someone or attracted

to something is from this childhood need

from the way in terms of our how our

parents treated us. And I wonder if it's

something around that. You talked about

marriage. Obviously, the fact that a man

is married means that he technically

can't be with another person. And I

wonder if it's the scarcity factor as

much as the filtering process that we

initially discussed that's creating the

desires.

Well, that's certainly true. Um, we talk

about how there's actually two

definitions to the word want. Want means

both to desire and to lack. And I think

that those two concepts are very deeply

interwoven in the human heart is that we

want what we can't have. We want or we

want what we don't have at the very

least and potentially even what we can't

have. That's part of the game because

sometimes people are happier living in

hope of one day getting what they want

than the satisfaction of actually having

it. Almost everybody today has things in

his or her life that they once hoped and

dreamed would make them happy. And in

the vast majority of cases, people

aren't much more contented than they

were when they first wanted those

things. So, it's kind of a quirk of

human nature that sometimes people are

happiest when they're striving towards

something in hopeful expectation.

And if that's true, what better thing to

strive for than something that's

impossible to have? because then you can

keep the game going for as long as

possible.

Um, there was something else you said

about wanting

she couldn't have it

if it's middle back increase the desire.

Oh yeah. So, another reason why uh this

phenomenon, the ring phenomenon that men

seem to get hit on more by women after

they market that they're off the market

could be that women see these men as

safe. So, they're more likely to

approach them because they think that

nothing is going to happen because this

guy is married, he's off the market,

he's not going to cheat. So I can be

safe coming closer to him. If without

the ring, this guy could be single and

my engaging in conversation with him

might be taken the wrong way. But it

turns out that even married men take

things the wrong way. According to the

research, men are much more likely than

women to interpret friendliness, say, as

sexual interest and intent. This is why

every man has fallen in love with a

barista at some point in his life. you

know, it's hard to know whether she

actually likes you or she's just doing

her job. So, this could also be part of

why men experience more female tension

after they get married is that the women

see them as safer and so they can

actually treat them like a human being,

whereas men often misinterpret that kind

of friendliness or interest when it

comes from women.

Based on all this knowledge, what how

should men be approaching dating and the

modern dating marketplace to maximize

their success?

Well, I made an episode recently called

how to meet women and I talk about how

in 2025 there are four ways to meet

women. There are dating apps, cold

approach or pickup, social circle, which

is like where you work, where you pray,

where you live, where you play, and

social media. And it's not an mutually

exclusive thing. Like on some level, if

a man is really serious about finding

someone, he's spinning up all four of

these wheels at the same time. And each

one has their pros and cons. Each one

requires a different approach if you're

really going to master it. It's like

what works on LinkedIn doesn't always

work on Instagram and vice versa.

Um, but the fact is that it's like

there's good women everywhere

because there's so many people

everywhere. But you might have to be

very specific about what you're looking

for. You might have to be more strategic

in your approaches and you might have to

go on a lot of dates, a lot of dates

before you find really uh what you might

be seeking. like it there there are

plenty of good women out there, but

they're the minority. Just like there's

plenty of good men out there, but

they're also the minority. But

fortunately, there's billions of people.

So, even if they're the minority,

there's still millions of options. Yeah.

And I think the it's different with

women, right? Women have to be the

choosers, uh, which I think you talk

about a lot, and men have to kind of

play this numbers game ultimately. It's

got kind of a game of understanding that

you're going to be rejected 900 times

and perhaps you're going to find that

one person, but you only need to find

that one person to live happily ever

after if that's what you're going for.

Yeah. When it comes to this type of

stuff, I think that women's default

response is no and men's default

response might be yes. At least while

they're young and under normal

circumstances. that can shift as women

age and say men become famous or

successful. So really I make the

argument in the book that it's not

inherent to the gender. It's not always

that women are saying no no no and men

are always yes yes yes yes. It has to do

with who has um more options and who has

a greater value within the sexual

marketplace. And just like when in a

game of soccer, when one team is up many

points, they switch to defense and the

other team that's down switches to a

more aggressive offense. If for whatever

reason in the next half that gets

switched around, you see the same

strategy being adopted by the different

team. So it's not really inherent to the

team, it's inherent to the the balance

of power that's revealed by the

scorecard, as it were. So you can

certainly see that if you know anything

about celebrities and athletes who are

getting propositioned by women all the

time uh a lot of them are running

defense. A a lot of them are not

actually taking advantage of a lot of

their optionality. It's also very risky

for those guys because who knows who

they're dealing with. So

um I do think though especially in the

20s the average woman has a higher

sexual marketplace value than the

average man. So she has more points on

the scoreboard as it were. So she tends

to prioritize defense. No. Um the guy

might need to make something happen.

Like uh it's actually very difficult to

be a young man. You don't generally have

the things that women want. Um you don't

generally have the things that make you

a good partner for other men. So you

might not have any skills or experience.

You might not have any money or status.

It's very difficult to start from the

bottom and it can take years to make

something of yourself. I'm sure that you

understand this, Sean. Um, but what's

the alternative? It's like just roll

over and get high. I mean, I guess

that's option for some guys, but um, you

you know, if it's going to take a while,

you might as well get started, as it

were. Yeah. Can we just define that? You

mentioned sexual market value. for

people that don't know exactly what that

means and also the different types. I

think there's three different types that

you talk about, can you just define

those and explain kind of how that's

sexual marketplace value can be an icky

uh term for some people because people

don't like the idea that they have a

value a number assigned to them as it

were. Um, but I do make the argument

that everyone kind of uses this

implicitly at least on the terms of

quantity as opposed to

uh like an actual amount. When people

say that you could do better, you know,

on some level they're making a value

judgment as to one particular person

versus other hypothetical or actual

people that person could relate to. So I

think everyone kind of uses that uh to

some degree conscious or not and more or

less everyone is trying to secure a

relationship with their perceived best

option which has to do with some kind of

ranking metric that is going on inside

of their minds and a lot of this is is

very deeply unconscious which is part of

what makes this difficult.

So um I did not invent the term sexual

marketplace value. not precisely sure

where it comes from, but in my book, I

try to tease out some of the

difficulties associated with that

concept by suggesting that there might

be three different kinds of sexual

marketplace value because there can be

very a lot of confusion about this

topic. One of them I would call

normative sexual marketplace value. I

know great branding I have with my

terms. So normative is like the bell

curve, right? And so normative is sort

of like the closest we can get to

socially objective value, which is

basically like for women, the more you

look like um

uh a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model

um or a guy, the more you look like

Ronaldo, you know, and you're fit and

you're handsome and you're you're rich

and like the more attractive you're

going to be. Like we have these social

archetypes for what female and male

beauty look like and people consciously

and unconsciously are kind of seeking to

approximate those ideals all the time.

Uh women put in a lot of money and

effort into doing so. Men increasingly

as well.

Um and so the more that any given

individual kind of matches with that

archetype which is constantly changing

and dependent on time and place the more

their let's say normative sexual

marketplace value is which basically

means the more people will generally

find that person attractive.

The issue is that people are very

different from one another and not

everybody wants to date a Sports

Illustrated swimsuit model as crazy as

that sounds, right? So then I talk about

perceived sexual marketplace value,

which has to do with the person who's

actually making a decision. What does he

or

uh what does he or she feel when they

look at this particular individual?

Because people have types. Sometimes

they're conscious of those types.

sometimes they're not conscious of those

types. Um, I personally like cute nerds.

That's sort of my type as I say in the

book. So, uh, would a cute nerd be like

a a nine or a 10? Are cute nerds gracing

the cover of magazines? And I No, not

really. Right. So, their NSMV might not

be as high. But for me, for whatever

reason, they light me up. So, that's

another thing I argue is that people

have their preferences and tastes when

it comes to sexuality in particular. And

I don't always think that it's useful to

dig too deeply into why people like the

things that they like. Uh it might be

very difficult to figure that out anyway

and it's probably not going to change

anytime soon. We know that, for example,

conversion therapies have a very low

success rate. Um, so sometimes just

important to like accept that you like

the things that you like and kind of,

you know, deal with whatever internal

resistance comes up with you about that

and just kind of like be proud about it

on some level.

Um, and then there's finally what I call

transactive

sexual marketplace value, which has to

do with the fact that no one really

knows how much anything is worth until

the money hits the table. So, it's all

hypothetical until uh the transaction

actually occurs and that's when the

price point is actually established.

Until then, it's all just hypothetical.

It's all just negotiation.

When someone pays $500 million for a

piece of art, that's how we know it's

worth $500 million. Until someone

actually puts the money on the table and

it changes hands, it's all just

speculation on some level. So when it

comes to the sexual marketplace,

transactive sexual marketplace value has

to do with examining

the kinds of partners any given person

has access to.

And I make the argument that this value

is sort of calculated differently for

men and for women because it's easier

for women to get sex than commitment and

it's easier for men to get commitment

than sex.

So you want to kind of measure each

sex's

ability to get the harder commodity as

it were. And this is important because

in today's day and age, especially with

social media and dating apps, many women

can have sexual access to a lot of very

high status men. But these men might not

ever in a million years consider

actually forming a committed

relationship with these women.

And that's kind of confusing because the

like in the male mind, a sexual partner

and a committed relationship partner

have some overlap, but they they're

fairly distinct. Whereas for a lot of

women, those two circles are almost

isomorphic. They're almost overlapping.

So, sorry if this is getting too

technical, but um

No, no, this is great.

Almost at the end. So, we can kind of

measure a woman's transactive sexual

marketplace value by examining, let's

say, the normative sexual marketplace

value of the men who have actually made

the decision to commit to her because

those are like the guys that she could

get. And their value is on some level

reflected in hers because we know

through something called assortative

dating that people more or less tend to

pair up with people of comparable

attractiveness. And I mean

attractiveness both physically, but also

in terms of their lifestyle and status

and so on. and so on. By the same token,

we can kind of figure out a man's sexual

marketplace value by sort of examining

how conventionally attractive the women

that he can get to have sex with them

are, for lack of a better word. So, long

story short, that's sexual marketplace

value in a nutshell.

Yeah, it's it's it's fascinating like

the three different types that are

available. And it makes sense like I

think it's often talked about how women

are the gatekeepers to sex and men are

the gatekeepers to relationships. And it

kind of aligns with from an evolutionary

perspective of what men are looking for

which ultimately is uh someone that can

be a healthy reproduction to uh to

having kids and then women obviously are

looking for more of the resources and

the security aspect of things. In terms

of the sexual market value,

what would you say is the

again some people may not like this, but

what do you think is the prime sexual

market value for men versus women? And

explain how that changes with age for

men and women.

Oh, sure. So, we know that uh sexual

marketplace value is not static over a

lifetime. It changes

um

it changes for lots of different

reasons. It's it seems to be more

volatile actually for men because men's

perceived value in the eyes of women is

often based on non physical attributes.

Like the physical is definitely

important. If you're a hot guy, you get

a lot more action and interest from

women than someone who's not. But you

could also be rich. You could also be

funny. You could also be charming. You

can also be powerful. You can also be a

number of other things that sometimes

aren't always visible to the eyes. So,

it actually kind of takes longer to get

to know a man's value accurately, which

is part of the reason why women go on

what other women want because they don't

have the time to really do the

accounting, as it were.

Um, for lack of, you know, for better or

for worse, those things don't matter as

much in women to men. Like, it doesn't

matter as much if she's funny or not, or

rich or not, or powerful or not. What

matters is if she's hot. Like so much of

men's interest, for better or for worse,

has to do with reproductive cues,

physical attractiveness, youth, and

fertility, and that's probably not ever

going to change. Um, it seems to be

pretty deeply coded. It doesn't seem to

be a culturally learned phenomenon. We

see that in even very primitive

cultures. Um,

so

in general, when men and women enter the

sexual marketplace in our culture at 18,

a a woman is probably never going to be

higher in terms of her sexual

marketplace value based on some of the

things I just said, youth and fertility.

Well, she's never going to be younger.

You generally, not always, but generally

physical attractiveness in women

declines with age. Uh though I do know

that all women are on different tracks

and some actually definitely are late

bloomers and they look better in their

30s and then their 20s.

Um but those sorts of cues tend to

decrease as a function of time. Men, on

the other hand, they're probably never

going to be lower than when they are

when they first enter that market.

Unless they're really cute, like they're

the foot uh the football quarterback or

they're the popular kid, then they can

do really well in in high school and

college. But generally, to become an

attractive man, you have to work really

[ __ ] hard. You have to make something

of yourself. You have to get a lifestyle

and make some money and learn some

skills and become emotionally mature and

learn to communicate and all this kind

of stuff.

Um, so men's sexual marketplace tends to

increase as a function of time as long

as they don't screw anything up. So

the real

interesting time is when does that

switch? So if women start high and end

up coming down and women and men start

low and end up going high, when does

that crossover occur? And according to

some of the research that I've read, it

suggests that it occurs around the age

of 30. And 30 is a bellweather time in

the sexual marketplace for both men and

women because up until that point, the

average woman was more attracted than

the average man. And after that point,

the average man is more attractive than

the average woman. And it never changes

again. So women kind of get this huge

head start or advantage in the sexual

marketplace.

uh it's a really big but men tend to win

the long game if they can draw out the

um the play for as long as possible as

it were. And this I think is part of the

reason why in America the average age at

first marriage is 29. It like happens at

the last moment where the woman is on

some level the more powerful player than

the man. And that's of course from pure

game theory when she should settle and

make a lifetime commitment to the to the

best available option especially that

option is going to keep rising past that

point of contract. So that is definitely

a very

smart female mating strategy. It's like

kind of wait until then. You now have

some time. You've maybe examined what

kind of men are out there. You've

developed some interest and now you can

kind of focus on the best option that

you can get and try to lock him down for

a long-term commitment right before he

starts to become more attractive than

you are and can potentially enter into

greater optionality with more and more

attracted women. It's like, yeah, that

was that would be smart. So, uh, to

answer your question about peak sexual

marketplace values, it's very

contentious. Um, there's a number of

different studies I've read. For women,

it's always young. I think the most

recent study I read, according to men,

women peak at like 23, but I've read

even younger than that. Um, in the eyes

of women, I've read that men peak around

40, but I've also seen that go as high

up as 50. And 50 was the statistic I use

in the book, and I got that from a

revealed preference study using dating

apps. So, not entirely generalizable,

but uh since most people now enter into

relationships

using dating apps, it might be relevant.

Yeah, I've I've was it a video or an

article I read somewhere where it talks

about the ideal age to get married for

women and it says what biology tells you

which is like 18 years old, what society

tells you which is like 25 and then what

it's actually happening modern society

which is like over 30. Do you agree that

like most women should be getting

married earlier if that's their goal?

Um, I don't I mean, if women don't want

to get married and start having kids,

I'm totally okay with that. Like, I'm

not one of these guys or trying to save

women from their decisions and thinking

that they would all be happier nursing

and in the kitchen. So, if women don't

want to get married and have kids,

that's totally fine. I'm not a big fan

of marriage myself. I certainly can't

impose it on other women.

Um, if women do in the scheme of things

want to get married and have children

though, then it makes sense that they

try to prioritize that in their 20s

because that's when their sexual

marketplace value is probably going to

be the highest it will ever be. And

because people enter into relationships

at like comparable power levels as it

were, a very attractive young woman can

get the interest and commitment of,

let's say, a handsome, rich, powerful

man who's already gone through the

process of extrapolating a lifestyle,

has made something of himself, and can

potentially like move forward with

starting a family. right now. It would

be a tall ask, though it still happens

all the time, of course, for the average

25-year-old guy to take on the

responsibility of parenthood in today's

day and age. Like, I know that by 25

generations ago, most guys had already

had a couple of kids by then. Um,

maybe different time, different men. I'm

not sure. But like most guys at 25,

uh, I wouldn't want them to be my dad.

I'll tell you that. So, it just seems to

take longer for guys to get their [ __ ]

together for better or for worse. So, if

women do want to prioritize um if they

want to have kids, they want to h get

married, then yeah, they probably should

on some level seek that out when they're

younger. But that's difficult,

especially because

we don't use

fathers in particular or family to

broker marriage and relationships

anymore. And so the average 25year-old

woman is hanging out with 25-year-old

guys, which as I said is not really the

the best uh pool from which to select

somebody who's ready to move forward

with with marriage and kids. Um, a lot

of those guys are just kind of [ __ ]

around, you know, and sometimes women

waste waste time in their 20s with men

who are never going to commit to them or

be serious about a relationship long

term. Or they spend that time developing

their education and their career and

things like that. And then, you know,

once they kind of get everything

established at 35, once they feel the

pressure of their uh shrinking

biological window, they say, "Oh, I

really need to get ahead of this." And

maybe they freeze some eggs and

they

amp up their efforts kind of, but

they're still really more devoting far

more time and attention to their careers

and whatnot.

Uh doesn't lead to a lot of good

outcomes uh in that respect. I mean, I

think I read that

80 to 90% of women who are childless at

40

are involuntarily childless, I think is

the term. Like they didn't they didn't

expect or or think that they would end

up at 40 without kids. It just sort of

like happened that way as they describe

it.

But in volunteer meaning they regret it.

Um

sometimes they regret it. Like there's

support groups for women who have kind

of passed their opportunity and they

wish that they were able to have kids

and they're supporting each other. Like

that can happen. But at the very least,

what I think the research is saying is

that they didn't intend to. There are

some women, some men that are just like,

I don't want to have kids. I don't want

to reproduce. That's not for me. I'm not

a kid person. And it's not really any

surprise that they end up at 40

childless. You know, but the average

woman will say something like, "Oh yeah,

I like kids." and you know, maybe when

the time is right and if I meet the

right person and you know, I got to get

a few things straight. So, they they

don't they they think they're going to

have kids at some point with someone.

Doesn't always happen, though.

Yeah. Uh, just to kind of tie the bow on

the sexual market value place,

how do men and women actually raise

their sexual market value? And I think

that comes with actually defining what

are the criterias of sexual market value

and how you actually determine what's a

peak or not or non-prime sexual market

value for men and women.

Sure. Well, uh, as I talked about, I

think it's always good to be cognizant

of the the templates, the archetypes for

male and female beauty that exist in

your culture at any given time. And the

more that you can approximate those

archetypes, the more attractive you will

be to more people, which will mean that

you will have more optionality generally

in the sexual marketplace, which will,

among other things, expose you to more

possibilities and increase your

bargaining posture, as it were. So, what

does that mean? It's like men should

learn a little bit about style. They

should work out, make sure that they're

fit. Um, they should take care of basic

hygiene. I mean, that's something that I

hear from women a lot. Uh, women, I

mean, it's like take care of yourself.

Um, if possible,

you

it's so hard to do this. It's like I'm

loathed to like tell women how they

supposed to how they should act. But

within this goal of trying to become

more normatively attractive, that would

mean like being slim. That would mean

potentially dressing a little bit more

femininely. That would mean um learning

how to use makeup appropriately. Um a

lot of women are very good at these

things already. In fact, the average

woman puts way more effort into moving

towards that archetype than the average

man does.

But what I also argue is again people

don't enter into relationship with

archetypes. They don't enter into

relationships with statistics. They

enter into relationships another

specific individual. And it's more

important that that person that you're

dealing with think that you're a nine or

a 10 than the population in general

because you can't enter into a

relationship with the population in

general. So, as I said before when I was

talking about perceived sexual

marketplace value, everyone has their

types, right? And I think it's more

useful to kind of figure out what type

you are, like the one that's a best

match for you that feels mo mostly

authentic and to kind of lean into that

a little bit more. It's generally a good

idea for men in particular to be

more attractive to fewer women than to

be less attractive to more women. Like I

tell guys, if you can be really really

attractive to 1% of women, that's going

to be more women than you're going to

know how to deal with in your entire

life. That's millions and millions and

millions of women. That's you don't need

more than that. Um but that means that

99% of women might be like, "Ew, gross."

No. But if that 1% says, "Yum, that's my

thing." That guy is going to be swimming

in optionality. Like you want to be the

first person that women think of

as opposed to like that fewer women

think of than the the second or third or

fourth or fifth guy that more women

think of. That's a better strategy.

Yeah. It's kind of like uh true fans

that Kevin Kelly talks about that you're

a thousand true fans. It's better to be

loved and adored by a thousand people if

you want to build a career in whatever

you're passionate about because in the

world of internet you can pretty much

you know monetize and create a living

based on those true fans. And I guess

it's similar to relationships in some

ways because it's better to be adored

and really loved by a smaller percentage

of the female population than just kind

of liked and you know kind of attracted

to because then you have competition now

amongst all of the other guys that are

out there that she kind of likes.

I think that's especially true for men.

we see that there are really

um really popular women, a lot of you

know singers and actresses, they tend

not to to date their fans as far as we

know. Um that's part of one of the

issues of female success in the modern

age is that if women still want to mate

and date up the status hierarchy and

they're raising up the status hierarchy,

then there are fewer and fewer men that

they're even going to consider as viable

options. And those men are just like,

"What a time to be alive." They're a

wash in optionality, which makes it even

less likely that they're going to commit

to any one of those options. But it's

sort of standard for if women mate and

date up, then on some level it's

standard that men mate and date down.

And so it's not uncommon for men to

enter into sexual relationships with

their fans, like the ones who really,

really, really like them. makes it's

like dating on easy mode for a guy

because they come to you and that

generally doesn't happen unless you are

very very hot or famous.

Do you think is that something you

recommend for

men particularly like is it better to be

in a relationship

with someone that

uh for lack of a better words like likes

you better more than you may like them?

Yeah. Yeah, I do.

And why is that? um for a number of

reasons. So I uh there's a whole section

of the book where I talk about what I

call the balance of attraction, which is

this idea that it's not possible for two

people to like each other exactly the

same amount. So somebody in every

relationship will always like the other

person more and one person will always

like the other person less. I call this

person the adorer and this person the

adored. And it could be a man down here,

man up here, woman down here, woman up

here. And it's actually value neutral.

It's not better to be up here or worse

to be down here or vice versa. There are

pros and cons to all of these things.

So, um, the question is, is it better

for men to be liked more to like the the

person that they're with less than they

like

to be liked more by the person they're

with than to like the person that

they're with? That's your question,

right? So, basically, is it better for

men to be adored? And I argue yes for a

number of reasons. The primary one is

the main thing that differentiates these

two positions because again they don't

inherent in men and women or even

individuals. They're places that people

can live in in a given relationship.

What mostly defines the difference is

the presence or absence of emotional

content.

This person, the adorer, gets to be with

the one they love, which is the dream of

human relationships. Is I want to get

the man or the woman that I want that I

love. And there's no greater romantic

victory than that. Now, one of the

things that comes with being the adored

uh the the adorer is you get a greater

share of the emotional roller coaster on

some level. You are anxiously waiting by

the phone. When the text finally shows

up, you're you're thrilled and your

heart starts racing. When they haven't

called you back and it's getting late

now, you start to get worried. Um, when

you get to be with them and and just

hold their hands, it feels like you're

walking on air. Sex can be incredible.

You feel like the luckiest man or the

luckiest girl in the world. You know,

there's that scene in 500 days of summer

where after a successful date,

the guy walks out and it's like the

whole universe starts dancing and

singing in unison with him. And and

that's kind of how it feels. And both

men and women,

I argue, prefer to be in this position.

They people want to feel [ __ ] That's

one of the biggest criticisms of

unsuccessful dates is that ah there was

no spark or we didn't have any

chemistry. I didn't really feel

anything. on on paper, they could be a

fantastic match, even have a lot of role

complimentarity or um

uh the like the skills and attitudes and

willingness to do what the relationship

is designed to do, but they'll say, you

know, it's just not worth it. I I I

can't be in a relationship where I don't

feel very much. And so, I think men and

women both want to be here because

that's where the feeling is. But it's

more important for the women because I

do think that women are

more likely to leave

sooner in the absence of that emotional

content. Sometimes if a relationship has

been established, a guy will hang on

longer out of duty and commitment.

It's but those are tough cells for a lot

of women. Um, it's like if if she's

unhappy or she's fallen out of love or

she doesn't feel the same way anymore

for long enough, she's probably going to

start looking for the door, which is um

not a sustainable thing in most

relationships.

Yeah.

So, and and that can happen when the

woman is up here and the man is down

here, right? Because the adored does not

get a lot of the emotional content. This

person gets to be with the one they

love. this person gets to be loved by

the one they're with. It's very, very

different. It always feels like some

form of settling when you're the adored,

right? Because who does the adored

adore? That person is even higher than

him or her. And so, it feels like you

have to surrender that person, whether

it's actual or hypothetical, to act to

be in this living, breathing

relationship with this other human

being. And that can feel like a letdown

to people. Now, I don't think that's in

many cases reasonable. I think that's a

let down of the romantic imagination

which can really trip people up but

that's how it works for the vast

majority of people. Um so the adored

doesn't get a lot of that emotional

content but it does that person does

have more power and control in sort of

like creating the structure or the frame

of the relationship. The adored

basically decides when the relationship

happens when, where, on what terms,

and that's sort of like the terms and

conditions of the relationship. And so

you you often get more of what you want

on a practical or material level if

you're the adored, but you get less of

what you might want from a an emotional

or psychological level. That's part of

the trade-off.

And why is it why is that? Why is it

important for women in particular to be

the adorer? Why why can't men do that?

Is that more the hypergamous nature of

that women generally have when it comes

to relationships?

They can. And it's like um and they do

like men and women often are jockeying

to be in the adorer role and but what

happens is that two people can't occupy

that place at the same time. So if the

man insists I want to be the adorer, I

want to love you. Then that on some

level that pushes the woman up here.

It's like putting the woman on a

pedestal and that deprivives her of some

of the emotional content of being in the

adorer position like I was describing.

And it might be novel or interesting for

a woman to be placed on a pedestal for a

while, especially if she's just getting

out of a relationship where she was the

adorer. She might think, "Oh, this is a

nice change of pace. You know, finally a

a guy who knows how to treat a lady."

But generally, they tend to not stay

with those men or or date them at all.

They get bored. Um, and they're

basically sending a signal that they're

beneath the woman, which consciously or

not, I think it's interpreted by women

that their hypo hypergamous

instincts aren't being satisfied because

they want to mate and date up. But if

the man insists that he's down here and

the woman's on a pedestal, he's

basically insisting that the woman mate

and date down and be okay with that. And

most women aren't. A lot of this stuff

is unconscious, though, Sean. That's the

one little asterisk here. Yeah, because

you described the whole idea of looking

good on paper. I mean, I think it's

important to dig deeper into what it

means to be the ordorer, and it doesn't

necessarily mean feeling the good

feelings of what it means to feel in

love, right? It's also the potentially

the the the suffering and the negative

emotions that come with that. One of the

people love that, I'm sorry, unpopular

take, but people love that. people would

rather feel in pain than nothing at all.

And if you if you believe if you accept

that that's true, it explains so much of

human behavior that otherwise just seems

so irrational and stupid.

There's a great quote by uh do you know

school of life?

Yes. Uh I've watched a number of their

episodes over the years. Yeah. He has a

great definition of love in one of these

videos and he says very similar to what

you said which is when we enter the

marketplace of dating we think we're out

to find partners that will make us happy

but we're not. We're out to find

partners who will make us feel familiar.

And these are two very different things

because familiarity may be bound up with

particular kinds of torture. This is why

when friends introduce us to potential

partners who look great on paper like

you mentioned, yet we don't feel that

chemistry, but we can't quite explain

why. But really what we mean is that

we've detected a person who will not be

able to make us suffer in the way we

need to suffer in order to feel that

love is real. And he says we're not on a

quest to be happy. We're on a quest to

suffer in a way that feels familiar.

That is love. Yeah, I mean there's a

number of different takes to this one. I

talk about this a little bit in the

first chapter of the book that people

kind of have these love algorithms that

are based on observing the relationships

of their primary caregivers. So let's

just say they're parents.

And

it's like imagine training an AI model

on just

one example. Like we call them large

language models. We have to pour a bunch

of data and information into these um

systems in order for it to be adaptive

and creative and intelligent. But

imagine you were just trained on one

relationship and that's what you thought

relationships are for better or for

worse. Like you're not going to judge

it. It's like a machine. The the AI

can't judge whether it's getting good

data or bad data or right or wrong. It's

just like this is reality. And if it

does, it's not present in the data set,

it almost doesn't even exist to that

model. And when we're growing up, we

have there's like a sensitive time where

we're taking in a lot of information

about how men behave, how women behave,

how mommies and daddies work, how

husbands and wives work, etc. And this

all gets encoded deeply inside of us

before we're even aware that it's

happening, which is like really a mean

trick in many cases. Like if you grow up

in a loving, stable, secure family, it's

like [ __ ] great. It's like everything

just sort of gets taken care of for you

and you don't have to worry about it.

And then you grow up and you basically

enact those templates and you get into

relationships with other securely

attached individuals and they still

compose about half of the population. So

secure people end up with secure people.

If a secure person tries to date an

insecure person, for instance, it just

doesn't it doesn't make sense. Like I

don't understand why this is so

difficult. I don't understand why

they're so needy. I don't understand why

they're so aloof. Um, but this isn't

what this doesn't feel familiar to me.

This isn't what I think love is supposed

to look like. Uh, I'm out.

So, that's part of it. The other thing

about Elaine's quote that might be

interesting comes from Freud. And Freud

talks about the need for reenactment. So

let's say that we had

uh a disappointing model

uh presented to us when we were

children.

And so that's what we think love is.

That's how we think relationships should

proceed.

What we're going to do according to

Freud is not only find people who feel

familiar with that. And so there's a

sense of like comfort to that

recognition even if the relationship is

painful or destructive or unstable.

There's like this comfort of

familiarity.

But we we're going to on some level

enter into a psycho drama where I'm

going to find somebody who reminds me of

the opposite sex parent

because my goal is to work out a

different outcome than the one that I

experienced in the past.

The same thing happens in the

transference relationship between

therapist and patient. He says, and the

idea here is is that consciously or

usually unconsciously, people become

their mother or their father and they

find somebody who reminds them of their

opposite sex parent because they want to

like resolve the issues that they had

from the past by like creating the same

problems in their current life, but like

solving them because they can't go back

and solve the problems that they

experienced when they were kids. It's in

the past. it's completely untouchable.

But if I can kind of like recreate the

problem here and then solve it, it's

almost get some sort of emotional

closure about this and move on. The

which it makes a kind of sense when you

think about it. But the the the real

tragedy of this is that people don't

have practice solving the problem.

They've never seen the problem solved.

They only have practice experiencing and

creating the problem.

They don't like let's say

mommy and daddy were in kind of an

approach avoid relationship where mommy

was a little clingy at least according

to dad and you know dad would like leave

for periods of time and so

that person might

enter into a relationship with a person

who could reenact that same dynamic but

like how do you get out of that? They

don't know. They've never even seen a

successful resolution of that problem

most likely. So they're very good at

recreating the problem, but they're

generally not very great at solving that

problem. So that's kind of the the

tragedy. And ideally, according to

Freud, that reenactment would occur in a

therapeutic relationship.

The therapist would help the patient

become more consciously aware of that

dynamic and they would work towards a

different behavioral response. And so

it's almost like the therapeutic

relationship becomes like a training

ground for the successful resolution of

that problem in their lives. Does that

always happen? No. But that's the uh

that's the goal of analysis from Freud's

perspective. And

does this also happen when the in this

case let's say a female has a great

relationship with their father? Because

you mentioned resolve, which is

generally a conflict of issues or per

perhaps a negative relationship with the

opposite sex parent. Does the same apply

when the relationship is pretty good and

then not not there's no trauma that's

happened throughout the relationship?

It does. It happens no matter what. And

I mention I I make that argument in the

book is that even if your parents are

intact and loving and you think number

one dad and world's greatest mom, it it

will still create some issues because

it's still that data set trained on one

example.

And at the very least, this will tend to

make signal detection more difficult as

an adult because they might be very

rigid with respect to what works. Now,

they grew up in a context that worked,

but that's not the only way that

relationships can work. And so these

people might miss out on other types of

partners or or ways of relating that

would still meet the same goal, will

still be supportive and contented and

secure, um but won't look like or feel

like their parents dynamic. And that's

going to lower their chances of finding

it because it's hard enough to find a

decent partner anyway. You kind of want

to be able to to make make do as many

different ways as possible. Another

possibility is if like I'm a woman and I

had a great relationship with my dad and

I think he was just like the world's

greatest man.

Uh

and I think that that woman might find

whatever man that she dates or marries

to be disappointing potentially. I mean,

we see that in edible type relationships

with uh in Freud's perspective when the

when the man is too bonded to the mother

like a mama's boy or the the woman is

too bonded to the father. He doesn't

talk about that as much but it can

happen like it's difficult to put the

partner ahead of the parent and that can

create issues in the marital unit. One

of the main reasons why people do have

marital conflict has to do with in-laws

and how they uh treat each other. So, on

some level, I do think it's kind of like

they say in the Bible, it's like the

woman leaves her house, her parents

house to go live with the man. On some

level, it's like you if you're going to

get married and start a family, you you

have to on some level make a conscious

decision to put the new family ahead of

the family that you left.

But that's difficult for people to do

sometimes.

But like when a husband feels like he's

less important than his father-in-law or

his mother-in-law, that's going to be a

very it's going to be difficult for that

relationship.

Yeah. I think uh I I saw an episode with

Saudia where she talks about how when a

son has a really tight relationship with

their mother but not with their father.

What happens is as they go into the

dating marketplace because they only

receive the side of the relationship

from their mom, which is usually going

to be favoring the mother, they often

tend to put women on a pedestal. And

when things go wrong, it's generally

they don't actually question that it

could be the fault of the woman or the

fault flaws of the woman, but they end

up actually putting them on a pedestal

because of that reason. And I don't know

if the same applies for the opposite

sex.

Um, it probably does. Um, and this can

be an issue when there is no father at

all, when people are just raised by

single mothers. But what we can in the

situation that you just described, let's

say that there's a mother, a father, and

a a son. And let's say the marital

relationship isn't so great.

Maybe the guy is uh aloof, spends too

much time out of the house, maybe drinks

too much, uh doesn't remember her

birthday, I don't know, whatever.

What can sometimes happen is what's

called triangulation where the mother

ends up getting into a more intimate

emotional relationship with the son than

with the husband. And on some level

these create a diad the mother and son

over here and the father is increasingly

kind of checked out which sort of pushes

him even further outside of the family

because he's like I'm not even liked

here so why should I continue to invest

effort here when it's not working. So

that can be kind of a a positive

feedback that drives a wedge between the

husband and wife even further. But

what's interesting is that the mother

will kind of like tend to raise the son

in a way that she wished her husband

would behave. I wish that you you know

you got to buy a girl flowers and you

should always like be sweet to them and

and you're such a a nice boy. The issue

is that she didn't marry that man.

She didn't [ __ ] that man. She didn't

reproduce with that man. She for

whatever reason married and re and chose

to reproduce with a guy who was kind of

aloof and kind of distant and she

couldn't truly possess emotionally.

That's what she was attracted to.

So, but she doesn't like that. So, she's

trying she's consciously training the

son to be how she would prefer the man

that she's attracted to to behave. But

if that man potentially were to start

acting that way, who knows what would

happen to her attraction? We know that

it's not important for him to act that

way because she chose to sleep with him

and marry him and reproduce with him

without that kind of behavior. And so

when boys in particular are raised by

single mothers or in these types of

contexts, they they generally grow up to

be nice guys because that's how the

mothers would prefer the husbands or the

fathers to have behaved, but it's

clearly not what they as women were

attracted to. And so these nice guys

often find it difficult um to to get

what they need and want in the sexual

marketplace. It's like they're all very

sweet, you know. It's kind of the thing

like, "Oh, you're such so so nice. I I

know that any girl would be happy to

have you." Well, you're any girl. Yeah,

but yeah, but I think of you like a you

know, like a brother. You know, we that

would be weird. You know, we can't do

that. So, it it women like it,

but they don't [ __ ] it. they don't marry

it. They don't they don't enter into

relationship with it. Um

because those things uh don't really

have to do with attractiveness.

And the more attractive you are, whether

you're a man or the woman or a woman,

the more uh optionality you're going to

get, the more successful you're going to

get. Just how it is.

How do you think the

people that we're attracted to, even the

way we show up in the world changes as

we begin to heal? Particularly the

relationships that we have with

ourselves and even our parents. For

example, I would say I'm particularly

around that topic of having a very close

relationship with my mom and my dad not

really being in, you know, a core part

of our family, right? I I don't think I

particularly a nice guy by any means,

but you know, I've had friends, let's

say, that went through therapy and

they've healed the parent relationship

with their parents, uh, and then they

got divorced because they realized

they're not no longer attracted to that

person after healing part of themselves,

including the relationships with their

parents. Do you think that can change,

you know, as we become even adults, as

we start to heal certain parts of

ourselves and relationships with our

parents? And it may change who we're

attracted to even.

Oh, certainly. Yeah, that's happened to

me personally. Uh it's kind of been long

known that the fastest way to accelerate

a divorce is for one partner to start

therapy.

And that kind of fits with what you just

described because if one person starts

to heal or one person enters into a a

phase of personal development more

generally saying the other person

doesn't it's going to widen the gap

between

like felt compatibility. I'm on one

track you're on another and it feels

like the distance between us is just

getting greater and greater. Maybe we

work out some sort of like roommate or

co-parent agreement, but maybe also

there's still a lot of life left and

there's better, more satisfying

relationships that each one of us could

enter into. So maybe we get divorced.

So yes, when somebody starts to heal or

grow, they often grow out of the

relationship that they're currently in.

Absolutely.

Now um I do think that our attraction is

often based

like I well it's always based on some

level with this templating this

algorithm that gets developed during the

sensitive period of our childhood.

If you're one of the secure individuals

out there like the 50% of the population

comes from loving intact healthy

families great just move on. But for the

other half like me, it wasn't just that

there was this training. There was a lot

of wounding that happened. And the wound

is often not even

acknowledged. It's like children tend to

accept the reality with which they're

given. Sometimes they don't even know

that they've been hurt. That they just

think that that's like normal. That's

just what life is supposed to feel like

or that how adults are supposed to

behave. And it's only like when they

start to make friends in high school and

college where they're maybe sharing some

stories that they realize, "Wow, your

your dad didn't come home drunk and beat

you. Oh, I thought that's just what dads

do." And people are going to be like,

"No, bro. That's that's not what dads

do." Not saying my dad did that, but

like um you start to learn that maybe

there was something [ __ ] up about my

family. And that's actually a good

thing. You shouldn't just stop there

where you're just blaming mommy and

daddy for the rest of your life for the

problems that you've kind of inherited

psychologically. It's not your fault,

but it is your responsibility at this

point to do something about it. Um, but

it's important to become aware of some

of that so that you can begin to to

change things. Now, uh, like I said that

people want to create these

reenactments. So they're they're on some

level their wounding, their emotional

wounding kind of has this uh I don't

know else to describe it's like a radar.

It's like this sensitivity to seek out

people with whom they can successfully

have that kind of reenacted relationship

with. Like when I was in my 20s, I had a

tendency to date women who were very

uh they were like roller coasters, man.

I mean I was an actor, so I date a lot

of actresses. actresses aren't really

known for their emotional stability, but

uh there was just like all over the

place. And of course, my my mother was

one of the most chaotic women that I've

ever met. So, there was part of it that

felt familiar.

Um and I could walk into a room of a

hundred strangers and I could just look

at a woman across the room and say, "Oh,

she's the one. She's the one I can have

this dynamic with." I don't know why I

knew that or how, but it tended to be

correct.

So, um, I went through this process

where I would date these women, but it

would get too crazy and I couldn't take

it anymore and we'd break up in some

spectacular way. And I'd say, "I'm going

to just date a nice girl, a healthy

girl, a stable girl." And I did that for

a few months. And then I would be bored

to tears. And I would say, "Sweetheart,

you're great. It's not you, it's me."

Which is true. Uh, but I can't do this.

And I'd go back to a new dumpster fire

or roller coaster. And this would happen

for years. And it felt like this

terrible trap because either

I got what I was authentically attracted

to but was terrible for me or I got

something that was good for me but I

felt nothing for. And I don't know if I

either one of those is a a palatable

option long term. Well, fortunately I I

was also in the process of um doing some

of my own inner work and healing. And I

I think that as I worked out this with

my therapist and it took some years

uh that some of that emotional wounding

from that chaotic upbringing we were

able to bring into the light and

understand and to heal. And over time my

attraction began to authentically

change. like I didn't have to try to

force myself to like the stable girls,

which is like thank god because it's you

can't you can't stay in that kind of

dynamic for very long. And now when one

of those uh roller coasters walks into

the room, you know, maybe I hear this

like dark echo, it's like but it's like

no, no, thank you. It's almost like

being in recovery for a drug. There

might always be this kind of like pull,

but you know, it gets easier to say no

thanks.

Um, and so that's great. So my

attraction has authentically changed

over time,

but I don't know if it would have

changed

just as a function of time, like if I

had just done nothing and the years went

by. I think I really had to take the

time to examine this and understand it

and and heal it as best I could. And it

it did impact what I was attracted to,

which is great. It might have saved my

life, man. No, I can definitely echo

that as well. Going I haven't done

therapy or anything, but just through my

own work of understanding why we're

attracted to certain people and healing

certain parts of experiences that I've

had. You know, I used to be particularly

attracted to girls that were very

avoidant. And I think that's just kind

of the nature of a lot of Asian kids

because a lot of parents just worked,

came back home, they didn't really spend

time with their kids. You know, a a a

minus isn't good enough. It has to be a

plus. this tiger parent nature of

disciplining our kids

and nowadays when I have

expressions of love overtly stuff like

that too right

exactly exactly and and I was it felt

familiar you know dating girls that were

also very avoidant

and then at a certain point I just now

my initial trigger which is I guess

healthier is like ah this is too much

work for me maybe I've gotten older I'm

just lazier it's not even healing I'm

just lazy now but my first thought is

like, you know what? This is going to be

too much work. This is not going to work

for me. I'm like,

I think that's kind of how I feel when I

see the roller coaster now. It's just

like, h, it's just not worth it. You

know, it'll be fun. I'm sure the sex

will be great. You know, it'll be like

firecrackers, but uh, you know, it's

just not it's just not worth the

headache, the heartache, the drama.

you know, I it's like I could

technically afford a Lamborghini, but I

just don't think it's worth the money

that I would pay for it to to get it and

to maintain it. So, you know, people

make value decisions not technically

based on what they can afford. Sometimes

that's the case, but it's often just

like what is the best use of that

limited value that they have. And I've

gotten to the point where it's like a

relationship needs to not only create no

new problems in my life, but it actually

needs to make my life better. Which was

kind of a revelation. You know, I

certainly didn't think that that was

what relationships were designed to do

when I was in my 20s.

None of them did. None of them did make

my life better.

But now it's like, wow, you know, there

are women out there who who love you and

will support you and will help you. And

it's like, wow, that feels that feels

that feels nice. Now the expense and the

the trouble of of the relationship is

sort of justified by some of the benefit

that I get from it. It's like, oh, okay,

let's move in this direction.

Yeah. And I feel the same. I mean,

people talk about driving the

Lamborghini or one of these supercars,

but they don't talk about the

maintenance cost that comes with driving

a fun vehicle in a temporary moment, but

the constant maintenance that comes with

that. And I know I'd [ __ ] it up, man.

I'd [ __ ] it up, you know. I' I'd I'd

bang a curb or something like that and

then it's like, oh, that's $10,000 right

there, you know.

Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Um, this kind of

ties into my point around going deeper

into evolutionary psychology

and how we can change the way and who

we're attracted to depending on the

modern circumstances or healing in

general. One of the things that I've

heard is I think there was a study done

on this where how women that get off of

oral contraceptive pills

over time may feel less attracted to

traditionally less masculine partners.

And it was fascinating for me how just

getting off the pill alone can actually

make you feel less attracted to the

person. But the reality is most women

are taking modern contraceptives. So go

to go deeper into that. I won't even ask

a question around that, but just what

are your thoughts around that and how I

guess ultimately how you know people

talk about we have nutritionists and

doctors they talk about on the show how

based on the

evolutionary

um history that we have of of growing up

like our ancestors did not eat the way

we eat today. They did not have the

modern nutrition and diet. This is not

the way we're supposed to be eating. Do

you think the same thing could be said

about relationships and dating today?

How modern technology or modern ways

we're dating is not necessarily the way

evolution would have wanted us to find

love or date. Maybe evolution is pretty

sneaky and creative. So like when we

look at our nearest primate ancestors

like chimps or bonobos

uh we see all kinds of deceptive tactics

that are used by let's say lower status

men to secure sexual opportunities uh

lower status males to secure sexual

opportunities with uh with females. Some

of them might mean impersonating other

females. So, it's like in some uh

primate species that have like a really

hierarchical

structures where there's like one or two

alphas that control the vast majority of

the females.

Okay.

One of the strategies is for one a lower

status male to imitate being a female so

they can kind of get indoctrinated into

the herum and then like [ __ ] the other

females when the alpha is asleep. So

it's like this is something that evolved

as a strategy over millions and millions

of years. So there's all kinds of

deceptiveness and uh trickery and

minesis and cops and robbers when it

comes to sex. It's like all is fair and

love and war on some level because

they're both related to the same outcome

which is survival. War is related to the

survival of the individual. I'm kind of

justified to do whatever I need to do in

order to keep living. and love or sex is

related to the survival of the genes.

And it's like on some level I got to do

what I got to do in order to secure the

best possible option for me. So I'm I'm

sorry if that hurts you, but like I got

to do what's right for me. It's it

hurts, but so does war. And they're kind

of related to the same ultimate goal.

Uh your question was about

modern dating and

how can you can you ask it again because

there was something else I wanted to say

about this.

Yeah. Just around uh I gave the analogy

of how modern nutrition isn't the way

we're supposed to be. We were designed

to eat.

I remember now. Okay. So you were

mentioning about the the fascinating

discovery that women's sexual

preferences change when they go off of

contraception, hormonal contraception. I

don't know if it's always oral, but it's

definitely hormonal.

And I know it's kind of a controversial

um concept. Some people think that it

exists, some people think that it's been

disproven, but it's called um

the dual mating strategy in women, which

basically suggests that possibly

it would be it would be great if women

could get really good genes

and good security, resources,

protection, and provision from their

mate.

But the likelihood that all of those

things are going to be in one male is

very low.

So the dual mating strategy basically

says that it might be in women's best

interest or females best interest more

generally to kind of like enter into a

committed relationship with uh a male

with status and and resources who's

willing to kind of commit to her but

maybe surreptitiously

reproduce with a different male that has

better genes. You know, on the internet

they call it alpha [ __ ] and betabucks

as it were. So it's like, and this is

corroborated in some studies that

suggest that when a woman is in the

ovulatory phase of her cycle, she is

more likely to cheat or at least

consider cheating, I think, is what the

research finding um showed technically.

Um, there's also studies that asked

women to like smell shirts worn by

different types of men. And they found

the scent on

shirts worn by more masculine men to be

more yummy smelling when they were

ovulating. So, there does seem to be

this like hormonally based or driven

tendency to seek out riskier, more

masculine

sexual opportunities.

Um

but then that changes once they enter

into the you know they start to

menstruate or then the lutininal phase.

So like women's preferences do

change as a as a consequence of the

chemicals that are flooding through

their body. It kind of makes sense.

Um,

so when they go off birth control,

that's when they want to reproduce. And

the biological

like imperative at that point is I need

to reproduce with the best genes, not

necessarily the best man, but the best

genes. And then maybe I can get a decent

man to help me raise those genes on some

level.

Um, so that's the idea there is that

once we take away the birth control and

the woman's hormones start to kind of

regulate in a in a more natural cycle,

they're going to be more

attracted to men who are more

traditionally masculine because they

represent more of what evolution has

told us is a high quality mate. They're

generally bigger. they're generally

stronger,

more attractive, etc.

So, for women that are about to enter

into a long-term relationship or even a

marriage that's supposed to last for

life, should they get off of birth

control and see how they still feel

about their partners?

I know some content creators who suggest

that sounds like a decent idea. Of

course, you know, that leads to risks of

pregnancy, I suppose, that before either

person might be ready. There are ways

around that, but um yeah, on some level

seems like a decent idea.

And what are your thoughts on monogamy?

This conversation around how

men were men and women weren't

necessarily monogamous when before the

idea of marriage and all these things

were created. What What are your

thoughts on monogamy as a concept?

Yeah, it doesn't seem like very many

people, men or women, are really

programmed to be strictly monogamous.

Monogamy does seem to be more of a

cultural invention. We don't see it

practiced among more primitive tribes

that still exist in like Papa New Guinea

or the Amazon rain basin. There's a

really great book that explores a lot of

this further called Sex at Dawn that I

would highly recommend if people are

interested in this.

Our, if I remember correctly, according

to the anthropologists, our two closest

primate ancestors are chimpanzees and

bonobos. And we're kind of like more or

less halfway in between these two

species. And these two species can't be

more different with respect to their

sexual practices. Chimps are very

hierarchical.

They're super aggressive. They often are

territorial,

do a lot of mateguarding,

and because they're very hierarchical,

few high status ma males control the

vast majority of the females.

And so only a few different males get to

reproduce on some level. Bonobos are

totally opposite. They they have like

they don't have a hierarchal society.

They have a horizontal society and they

[ __ ] all the time. It's like they have

sex to say hi. They have sex to say bye.

They have sex to say I'm sorry. It's

like it's a form of communication that

exists in this species. And it serves a

lot of different functions besides

reproduction. In particular, it serves

the function of like cementing bonds in

the relationship network of that uh

community.

And humans are kind of halfway between

these two. So, we're kind of halfway

between um

uh

uh kind of like free love and very uh

organized limited sexual practices.

Let's put it that way. I think I got

this right. And so I think that human

beings today all over the world exist on

that continuum as well. You, some people

don't know this, but like there's people

today that still have a significant

proportion of Neandertol DNA even though

there are no Neanderthalss anymore. And

that proportion of DNA can actually have

important health outcomes. I remember

reading a paper a few years ago that

said that the higher concentration of

Neanderl DNA, the more the less likely

that person is going to contract and

spread COVID, for instance. So, it's

like these sort of genetic heritages

affect us in ways that we are not

conscious of and don't fully understand.

But I think that there's a there's a

spectrum just like some people might

have more Neatl DNA than others. Some

people might be more on let's say the

bonobo side than on the chimpanzeee

side. And I think that's okay. I don't

think that we should have a

one-sizefits-all system when it comes to

our relationships and our sexual

practices.

So, I do think that in general, people

seem to be monogamousish,

which is a great word that I think needs

to circulate more. As far as I know,

that came from Esther Prell, who's also

um a great researcher on this. You can

check out her book uh meeting in

captivity in particular if you're

interested.

And uh it's like people can be more or

less monogous, but that strict hard line

of permanent indefinite sexual

exclusivity can be a very difficult

thing for a lot of people, especially

men

to do. Like since the time I was a boy,

I've watched on the news stories of

politicians and athletes and celebrities

all fall because of what they got to

[ __ ] the intern on the desk. It's like

that they were willing to risk it all

for not even a fantastic sexual

opportunity, but like that seems to be

kind of what's baked into a lot of guys.

It could also be why those men became so

successful and powerful to begin with,

whether they were conscious of it or

not. It's like a high status men get

more and more attractive sexual

opportunities, which could be why they

work so [ __ ] hard to become so

successful and powerful to begin with.

So when women or some men shake their

head and say why would the president why

would the the governor why would uh this

athlete throw it all away? It's like why

do you think he became the governor or

the president or the athlete to begin

with? It's like

that's like saying I worked 10 20 years

on something but then once I achieve it

I can't enjoy the the perks of that

status or that achievement which is a

tough cell which is why it seems like

power and and wealth and status and fame

it's kind of like the one ring man you

know it seems that very few men can

resist its corrupting influences

entirely.

But that's that's kind of what I got for

you.

I can't speak for women particularly,

but I know a lot of men particularly

after 30 once they've hit some sort of

success and they've been in a long-term

relationship that struggle with monogamy

in in many ways. And I remember having

this conversation with a very big

podcaster actually and he talked about

how he struggled to get women in high

school. He wasn't the popular kid. He

wasn't really the guy that was good with

women in particular. And

the popular guys don't study pickup.

Sean, sorry to interrupt. The popular

guys don't need to.

It's it's the guys who can't get the

women who who study this and and make it

a lifestyle.

Exactly. Exactly. And he's not in the

pickup game at all. He's just, you know,

very well known now in the world of uh

in podcasting in general and obviously

successful. has gotten better looking,

attractive, and he's got a lot of demand

now that he doesn't really know what to

do with. He doesn't know he hasn't he's

not familiar with this

uh this reality of being surrounded and

in high demand of of women and and being

in a relationship at the same time. And

it was very difficult and I wonder if

part of the I don't want to say that

necessarily that men struggle with

monogamy more than women. That's

something that you would know better

than I do. But do you think because of

the idea of how men peak in their sexual

market value later on versus women, we

struggled so long, so much from 18 to,

you know, up to 30 even to

have a higher sexual market value with

women. And as we get older, once we're

actually in a relationship for most guys

after 30, that's really when the peak of

sexual market value comes into play. And

because of that, the unfamiliar

unfamiliarity of not having access

before, this is why it's perhaps harder

later on for men. Whereas for women,

perhaps because they were from 18 to 25,

that's when their highest sexual market

value was. So by the time they're 30,

they're ready to have a baby. They've

already gone through that stage with

their lives.

I think there's some truth to that. Um,

you know, traditionally, we would call

that sewing your wild oats before you

settle down, right? And I do think

that's maybe one of the drivers of the

traditional midlife crisis, which seems

to affect men disproportionately than it

does women. Right? So imagine a guy gets

married young, maybe to his high school

sweetheart, does right by her, buys the

house, works really hard, is the good

husband and father and provider, but you

know, as the years go on, 20 years

later, the woman's had a few children.

She's starting to show signs of age.

Maybe they haven't had sex in a while.

The guy might be have made something of

himself by by now and is becoming

successful or rich or high status.

She's on the decline. He's on the up and

up. He's never exercised the privilege

of being in a more advantageous position

in the sexual marketplace. That could be

a temptation that he

can't resist. It's like I don't want to

die without knowing what this is like.

This could be my one and only life. I

need to be kind of live it for myself.

It's like all spare and love and war.

It's like I'm sorry, but I have to do

right by me on some level. I have to

survive.

So, I think that that's possible. It's

one of the reasons why I suggest in the

book that men don't seriously consider

marriage or long-term relationship until

they're at least 35

because it takes until 30 for the

average guy to be more attractive than

the average woman. And so you need to

kind of like understand what that feels

like potentially. What if you start to

be the prize on some level? What if you

start to be the one in high demand? Like

most men never feel that way in their

entire lives. And the ones who start to

feel that way, it feels really, really

good. Like I can understand why it's

hard for women to give that up. It's

like getting a taste of flying first

class than having to go back to economy.

It's like maybe it's better if you just

stay in the back of the plane your whole

life and you don't really know what

you're missing. So, um

I I I do think that it's generally

harder for men to be monogous than

women, but I know that's an

understatement. Some men are very seem

to be monogous by nature. Not all women

just want commitment. There's plenty of

women who are interested in just

attractive sexual opportunities. They

must be otherwise how do players get

their significant notch counts and

whatnot?

Um,

but I I do think it's generally harder

for men to be monogous just because of

the way that the biology is programmed.

I mean,

there's also a greater opportunity cost

for men than for women, especially if

they've actually made something of

themselves.

Yeah, it's it's a fascinating way to

think about and uh it's become more of a

conversation that's more common

especially within my circle of friends

as my a lot of my friends are 30 and 40.

Um

and you brought up the idea of marriage

as well. I know how you feel about

marriage personally, but do you think

marriage in the modern day is still

worth it? And for who does it make more

sense for and who does it make not so

much sense for?

Uh well it makes in many cases a lot of

sense for women.

I I mean marrying could be the best

thing that can happen to a woman. This

is going to be a hot take because as far

as I know it's the only way a woman can

get divorced.

And divorce could absolutely be a

fantastic thing for a woman. It's like

it doesn't mean that she stays off the

market. You can get into a relationship

right away, get married the very next

day. Um, and you might get cash and

prizes for many, many years as a

consequence of that relationship ending.

It's like

why why not on some level get divorced?

You know, it might be a temptation that

would be hard for me to resist if I were

in that situation. Like if I and you

know, I I would potentially advocate

marriage for men for the same reason

that women tend to get married. and that

it significantly improves the quality of

their life. Like if some beautiful

billionaire error started recording me,

I might be willing to sign the

nuptuuals. You know what I'm saying? I

would feel I would feel good about that.

Like it's entering into that

relationship would would really open up

my my life and I would definitely feel

safe because if it didn't work out,

I'm going to be taken care of. It's like

I it's a win-win. It's a no- lose

situation for me. But, you know, because

women tend to mate and date up and not

mate and date down, the man often

assumes disproportionate amount of risk

when they enter into the marriage

contract. And I just I don't think that

that's uh in a lot of men's best

interest to do. So, does it make sense?

Yeah, of course it makes sense when

on on some level the incentives and the

stars align.

Yeah. And why do you think so many

marriages fail? I mean, are we in some

essence

not talking about monogamy? Is that the

root is that the root cause of you of a

lot of these marriages failing? Or

do you think we're just bad choosers?

meaning we haven't gone through the

filtering process and we perhaps led

with intuition rather than logic to be

in a relationship or marriage with

partners that we probably should not

have been in the first place. You know,

the more I think about it, the more I

think that being married is almost an

impossible thing to do. And the fact

that it seemed like our grandparents and

our great great grandparents

were able to stay together, I think

largely has to do with a severe lack of

optionality, enormous social pressure to

conform, a lot of shame related to uh

separation and divorce and or the

impossibility legally of getting a

divorce. So I think that when you take

away those things which are not very

comfortable to live under that certainly

will feel oppressive to a lot of people

men and women

uh you take away the protective factors

that keep people in a relationship long

term because

it it's very it's very tough to stay

together every every seven to 10 years

you're going to become a different

person. You're going to become a a

different version of yourself and your

partner is going to become a different

version of herself. And even if you were

perfectly matched 10 years ago, what

who's to say that you're now going to be

perfectly matched? Like sometimes

relationships just have they run their

course? They have they exist for a

season or to accomplish a specific goal.

Should we really try to fit the square

peg in the round hole if it seems like

we've accomplished what we set out to do

and we're no longer that compatible?

like maybe that's the mature thing to do

and we need to collectively reexamine

our attitude that if a relationship

doesn't last until death that it's

somehow a failure. I think that's a big

part of it. There's also it's very very

tricky to do because people become

less attractive as a consequence of them

giving us what we want. Remember this

goes back to our initial conversation

about people wanting what they don't or

can't have. Okay. So, if you see that I

have something that you want, you might

want to pursue some sort of relationship

with me up until the point that I

actually give you what you want. Now,

why would you continue to stay in a

relationship with me? You'd actually

have to be like my true friend for that

to happen, you know?

But you might it might be difficult. you

might tend to prioritize hanging out

with other people or pursuing other

types of opportunities or relationships

because we might be friends, but like

there's nothing I Sean really needs from

Orion right now. You know what I'm

saying? So, it's it's needing and

wanting things that

directly contribute to desire.

And people enter into relationships with

other people to get those things that

they want and need. And when we get

them, we need the relationship or we

want the relationship even less than we

did before. Well, this is this is just

like this really mean paradox of life.

So, it's like by giving you what you

want,

I'm making myself obsolete. I'm making

myself redundant.

And people love to moralize about this.

It's like, well, that just means that

it's just people need to love and they

need to be friends. It's like, yeah,

okay, but like most people aren't going

to do those things. Most people aren't

going to love very deeply or be true

friends. Like these are rare things. The

vast majority of people don't have these

virtues in such high demand that they're

going to prioritize a relationship where

they don't get very much anymore over

other relationships where they could

because I got to do what's right by me.

All's fair and love and war kind of a

thing.

That is also a higher directive than

potential morality. Like morality on

some level doesn't enter into the

picture when it comes to survival.

It's beyond good and evil in many cases,

which is what makes it scary, which

makes the natural world a little

incomprehensible to us, a little alien,

because it doesn't it doesn't accord to

morality. It's like the the the lion

doesn't think that it's bad for tearing

into the gazelle.

The gazelle probably doesn't think it's

a victim. like these are human concepts.

So

I think that marriage is is very very

difficult. So the way to stay together

on some level is

on one hand you have to have this dance

that as both of you become different

versions of yourself you maintain enough

connection

and

communication and togetherness to kind

of like grow together. But too much of

that and it's going to feel restrictive

and the other person is being held back,

but too little of it and people drift

apart. So, it's this like little balance

in the middle. And even more important,

people stay together when they continue

to control things that the other person

wants and needs. So that okay, I gave

you the first thing that you wanted,

Sean, but I didn't give you the second

thing yet. So now you have a reason to

continue to be in a relationship with

me. And sometimes that means creating

needs and desires in another person that

didn't exist there to begin with. This

is what advertisers have figured out a

long time ago. Are there studies around

how when marriage couples have children,

how that affects the divorce rates and

how it also changes perhaps once

children actually

grow old enough to leave the household

and what the divorce rates are there

because I think you talked about how

ultimately there are parents and many

parents want they will sacrifice their

own desires to figure out what's best

for their kids. And if you can have a

kid with a husband or or wife,

ultimately that might become the thing.

And you what you want for a happy child

to have a great childhood is to have two

parents that are together and they'll be

able to sacrifice their own needs in

order to make that happen. Perhaps in my

case, my parents actually divorced once

I left the house. And I wonder if

because of that they may have sacrificed

their own needs so that we can have this

great childhood. But then once we were

old enough and we left the household, uh

that's actually when my parents decided

to divorce.

Talk a little bit about that. I don't

know if there's any studies around

divorce rates and having children. Um,

it does seem like, yeah,

when a relationship isn't working, many

times if there's children involved, the

parents will try to stay together for

the kids. I made an episode on staying

for the kids where I fundamentally argue

that's not generally a very good idea

for a number of reasons, but from what I

was just saying, it kind of makes sense.

It's like, let's say we come together to

have a to to start a family. Like that's

the purpose of this relationship. And I

do think relationships should have

purpose. Like why are you here? What are

you here to do? Like it shouldn't just

be I I think you're hot or uh I don't

want to lose you to somebody else. Like

there has to be a reason that you're

collaboratively working towards some

overarching goal. And for a lot of

people, especially with marriage, it's

starting a family and having kids. Okay,

great. So we come together to do that.

And but now it's like 20 years later. We

probably are attracted to each other a

lot less

at the very least because of what I was

just saying. It's like you wanted kids,

I gave you kids.

So like why else do you need me at this

point? You're only going to stay if

there's a deep abiding love or a very

powerful attraction that you still

possess. Otherwise, you're going to

spend your time and attention getting

other needs and desires met in other

relationships, whether you officially

divorce or not. Because a lot of people

stay married, but they basically become

roommates and they spend all of their

time on their career or playing pickle

ball with their friends or whatever the

case may be. And that's the best that

they can uh kind of negotiate at that

stage of their life. So, they've

diminished the attraction because

like mission accomplished. They gave the

other person what they wanted. And maybe

there's not enough

uh attraction and love there to stay

together. And there could also be

problems as well, like there could be

conflict, there could be withdrawal,

there could be emotional neglect.

And I do think that sometimes people

will tough it out until the kids go off

to college.

thinking that they're doing the kids

some enormous service. And I don't know

if that's entirely true because I do

think that children tend to pick up on

some of this stuff. So even if they

don't know what exactly is going on,

which they probably don't, like there's

a weird vibe in the house. It's like

mommy and daddy don't talk to each other

at the dinner table. Like there's this

icy coldness or maybe they hear them

fighting when they're supposed to be

asleep. you know, it's they can't really

put their finger on what's going on

because no one's really telling them

directly, but it doesn't feel right. And

oftentimes that gets encoded into their,

you know, algorithm and they end up

entering into relationships that mimic

their parents' problems and they're just

kicking the can down the road, which is

I'm entering into an unsatisfying

relationship and then sacrificing my own

needs and desires for someone else who

will then grow up to do the same thing.

And so often what I recommend to people

who are in

usually very unsatisfying marriages that

have ch children, especially if they're

abusive or neglectful, is I say, "Well,

imagine it's 20 years from now and your

little girl or little boy is all grown

up and they come to you and say, "Daddy,

my my husband beats me or my husb or my

wife hasn't slept with me in five years

or etc., etc. What are you going to tell

that kid? Are you gonna say, "Well,

that sucks, but you know, might want to

take one for the team here because it's

not just all about you and get back in

there." You know, that's what I did. And

so, because I had to get hazed and

suffer in this way, then on some level,

I think that's just how the world is

that you should you should suffer as

well. I but I don't think many people

will do that, especially if they're

thinking about a little girl in an

abusive relationship. It's like if there

are sometimes where relationships need

to end. Like I don't think that

relationships are unconditional. And as

soon as the other person believes that

they're entitled to that

um that relationship no matter what they

do or do not do, that's when things

start to become monstrous.

I mean, just look at human history. All

of the greatest abuses have come from

individuals who for whatever reason

could not be removed for their position.

They were emperors or popes or you know

[ __ ] like that. They were infallible and

they could only be deposed by violence

and it took a lot a lot of death and a

lot of misery to get them out there. So

it's like people need to feel that there