Chris Ryan on Sex , Monogamy, & Cheating
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- How To Support My Work
Become a Patreon: / entrepreneursincars
Get 1 on 1 Coaching With Me: clarity.fm/ric...
Get a Video Response: www.reach.me/R...
Social Links:
Facebook Page: / entreprenursincars
Twitter! / rich_cooper
Instagram! / entrepreneurs_in_cars
FAQs
That thing on my wall: • My Torso Cast
What I do for a living: • What I do for a living
Must Reads For All Men:
Sex At Dawn: amzn.to/2pU1L4v
The Rational Male: amzn.to/2i9dfjW
Bachelor Pad Economics: amzn.to/2kNP7UG
The Way of Men: amzn.to/2kLFB1p
© Richard Cooper - For all enquiries contact EntrepreneursinCars@Gmail.com - This video is not to be reproduced without prior authorisation. The original UA-cam video may be distributed & embedded, if required. - Авто та транспорт
I wish Rogan would have Richard on
Rogan had this guy on like 5 times
Wish richard would have rogan on
Rogan is mentally upper level beta that compensates with physical fitness and being funny.
BlatantTruthes theres levels to this shit now 😂 is there an upper & lower level alpha now or some shit ? 😂😂
Rich isn't a big enough name to get on Rogan's radar
He makes some astute conclusions about human evolution. Monogamy isn't for everybody and we shouldn't believe it's the only option for an individual. He does seem to be missing the larger point of why we developed into an agrarian society. If hunter/gather culture was so great, where are they now? Why aren't they world super-powers?
We out-performed and dominated them by, among other things, giving everybody a route to self-actualization. Every man gets to spread his genes and every woman gets security for herself/offspring. That's the implied promise of a culture that recognizes ownership an monogamy.
The reason we regulate human sexuality is because it allows us to be a first-world society. If we behave on instinct alone, we stop developing as a society at the small, pre-agricultural tribe level. See the failed, conflict-driven states in central Africa as examples.
Sexual regulation means every male gets a mate, not just the alphas. Once betas no longer have to fight for sexual access, they're free to drive industry and become the worker drones of civilization. If they aren't going to get laid, what's their motivation to be engineers and build things like sports cars?
He's not wrong about our base nature and there's great wisdom in recognizing our biological history that's still with us. The issue with idealizing hunter/gather, open free-for-all sexual culture is you can't have your cake and eat it too. If the majority of society behaved that way, we'd regress back to waring tribes.
It's amazing what men can accomplish when we stop fighting over females.
beta's do get laid in the hunter gather societies that he is describing, just that alphas get laid more. however in those hunter gather societies you don't get warriors, only hunters, also you don't get "the plantation", which is the whole point of this structure of monogamy and agroculture. there was no out proformance, or dominance only short and bloody conflicts involving warriors fighting hunters: killing them, taking their stuff, inslaving them and taking their wemen. real conan the barbarian sh*t, free lamentations all around. they don't form into groups above 150, you can't build a super power with a few scores of people. before you had the tribe, then that moved to a polygamous pride, and now you have just two people - slaving away "for the man", sure now we have plasma T.V.s and a moon landing, but we're not happy & we're definitely not getting laid enough. and yes their is a chance that we just we might regress back into demi definable tribes, but not warring ones.
You are absolutely right about that. If there was no sexual regulation at all, we'd still be fighting Cleopatra - type wars.
See what's happening in Japan, young men are opting out of the rat race, or in the US where according to the statistics people in the 18-25 bracket are apparently having less sex. However if you break down the numbers by sex females are having at least as much sex, but males far less, on average, SOME males are having far more, we are going to a more primitive model.
Hunters are still out there. But they are concentrated in tribes not influenced by mainstream religion and currency. And most importantly romantic love. They don't have tv's and magazines telling males and females what to do, and how to do it. Their values are simple but honest. No covert agendas. Just live life and respect nature.
@@macioluko9484 The wars related to Cleopatra were never started because of love, that's an extremely simplistic way of looking at it.
Our "poly sexual history of infidelity" only serves to reveal monogamy and commitment as THAT MUCH more special, and that much MORE virtuous, that much MORE impressive and amazing, not less. it is BECAUSE it is difficult that makes it special and important and is almost altruistic in a way for the greater society.
Doing this In spite of our primal unconscious desire is literally what keeps our society together. "oh monogamy is not our normal behavior so I should just cheat on my gf"
Bruh... murder and physical assault are also a normal unconscious primal instinct. Good luck making a world where every other person is trying to murder every other person, or punching every other person when they feel like it.
Agree
Good point
Enjoyed chatting with Chris about his book, like "the rational male" this one was another game changer. If you want to grab a copy of "Sex at Dawn", link is here: amzn.to/2pU1L4v
Leave a comment below, would love to hear your thoughts (if you've read the book) or questions.
Entrepreneurs in Cars thanks for the podcast. imo you could use more info on nonmonogamous relationships. Open means one or both partners are allowed to have fwb(s) on the side with some ground rules to reduce risk of feelings/attachment, eg no dating/no romantic dinners etc. poly means many people living/dating/cross-sleeping with each other, which creates more inter-relationships and thus drama. open is better for stability, since fwbs are kept away from the main relationship. I recommend Blackdragonblog and esp articles:
will smith jada pinkett open marriage
more scientific proof that women get bored in monogamous relationships
confessions of a serial monogamist
pussywhipped - why you allow it
ways to deflect drama from women
author is a businessman in 40s, I like his material the most in manosphere, many other blogs seem butthurt or extreme right wing or unsuccessful young guys only focused on pickup.
if you like his material, a podcast with author would be nice.
cheers
It is/was a wonderful, logical, demystifying and honest introspection into who we really are! Bravo!
My four point summary of Sex at Dawn:
1) Mankind’s closest relatives, bonobos and chimps, are polygynous and polyandric, i.e. males have multiple sexual relationships with multiple females and vice versa.
2) Non-hoarding hunter gatherer societies mirror the above behavior so it stands to reason that for a large part of our existence this is how we evolved, that is why so many of us are miserable in monogamous relationships.
3) Monogamy was introduced as part and parcel of the invention of agriculture.
4) When guys like Pinker claim that pre-historic societies we’re violent, they use neolithic farmers as examples, not foragers who due to the low population density prior to the agrarian revolution had fewer conflicts. This is apparently corroborated by archeaology showing that deaths related to intrapersonal conflict was a rare. Foragers do commit infanticide to control the population however. But this is/was also common in some agrarian and even modern societies. Foragers reaching adulthood lived rather long lives due to the healthy diet and frequent exercise.
It’s impossible to roll back progress and live like that again, nor is it the suggestion of the authors, but one should bear in mind where we come from to better understand one’s behavior.
If he could drop the Noble Savage nonsense in your point four, I think the rest of it is pretty good. The point of the rest of the book(which I agree) comes down to "We can either indulge in our natural desires OR have a society" but in trying to make a tough sell, he went full Jean Jacques Rousseau... His romanticising the primitives is definitely due to his attempt to argue that current decadence is not a bad sign; much like Rousseau, ends up using the word "Natural" as a synonym to "okay" or even "desirable" in his book.
His appeal to "It's natural, man!" is like debunking air travel by pointing out gravity exists...
I agree with all of this. My main question is that with all of these natural motivations within men and women to want to be with many other partners, why do we still get upset/feel remorse when one of our partners end up “cheating” on us?
for men, it's genetic pride I think. It's that innate biological fear of your woman breeding with someone else and you losing your bloodline/propagating someone else.
It's not innate. It is cultural. In Tibet they practice polyandry. No issues
Religious and culture
From a biological standpoint what does the male have to gain from sharing?
he lost me at really smart feminist women
@William Scott Trolling? Or are you really this stupid? And woman-hating?
Here's a fun idea. Do a panel discussion with Chris, Rollo, and Neil Strauss on this topic.
Chris Ryan, dropping some knowledge!!!!!!
When you' re speaking, your guest's mic volume is going down, that's unfortunate
OMG .. thank u .. this man studied A LOT... and is a very good observer... it feels so good to hear someone that is trying to understand more in an objective way .. and not just roll up in a ball of hate. Women are trying to understand why men dont want to be commit... but at the end we end up to getting attracted to other men too, but we just beat ourselves down for it. I feel that a woman does not get her freedom unless her father dies or he understands he cant control her sex life. Let me tell u that when a father dies a girl just enters in panic because the uncertainty. Then with time she realizes she is able to provide to herself and family... thats when she feels the power to chose who to sleep with and not feel guilty but proud. That is what happened to me at least. Men and woman that are free LOVE each other. The ones that are hating on the opposite sex is because they are not free of prejudice.
Where's the free love in divorce court?
Deep respect to Chris Ryan. Thanks Richard.
He's actually wrong about rabbits, I've had to take care of orphaned wild baby rabbits and the can spontaneously die from heart attacks if you spook them accidentally, no joke.
True. It’s called capture myopathy.
absolutely delighted by key thing here which is honesty...as long as you are honest I can decide if I will stick with it...
I like Yogurt but could never eat the same flavor every day, which is precisely why I have never gotten married. This guy is square on the money and people don't want to face that. It frightens them to death.
yep, but you do go back to your old favourates, time and time again. true freedom & real choice.
I love to be with the same woman, I find the sex and connection get better over time.
Apples to oranges comparison
Have him on again! He is very interesting!
It’s amazing how the less attractive men are the ones who are pickiest about their women.
if woman get as much out of sex as men.... than why the fuck do we pay for all of the dating crap....Mark Rudolph is right.. and this interview agrees with him.
It does not matter if you talk about monogamy with a woman. Tried having open relationships with women, and as soon as I would sleep with a new girl-she would get jealous.
Extremely interesting video! Thanks Richard. You're awesome brother.
We have to examine our family of origin issues deeply. All of our issues have to do with the type of parenting and family dynamic we come from. I had to do a lot of research and recovery work on this paradigm. U can't have answers to any of this until we do this work.
Fascinating stuff. Great conversation.
However, not sure you're right about France... I'm French and never have heard of that.
It’s nice to travel the world and see it from many perspectives. Especially when your parents are paying for it
The compression on Chris’s mic is killing me
Rich it would've been excellent after his conclusion on the last question (about women embracing being promiscuous) to ask him about the pair bonding ability women have after sleeping with many men.
Would've been interesting to see what knowledge he had about that.
Cheers and great interview!
Overall bad guest and bad narratives.
I wrote my first comment fearing I would be castrated for my opinion before reading the comments, men be aware of wolves in sheep's clothing. It's reassuring that I am not the only one to think the way of men. Thanks for your comments.
For some individuals, a life span isn't enough to express love to a woman or on the other hand, there be perplexed minds who would seek answers for their incompetence. Bless them
Sex at dawn was such a bad book, and not red pilled at all
Humans are not bonobos. Sure we share a lot in common genetically but the factors that allow for bonobos to behave the way they do sexually don’t exist in human society nor will STD’s allow for that kind of behavior on a macro level. Interesting observations, wrong conclusions.
spot on, I started to like the book but then I saw what this guy is about, he's a feminist, espouses the idea that bonobo matriarchies are praise worthy, noble, that knows no violence, and as you imply, bonobos developed in an environment without much food scarcity and with no predators
please change your channel name to your own name, and make yourself the brand, because the channel name is not really that great, it just doesnt stick
Agreed. A personal brand would work much better for this channel.
I just call him "EIC". Or chant E-I-C, E-I-C like a wrestling chant.
Channel name of "Boats and Hoes" would be good.. or "The Fuckin' Catalina Wine Mixer"
@@MrFooSteven , another good name would be "How to avoid Smelly Snatches"
Totally agree. I avoided this channel for a long time cuz I thought it was a comedy spin off of Jerry Seinfield's "comedians in cars"
This man's ideas are plain wrong, he missed many parts in his research.
19:10 this subject could be an entire podcast on its own...
It felt to me that this man is kinda "liberalish", is it just me?
In the end of this video there was a talk about why woman having sex with different man is considered as bad thing, and for man is, well, it's sort of ok, so we all heard about this "good key, bad lock" thing, but it does not really explains the true reason behind it, i have a theory that you might find interesting.
Woman decide in witch direction the evolution is going, not man. why? look
first of all let's agree on this facts :
1 fact -> both man and woman want to have kids to spread their genetic material into the future
2 fact -> both man and woman need each other to have kids
3 fact -> in family where both man and woman are present (not single mother or father) kids grow more prepared to the world
4 fact -> both man and woman are interested in their kids (their genetic material) being stronger than others
5 fact -> society wants that kids born inside this society would be stronger then kids in other societies
In most cases woman are choosing between several man, and they have to choose only one, because there resource is limited, we are not like animals, to rise a human baby, you need to carry it for 9 months and then raise it and be very responsible and careful with him/her for 20 + years because -> (fact 4)
since woman are choosing man (let's be real, it's us who are trying to get a date, not them, the are choosing) it means that the woman are choosing which genetic material to pass to the future world, and which skills this kid will have (if you, man, are good entrepreneur, you have this skill and knowledge, you will pass this knowledge to you kid, if woman thinks that this skill is valuable for survival , she wants you to give this skill to her kids a.k her genetic material)
in other words, woman are shaping the society. if woman value a certain type of man, they will have sex and kids from this types of man, this type of genetic material will spread.
now remember (fact 5) Leaders of the society understand this very well, and they understand that if woman fuck up at choosing the best man, society will weaken. so they came up to the rule that as a woman you must be very very very careful when choosing a man, and if you are not you are a slut (which basically means that you are punished by society)
i hope that makes a little bit more sense, and you understand why we don't like woman who fuck around and getting pregnant by man that they have chosen irresponsibly.
shota jolbordi thanks for your articulate and wise words also the time it took to present it I agree with most of what you say.
our animal brain does not understand what is "contraception" if you are ok with woman sleeping around and your woman sleeping around your are weakening yourself and your genetic material, which on the other hand gives me and my genetic material more chances to win over yours in natural selection, which is great for me. so live your believes and natural selection will choose the best, good luck :)
In his book sex at dawn he talks about what you mention coming about because of the advent of agriculture and makes the argument that jealousy is the result of a structure of society not necessarily biological imperative. In hunter gatherer society all the men would raise the children which actually increases the survival of children so in a sense women sharing themselves freely would increase the "fitness" or genetic success of all men because if the father died leaving the women to fend for herself and her child she isn't screwed but instead has the support system of her tribe not to mention the physiological evidence.
I have a question for you? Does this rational for slut shaming apply to heterosexual women who can not reproduce and lesbians?
Your theory would make sense if sex was more accurate in its "procreative function" more than 95 out of 100 instances of sexual intercourse fails to make a baby.
Most people should stay monogamous. The few who break the rules with finesse and make their own paths will reap untold benefits.
Can't tell if this guy is blue pill or if I completely misunderstood him.
I have had this question for a long time why some women don’t have vaginal orgasm and what does it possibly mean in evolutionary psychology?
I haven't yet met a woman who *couldn't* have a vaginal orgasm ;)
Interesting conversation! Thanks!
The point he makes on our ancestors not being stressed is wrong. Stress related diseases usually occur after being stressed out for a very long time. Life expectancy was lower in a prehistoric setting, so there were fewer long term consequences. The stress response helps beings survive in the short term and the potential consequences of severe stress over a long period of time are just a tradeoff.
By the way, there are numerous studies on what happens to rabbits, rats and mice when they are stressed and they don't handle it too well either. You don't want to see pictures of what forms in the stomachs of rats when they are under stress for longer periods of time.
In my opinion he had some good points, but also a lot of blue pill ideas. Comparing him to Rollo would be blasphemy.
If a man or woman wants to sleep around, whilst having a partner just be open about it from the start. I know i'm not keen on having the village bicycle as my partner. Not a goal for me to pursue, especially if your chasing higher value life goals.
He reminds me so much of Phillip Seymour Hoffman both in voice and appearance
Sweet. Just bought the book on Audible. I've listed to The Rational Male and Bachelor Pad Economics as well.
Really? Parents just give their children money? No questions asked? Damn, guess I missed my best years by working in my ass off in my 20s instead of asking my parents for money...
Yeah really, must be nice.
That the difference between following your dreams and being a slave lol. The amount of money your parents have will help you get closer to your dream or happiness
Most men wouldn't turn down oral sex from another woman ? Youre probably right.....At least, most men with no morals, no sense of loyalty, strength of character... real men... A marriage is NOT just about sex and providing!! A married couple can be lovers, best friends, companions, parents... be there for each other through thick and thin....their love and bond will deepen if there is mutual respect and fidelity..... Once that has gone, everything has gone...and kids are left without one parent, distraught, confused ...and even the spouses are left feeling bad.... Marriage is not so much about taking but giving....
Go spend an hour or so in family court to watch the proceedings and then tell me you still want to get married.
Man, I don't know if it would be seen as ethical but I would absolutely watch and I know it would be extremely popular if there was a 'David Attenborough' style nature program documenting the lives of modern nomadic hunter gatherer human beings. (Possibly with consent by trade) All these fantastic evolutionary psychology based books such as Red Queen by Matt Ridley and many others could be put up to scrutiny for its ideas
You’re welcome Richard
33:30 i live in spain and have never heard someone say or do something even remotely close to that. Here in Spain its not okay to cheat
Thank you for the interesting talk! Do you think that sexual novelty goes frequently against hypergamy? Thank you in advance for the answer
John Perry Barlow was a friend in Wyoming, where I still live, in Jackson Hole. Quite a guy in person, on the page and online. Miss him.
Loved it! Such a eye opener!
In this conversation, they did not mention the IQ of people. That is going to make a big difference in the way people reproduce.
EPIC video, very interesting!!!! At this juncture in my life a relationship is just not palatable to me. I do, however, enjoy the company of a man on occasion as my sex drive has not waned and I'm not opposed to hanging out. Slut shaming is not the problem for me, I don't care what ppl think of me, what I think of myself is what's important. All the problems were with the men!! Lol They were fine with them having and exercising their freedom but when I exercised mine the shit hit the fan. When reminded of the conditions we MUTUALLY agreed upon some got off their little soap box and some didn't but either way things always fizzled afterwards. What's up with that?!? Lol Once again, fantastic video, very interesting. I will most certainly be purchasing Chris's books. 😎
The author is 100% right when he mentioned that women leverage what we have (our body, fertility and beauty) in exchange for what we need. Why would a woman stick with a man that gives her nothing when she can get another one that give her more? Hypergamy is in our nature because is about survival for us an our offspring. Women look for the most successful man she can get, and men look for the most beautiful and healthy woman he can find.
Also, how can one respect a woman who admits to fucking around? A lock that can be opened by everyone is not very useful.
Everybody should read "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, that Chris Ryan talks about here.
thanks, I'll go check it
Awesome interview
As long as there is alimony, paternity is a great concern. And also, because a few tribes don't care about paternity, it says nothing about the vast majority of humanity. It's like those feminists arguments that because some hidden tribe in Africa don't do something, we shouldn't do as well. But I do agree that marriage nowadays is stupid.
These two guys don't get it. The primary purpose of the human animal is no different than all living animals, procreation! Where are the children in these two guys lives? They're so damaged by their self indulgences and their endless search for meaning in their lives they seem to have lost a basic understanding of the world that we live in. They're primary focus is on the fringe with little or no focus on the core purpose which is to procreate and the process of the life experience that follows with having children. Children predominantly need the nurturing of their natural parents as does the parents need the natural connection to their children that has been implanted as a part of our DNA. If we chose a different purpose than procreation it's highly likely it will lead to a fulfilling life!
How about, "Just don't get married!"
Even though Christopher Ryan is a liberal, the science/evidence he presented about sexuality in 'Sex At Dawn' is Red Pill as fuck. Rollo Tomassi's 'Rational Male' and 'Sex At Dawn' have been by far the two most influential books in my Red Pill journey.
Things are changing so quickly in recent years that Ryan's takes already seem stale - at least with regard to how "brave" a woman has to be to embrace promiscuity
There is no science to support that we are entirely a poly-amorous species, if that was the case we would have far bigger testicles and would not have evolved feelings of jealousy (Chimpanzees and Bonobos are extremely poly-amorous and have MASSIVE testicles). However this does not mean we are incapable of polyamory, if you look at hunter gathering societies today, you will see that many of them are serial monogamist cultures and others are not. We aren't entirely a monogamous or poly-amorous species. The reality is far more complicated, there is not enough data.
"Read this book" lol. Classic
This dude's a feminist
12 min in and you fellas are just talking about r/K selection strategy without acknowledging it as r/k selection strategy
Beat me to it.
An open relationship is a relationship in which both partners are allowed to have sexual relationships with other people (one partner).
A polyamorois relationships is a relationship that co-exists with other polyamorous relatioships (several partners).
Hey Entrepreneurs in Cars, in my opinion you completely missed the mark with this person, Chris Ryan, and his ideas. Like someone else pointed out this guy contradicts just about everything you mainly point out and discuss from what I've seen here on your channel, thus-far. Regardless, in my opinion this guy is a hack and his ideas aren't worth the paper they are printed on. As most people that are influenced and believe in the idealism contained within feminism and/or gender studies, their theories don't follow any logical sense and they prefer to base their theories on ideological beliefs that are driven by emotions.
Either he doesn't understand and/or is purposefully misleading people in regards to biological and psychological evolutionary theory. I believe it's based on the latter, personally. Biologically and re-productively speaking, polygamy only favors males and never the other way around. Let me illustrate why this is, with one simple logical conclusion that no one needs a university degree and/or figures, tables, and stats to follow, just simple logical deduction and math.
Let's start with two tribes having an identical number of people, say 10. In 1 group you have 8 males and 2 females, while in the other you have 2 males and 8 females. In this imaginary land both sides have access to equally abundant resources and are far enough away from one another that they don't have to fight due to overlap. And, every female and male within the tribes start off and remain healthy, with the average life span of 30 years or so.
The tribe dominated by 2 females sharing 8 males will produce 2 offspring every year between the ages of 13 and 29, while the male dominated one will produce 8 between the same time frame. Each offspring will take approximately 13 years to reach maturity and can contribute to the tribe by hunting, gathering, and reproduction. I'm guessing by now anyone with the slightest sense is already seeing where this will end up, but for those who don't I'll continue a bit more.
Within the first 13 years tribe one has 2 full matured members ready to contribute, if both come out as males, they don't really contribute to reproduction, but can help with hunting and gathering, and if female gathering and reproduction, so on and so forth. While the second will have eight with the much higher likelihood of mixed members within the males to females ratio. Are people following now?
Within the first 13 years of female viability tribe one may have produced 13(years)*2(offspring)/year=26 members while tribe two has 13*8/y=104, so upon year 14 tribe 1 may have an additional female and a possible male if conditions remain favorable to the low numbered female tribe, so on an so forth. While tribe 2 will explode exponentially once the two males offspring's with the 8 females come to maturity. Eventually tribe two will dominate the area due to the need for more resources and most likely kill any males of tribe 1 and take the females by force when they come into contact with one another. Tribe 1 will not be able to defend itself. Now, are people getting it?
Simply put, this guys logic would have probably led to the extinction of our species within a few generations. Most likely why, as someone else already noted, is the reason the human species switched from the hunter gather tribes and civilization is what it is today.
Females are nearly worthless to the group when they are gestating and males can't do anything else but work to provide for and protect them. That's why chimps, lions, gorillas, humans, etc are prosperous and "bonobos" are within the endangered species category, with numbers that continue to decline. It's the simple reality of biological factors that feminists and gender studies folks just don't wanna face.
Polygamy only favors males and the species in the biologically reproductive sense, and female in a pleasure sense. A simple hypothesis for this would be that females bear the brunt of having to gestate and give birth, if they didn't enjoy sex and get more pleasure from it we would fail as a species, because they would fight and/or flee at the sight of a male. As any other species on this planet we have a simple basic programming to us; survive, reproduce, and evolve to adapt into our environment. Anything else outside of that is due to our highly evolved cognitive abilities.
Yes, I kept this simplistic for a reason. There are many other variables that have not been accounted for, yet even when accounted for those other factors (disease, defects, accidents, etc) the facts favor the male polygamist more so than a female one, and does not change the dynamics of our species in favor of the female model that was presented by this feminist academic clown. Monogamy was most likely introduced to promote stability and overall growth within favorable conditions for our species...
Very well put. I share a very close mentality to your post.
Kind of ironic when you think about it in today's era. Albeit everyone having the ability to reproduce, not everyone should. I'm not the arbiter for reproduction, but I'd say we have a lot of genetic material that could be lanced from the dating pool ie: hereditary diseases, physical abnormalities, not to mention people that just dont have parental qualities to raise children.
Damn you make perfect sense. I would say, however, that this does not mean males are purely polygamist biologically speaking, it just means that they are meant to biologically be capable of it (Not women), same with monogamy.
Hear hear Sir well said. This blue pilled feminist chumpery he pulled was making me sick.
question for the gentleman of all ages , where would be a good place to interact and possibly date more women ? My job and college course are mostly men and I wanted a place where I can socialize and possibly date women my age . Is tinder and stuff like that a healthy and effective choice ? (I'm 20 years old)
tinder is only good for sex, if sex is a hobby that both you and a girl share then maybe. otherwise you meet wemen only in the places that intrest you... as you are shopping for quality of personality, not quantity of gold mining skills.
might be made into a movie like 50 shades
I think I have a different but valid answer to your question Richard " Why have I been viewing the world in a way that doesn't work." ( in reference to monogamy and interrelationships and why we are sold this lie)
This is no way a bash on Christianity and the Western world, but there are many other cultures and religions that allow for multiple wives or find it acceptable to have a wife as well as mistresses. But this is taken straight out of the Bible " Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." What Christianity teaches, is an inversion on the current understanding of what it means to be alpha... This is because at the time ( more than 2000 years ago) the upper-class had all the women they wanted, all the wealth, all the power and the ability to exercise their wrath if they so chose.
Then brilliant peasants banded together and said no, no, no we're going to flip morality over and make all of those things bad and what we have good. Lust is a sin ( to ensure they have women) Gluttony is a sin ( because they were poor, starving and couldn't waste things themselves) Greed is obvious, sloth (because the poor can't afford to be, now we have books like the four hour work week, lol) wrath (what's a peasant vs a king?) envy ( I get why this is bad, but at the same time the poor were incapable of taking) and last but not least pride ( you can't be proud of a lil shed)
I understand how Christianity led the formation of the best societies in the world and it contains some really good ideas... at the same I just attended a stag and doe for 26-year guy and 24-year girl this weekend and thought, congrats, wish the best, but good fucking luck with that. At the end of the day, it's just a theory and I think it makes some pretty good sense. A myth which the more aware are just starting to dispell now.
Mario Rudinsky I am really torn apart on this one you make a great argument thanks for your comments.
@@danielpenn9400 Meekness is restraint. It means not wielding power for the sake of wielding power just because you have it. All those social norms are meant to elevate us above just being animals. We live in the world that he describes. Gluttony, lust, greed, all those things are no longer viewed as necessarily bad. We've justified all of it and we're seeing the consequences. Without restraints, we regress.
@@lucylance7612 "the true test of a man is what he does with power" -Plato
This video aged very well.
This is So Enlightening!!
Great points Philip Seymour Hoffman
the only problem i have with non monogamy relationships is the STD's. i just don't want to get someone else's coodies!!
Most of that could be worked around with some effort. Just takes precautions and careful planning. They even got anti HIV drugs that are like 99.9% effective. The HIV transmission rate without protection is actually pretty low, about 1/400 sexual intercourses. The CDC wants to scare everyone into practicing safe sex because the government has to pay for the repercussions.
R vs K replication strategy
Will you upload these as podcasts. I'd love to see some of your interviews, but they're a bit long to be sitting in front of the computer. I'd love to listen to them while driving or exercising.
How is it possible that the most powerful man in the world is being humiliated for doing something that practically any man would do?
Correlation does not imply causation. This guy doesn't get a pass to sublimate 70 years of sex and relationship data. Saying you have some type revolutionary epiphany then spit it out as science without any scientific rigor is laughable.
Being a better you doesn't include deceiving yourself. Anyone over 50 seen a open relationship be successful? Every single couple that I have known with a open relationship has ended in spectacular fashion. It is still the same game men losing everything to a woman.
If women could do everything by themselves during hunter gatherer age why they couldn't do the same when we become agrcultural Society why they couldn't grow plants by themselves and build a shelters ? I think the concept that the women were indipendet from the men during that period sounds like a faminist narative. That's my opinion
1. Do you think mothers with small children in any time of history didn’t need protection and resources from a man?
2. If we are acknowledging our evolutionary desire to have sex - why aren’t we also acknowledging the instinctive desire to ensure paternity for bloodline, and/or the fact that fathers don’t invest as highly into non-biological offspring?
3. There is a lot of evidence that women decrease ability to pair bond with men after too many sexual partners.
4. They never talk about sexuality’s main function being for procreation.
5. What about the instinctual nature of men to not want to procreate with/ or share resources with a woman with multiple lovers.
I think encouraging women to act exactly like men in the sexual marketplace is insane.
Right off the bat he has a few plot holes.
Sorry, but this is not the truth for all couples.
23:20 Human skulls keep changing over our lifetime. Not sure why there was focus just on teeth. Maybe the skulls were too fragmented to put back together? The lack of hormones basically decreases bone volume and density. Take a look at skulls of a 20 year old vs an 80 year old. Drastic difference. The elderly skull has basically 'melted'. This is well known by plastic surgeons and has a big contributing effect on the drooping of the face in age beyond collagen and elastin.
I am impressed how you always manage to sit in people's shelves. Must be the yoga.
😂 you made me laugh man! This is almost 4 years late but...good one!! 😂
Within human society its power, who has it over who. Will always be this way, this is our conditioning. When you swing it the other way women are equally able and willing to abuse it. Sad but true. Fortunately the day we chose one side over another has not come yet.
What an amazing video
Great Book got it last week
Whats up with the Matt Hussey shitbird adverts on this channel???
It's unfortunate that the moderator, who advocates the male point of view, never brings up the gorilla in the room on this topic: any real man cannot have his woman banging another man, even once. In this case, a man will trade the pleasure of variety for the necessary reward of not sharing with another man, assuming the scenario is a man who has a 'my woman.'
it's not a gorilla. it's insecurity not assertiveness that you are describing, a huntergather original state man, wouldn't care as she'll always be coming back to him, every time, due to his ultimate manlyness... she'll be drawn by his power. allured to him, not pened in by his fear of cuckholdery... no other man could even get her pregnant. & she'll be quite the giddy little woman for it lol! and no naturally a man will share, because at this point he doesn't own anything he's not wearing.
Yea, maybe so, but dudes don't want to deal with other dudes cuming in my chick. Chris Ryan speaks a ton of sense about evolution and behavior but IGNORES all together this key point. Fear, no fear, yada yada Chris Ryan - all of his chicks sometimes get banged by other dude's. And even if those chicks come back, some dudes don't wanna role that way. It's all good if its just a chick. But if its YOUR chick, its only YOUR chick so long as no other dude is dumping load in her, if your that kind of guy. As Jerry Sienfeld would say, a guy who doesn't wear leather.
comfortable leather in his jacket or uncomfortable leather around his face? lol! really it's not rational to be frank about it. nowerdays, a guy wants his chick to be a relatively chaste lady. she's special, she's sacred, you care about her deeply i get that, i can sympathise... other guys aren't you. but it's still silly, and if you don't have all of those tropes shaping your outlook OR you've superceded them. then if anything your happy for her, if she comes home like a beach trip cornetto is between her legs then you're happy for her, if not proud of your chick. she's been living her life, no more associations of meaning are needed than that, negative or laboured gass mask breathing possitive. nobody died, and nobody even wrote gutter slut on her forhead with a black marker... even with no fear it's still irrational. to be descriptive, technically it's a sign of female virility. it's only our current "baggage" that makes it bad. maybe i'm being abit flippant because i wouldn't care & i don't, freedom is the ultimate joy and all that but really... she eats food, just like you do, has other human basic drives, belches and farts & don't your feelings for YOUR CHICK sermount to more than some other guys semen? how many guys are doing what with who ever, SHE MATTERS, not the fidelity of her vagina. way to ruin a cuckhold fetishist, but its not the point, SHE IS. so it's not a gorilla and if you call me a non real man after this i'll head butt you & stare menancingly into your eyes IRL or something lol! since it fits the trope, i've used myself on multiple occasions, to make points. real men don't have a real reason to care, because their real chicks mean so much more than any of that...
I agree with 99%. I'd have appreciated it if there were certain items acknowledged. Alpha men, behaving Alpha, also get left or leave lovers. Some other items deserved acknowledging as well. It is true, Ryan did not say his ideas offered a solution or perfection, not at all. Ryan really didn't do anything 'wrong.' Some of his presentation style and points lean towards the convenient, but few arguments are perfect. Entrepreneurs in Cars could have been tougher as an interviewer on a few points.
Murray Marshawn I agree he should've been tougher here, but to me he seemed to be fan boying it out abit as the book breaks the mainstream disney narative so radically. And alot of people & men are tired of that B.S. Ryan wrote a book pulling together an algrimation of facts, he didn't demand that humanity must return to forest & fertility worship or face existiction, i agree & the guy's political veiws are somewhat naïve, the future's virtue lies within it's possibilities. well there is no true "Alpha" lol! but yes going along the general lines of the common majority consensus your correct, although i've seen some intresting long term "game" idea's. but it's shallow, basic and focuses purely on the animal level, the "alpha" lives in the now, intuitive but also myopic. in a modern sense you could be forgiven for saying that alphas "breed" and betas "provide". at the sametime there is more to romantic love than sex appeal and/or resources.
Esteemed Mr Ryan.
WE believe the pick community is very intriguing
I trust you will find them too ,to be the foot soldiers of ur dogma.
Regards ,jp
great book....the Bachelorette tv programs would be a lot more interesting without the social norms we have today...sperm competition and a paternity test at the end to figure out who won(or lost)
26:07 Didn't think Christopher Ryan was informed about autism, would be interested to hear more about his views on people on the spectrum and how it affects their sexuality.
Holly shit, EIC is getting some big names. How the hell did you pull this off?
TurgBurglar He's put out quality content. Quality attracts quality.
weird side chaining going on. release too long?
rabbits literally do die of stress.
This dude is making a lot of sense.
yes just be honest, also women
Thanks Paul!!
This whole interview was blue pilled as fuck