And, you know, on the topic of women, I wanted to talk a bit about pornography and how porn is a lot of young men and women’s sexual education. And the new generation just mimics what they learn as porn.

And I know a lot of young men who have told me they struggle with the Madonna whore complex from growing up with pornography and this idea of a curvaceous, busty, pornographic woman and then the sanitized woman who is waif or fairy like or ethereal.

Is that also connected to narcissism in young men? Is that is that taught?

I feel like men have also seemed to lost the respect for the divine femme and the goddess. And we seem to be disconnected from the goddess archetype and lost respect for femininity. And I don’t know if that’s connected to what you’re saying about the freedom of the slavery of that women have faced and how we’re seeing everything cross contaminate.

Right now, there’s even a term called simp that if you appreciate women, you are weak or weaker or inadequate for it.

Yeah, simple. It’s from the manuscript.

This is a term that’s used among themselves and red pillers and miktows and this kind of thing. The man is absolutely poisonous for normal. Absolutely. Very dangerous.

Anyhow, coming back to your question, pornography is an extension of a much larger philosophical trend. And that is a trend of reductionism.

Until the 18th century, the prevailing trend in thinking about anything in thinking about sex and thinking about society and thinking about God about you name it in thinking generally was holistic.

If you look at physics, for example, Newton connected planets to each other. The thinking was network holistic.

What happened in the 18th century with the cart, within the 17th century, I’m sorry, with the cart is that we suddenly separated ourselves from nature. We became observers. There was nature and us. There was God and us. The world broke down. The cart broke the cart, broke the world down, split it, schism.

And so from that moment on, there was a new philosophical dogma known as reductionism. It’s prevalent in psychology, in psychology, it’s prevalent in medicine, where no one is a human being, but someone is a heart or a lung.

It’s so reductionism.

What is pornography? Pornography is the visual embodiment or reification of the principle of reductionism.

Because the emphasis in pornography is on body parts. Literally, by the way, there’s a book, a wonderful book about pornography, called A Billion Wicked Thoughts. I don’t know if you had the chance to read it. If not, I will read it. Hang up and run. It’s the best study ever of pornography.

And then no opinions expressed. It’s just raw material.

And you can draw your own opinions, your own conclusions. But the raw material is stunning. What they have done, they called one billion Google searches. And based on these Google searches, they drew a profile of the typical porn user.

Stunning, stunning study.

Anyhow, what they had discovered is that the overwhelming majority of porn users focus on specific body parts. It’s kind of fetishes, you know, specific body parts and none of them, literally none of them pays attention to the totality.

So I can admit from someone who grew up watching porn that that’s what I did. Exactly.

That’s how my mind state was. I was focusing on one body part. That’s one element.

So pornography is the extension of reductionism into sexual imagery.

Second thing, pornography is about role role playing. It’s about pretension. It’s fake. It’s make belief world.

Yes.

And and it is a permissible world exactly like social media. You asked me about social media. What did I answer? I said social media is a sphere, is an ambience where you can act upon the world without paying for the consequences.

Absolutely.

Because of anonymity. Same with pornography. You act upon the world without paying consequences because pornography has real life effects. I mean, you ejaculate, it has effects. It is a real world phenomenon. Yet you don’t pay any cost into today. Today’s world, you definitely don’t. Pornhub is free. So you don’t pay any cost.

And so it’s another manifestation or exemplification of this separation between reality because it’s real and the costs of reality.

We have come, we have all become free riders, free riders within a huge commons. We benefit. We benefit.

But we refuse to pay the price.

Pornography is, is like that.

The first thing the pornography does, it simplifies in an age of dumb and dumber, in an age of stupidity as a reason to be proud.

I mean, people are proud of their stupidity. They are not nothings. I mean, they show it off.

They show it off.

Absolutely. They brag about it. They brag about not knowing.

So in the experts. They deride academic authority. They mock intellectuals. They argue with authorities on topics. They argue as though they are author. I call it malignant egalitarianism. Everyone is an expert because everyone has access to Wikipedia, you know.

And so in such a world, pornography fulfills a role because it allows you to actually interact with archetypes, archetypes of women, archetypes of men and archetypes of sexual activity and to experience the entire gamut, in other words, to become an expert.

Is that dangerous?

Pornography is an absolute unmitigated time bomb.

According to studies by Twain, John Campbell, in the last 10 years, dating, dating activity among teenagers, hormone– laden teenagers, dating declined by 56 percent because modern dating is a clusterfuck of dysfunctional attachment styles.

And you see how these young people are getting in their codependent cosmic entanglements with people in which they’re idealizing the person as their soulmate and really operating off of a child’s view of romance in tandem with being in that pornographic world.

You know, what happens to the people who don’t become conscious of their broken attachment styles and codependency?

You’re the optimistic type.

You still talk about these cycles to the grave.

You still talk about attachments and so on.

Recent studies by Lisa Wade, for example, uncover shocking truths.

The bone tone today is to not get attached. Teenagers, people under the age of 25 who responded to very detailed questionnaires said that the worst transgression against etiquette is to get attached after sex.

The majority of these young men and women your age said that if they find an intimate partner, they will try to not have sex with the intimate partner because sex is meaningless.

Isn’t that very avoidant?

It’s not avoidant.

Are you listening what I’m saying? Sex is meaningless.

Oh, no, no, see, I can’t relate to that. Sex has a lot of meaning to me.

Of course, there’s a lot of meaning. By the way, has a lot of meaning period. Not only to you. It is denial.

Of course, sex is meaningless. But it’s denial. When you have hookups, when you have one night stands, when you have casual sex, you lie to yourself. But you lie to yourself in conformity with cultural mores.

The culture today is such that you are mocked, ridiculed and derided. If you connect, if you connect sex to intimacy, or if you connect sex to emotions, something’s wrong with you. Something’s wrong with you.

And yes, no, and I’ve experienced this and I’ve seen people who treat people this way that, you know, if you see sex with intimacy, you’re broken, you know, you need to just treat it like an athletic act.

Exactly. And so this has this leads to two things.

First of all, objectification of the other. You must debate with other people’s bodies. People become animated dildos and animated sex dolls.

And the second thing is what I call the intimacy cloud.

Intimacy, you see in the past, when you got married, you had to forego all other people of the same sex. So if you got married to a man, you were a woman, you got married to a man, you forego your male friends and so on and so forth.

I don’t mean you forego in the sense you were not in contact, but you forego them as potentials, intimate potentials and so on.

Today, in a typical young relationship between young people, each young person carries with him or with her a cloud of intimate people. The husband or the wife, the girlfriend or the boyfriend are just one of many.

Yes. Wow. One of many equally intimate, equally sexualized people.

So a woman aged 25 is likely to say, I love my husband if she got married, just got married. My boyfriend, I love my boyfriend. We’re having sex and so on.

But I also love Jeff, who used to be my lover. And I also love Jack, who is my best friend, like a brother to me. And I also love, I don’t know what.

And then she will see nothing wrong in spending the night at Jack’s and nothing wrong. Absolutely.

And having sex is like the polyamory.

This is polyamory. It’s polyamory. And I call it intimacy cloud. It’s absolutely polyamory.

But see, this is very dangerous, because now what you’re talking about the reductionism and the commodification of the self, think of that plus being encouraged to turn yourself into a sellable sex object and archetype and trope to be purchased, approved. Dating apps are just a human meat market.

And if you think of the modern narcissist, and if we’ve transcended past that, as you’ve said, swipe left, swipe right and a dehumanizing, discarding approach to sex and romance in our world is very hollow and very rapid.

I find dating apps to be even more dangerous than that.

But before I comment on on dating apps, I want to say that you see use the term polyamory, which is, which is a technically correct, but there’s no love there. It’s polyamory is when you have several intimate partners of equal standing.

The intimacy cloud is simply never giving up on anyone you have ever been intimate with or can be intimate with. Never giving up. Never paying the price.

Because when you get married, or when you have a boyfriend, you have a price to pay. And that price is called exclusivity. People refuse again, again refuse to pay the price. They want to have real world consequences. They want to get married, or they want to have children, or they want to have a boyfriend, but they refuse to pay the price of exclusivity.

Now coming to dating apps, the problem with dating apps is one, as you said, commodification and objectification of potential sexual partners.

But I think there’s something even more pernicious and much more dangerous.

Dating apps don’t come out in the open and admit who they are, what they are.

Dating apps don’t say, listen, guys, this is a database of possible facts, you know, fuck bodies. They don’t say this. They present themselves as a love bazaar, a market where you can find love, attachment, connection, relationships. It’s a lie, of course.

It’s deceptive and it’s dangerous for the people who are too stupid to critically think.

Exactly, it’s deceptive. That’s the problem.

Dating apps, without exception, are totally deceptive.

Studies have shown that one quarter of people who go on dating apps are looking for casual sex. Yet another quarter are looking to have fun and entertainment, which is casual sex.

Sex, all sex.

Seven to nine percent are looking to cheat on their partners, etc.

Well over three quarters of people who go on dating apps have no inclination or intention in the universe to have a relationship. They are looking for casual sex.

That’s, you know, and I think, you know, it’s disgusting to me that these corporations would even brand these things as dating apps. Why not be honest with the people and just say this is a sex app. I call them sex apps. I call them sex apps.

This is what they are.

I want to talk about something controversial that you’ve brought up in your work before, but right now we have a very free space.

So I want to talk about this.

In ancient Greece, bisexuality was very normal and my generation seems to be extremely bisexual, very sexually fluid and more than ever with men and men.

And in ancient Greek mythology, Hercules had many twin male lovers and there is this concept of Erestes and the Romanes and say a male narcissistic type is ultimately a baseline heterosexual man, but he still uses gay men as sexual objects or as narcissistic supply.

Have you in your studies seen any cross-contamination between bisexuality and narcissism and is it connected?

Well, I wouldn’t describe bisexuality as contamination. It’s a cross-contamination.

I mean like a disconnection.

I just want to make clear that there’s no derogatory. We are not associating this with any sexual presence.

I think what’s happening in the modern world as opposed to Greece. In ancient Greece, homosexual sex, first of all, was limited. It usually did not include penetration, but it was also an integral part of a power structure.

So sex is a language. Sex is a mode of communication. You can say many things with sex. You can say I am grateful to you with sex. You can say I pity you with sex. You can say I love you with sex.

And you can also say, master, you have taught me so much. Thank you with sex. You can also recognize the master’s authority with sex. You can recognize a military commander’s authority. Or in prison, you can recognize the chief honcho with sex.

So in prison, for example, totally heterosexual men engage in anal intercourse, but as a way to establish power matrices, power hierarchies inside the prison.

So homosexual sex like heterosexual sex has many, many types of messages embedded. And it’s very critical to look at the context.

Moreover, it’s not possible to have any meaningful exchange between people, any people of any type, without a very powerful erotic undercurrent. And that’s, of course, the source of words like bromance.

Yeah.

And erotic sexual undercurrent is present among male friends, among female friends, among males and female friends. I mean, there’s always sex in the air, whether it is converted into actual action or not, is another issue. But it’s always in the air.

And so in permissive environments, such as ancient Greece, it was simply translated, but it did not indicate homosexual tendencies, by the way.

Of course not. It didn’t mean that you were a homosexual. That’s the difference.

It was a way of communicating something. It was usually a student and a master in academies, in proper academic institutions. And it was a way of communicating, or it was in the army.

We have documented, you know, we have in the Odyssey. And so in the army, Alexander the Great, we have documented homosexuality documented as a means of communication and creating cohesion, unit cohesion in the army.

And so it’s important to understand it’s a language.

The second thing I would like to mention is, I don’t think there is sexual fluidity. I think people very often confuse sex and gender.

I think what has happened in the Victorian age, people conflated sex and gender, and it is still very difficult for us to get rid of this.

Yes, yes, absolutely. Absolutely.

I think all people without a single exception, even the most straight-laced Christian fundamentalist, all people are omnisexual. All people.

Yeah. I think what is happening now, and by the way, it’s documented, I mean, in studies, for example, most men have at least one homosexual experience in teenage years.

I think everyone is omnisexual. Everyone is capable of sleeping with everyone, given the right circumstances, the right type of communication and the right ambience and incentives.

But what I think has happened, the Victorians created gender roles, which were so strict and rigid that certain behaviors were immediately outlawed, outcast and considerable.

Now what is happening?

We are creating a unigender world, unigender. We don’t have any clear distinctions. The boundaries between genders are totally blurred, and we have a single gender with two types of genitalia.