Promiscuity vs Chastity, Social Circle vs Dating Apps, Culture vs Biology - Full Interview

It is interesting to hear your similarities and differences. I like the videos with just you the most, but these occasional one time discussions are very thought provoking. His ideas solidified my agreement with you AG on some issues, but got me thinking on others.

Eric Linden

I love a good debate between two very different men. Alex Grace did amazing defending his points. I would never accept a one way open relationship, in which I'm faithful and he's not. Next, please.

This was great

Slava Zelensky

There seems to be confusion over this supply vs demand. There are fewer women. This is because women being considered as potential partners for Alexander’s target audience are in a narrower age range then the men. Let’s say under 35. Men in their 40s target the same group of women. But this misses the point. The imbalance is supply of sperm vs eggs. Even in contrived situations with more women they would still be in greater demand.

Andy

Thanks Jen. What kind of things do these promiscuous women say about men? I imagine these women feel bitter because they want the more meaningful connection but are perhaps not feeling worthy of it and so give up their intimacy more easily. Again, it's convenient for us to diminish the importance of sex because otherwise we'd have to pay attention to how it's being largely misunderstood.

Steven

I feel sad when it appears that genuine connection isn't being prioritised for sexual encounters by either gender. I'd like to prioritise sexual compatibility in terms of personality and physicality as well as emotional and spiritual resonance. Feels like you need to be a top tier man to even consider looking for compatibility like that. I find it kind of painful to hear about guys bedding girls on the first date and that being considered an accomplishment. AG did an excellent job of explaining how some women might be able to rationally conclude that they are able to sleep around and be safe in the modern age but that this involves a certain diminishment of their feminine instincts. That was a key insight. I think that the time you spend getting to know a potential sexual partner is precious. Optimally playful and exciting in a lead up to sex. It can happen quickly but the anticipation is a pleasure all its own and a deeper connection is going to make for better sex and a healthier relationship no matter how far it extends. I think it's very convenient for PF to believe that sex is a "mutually benificial exchange". It relieves you of any guilt and worse it cheapens the sexual experience into a simple transactional commodity. Unfortunately it seems like this is becoming the norm. It's a challenging ambition to maintain a degree of sacredness around sexual intimacy these days. I dunno, does this sound too idealistic? I want to believe that there's a way to engage in the sexual marketplace that allows high quality relationships to flourish but it's difficult to imagine this happening outside of a social oasis of sorts because of the current cultural and technological framing.

Steven

Great feedback guys. @Samuel, we must be rational about it as theres a lot to lose in relationships. Its a vicious cycle we are caught in. Not to say all women or men are bad for but dysfunctional families cause dysfunctional people which further cause dysfunctional families and a dysfunctional society. Alexander himself says a high quality woman is rare, Morgan Stanley just noted for the first time in 50% of women reaching age 30 are childless. Theres also economic factors to this such as inflation, stagnant wages, women need to earn because a solo earner can't maintain a household, but when women earn they put off relationships, harden up, demand higher earners than themselves due to hypergamy and the cycle goes. Add to this divorce laws and no fault divorce breaking families apart. When you have a 50% divorce rate or a large proportion of women growing up without father figures, this causes maladaptive behaviours later down the line. They overcompensate and crave hyper masculinity as they lacked it in their youth when they needed it most, this leads them to going for the bad boys, narcissists, jerks etc as they represent that raw masculine strength (although in its toxic form being raw, not positive masculinity being refined), they get hurt by these men which closes them off emotionally and traumatises them for future relationships. This is where a lot of alpha widowing happens, deeming them unable to be happy in future relationships. When a girl of 15 sleeps with a older adult of 20/21, that power differential creates such a dominating emotional imprint on her that it will be almost impossible for her to recreate that later in her life as an adult having a sexual experience with another adult, that emotional intensity won't be there and she won't be as happy. Absolutely vicious. This isn't to get bitter or angry, but to have the utmost sympathy and compassion for humanity. They have a dichotomy which is they can't trust what they crave and need the most, being the masculine for it lacked in their youth. Their first source of masculine strength/safety wasn't there, so they distrust the masculine although they overcompensate and need it the most. This leads them to getting sexual at a very young age, and with older men or not the right kind of men (toxic masculine). What they want is not sexual male attention but protective male attention. Their bodies develop sexually before they develop mentally and emotionally so they don't know what they are doing, its all subconscious. This further traumatises and leads to not liking men, trusting or feeling safe with men in general. They base their general assessment of men on small population of men, being the assholes they dealt with and were drawn too. They can never truly feel safe or struggle to in relationships and so leave in case of getting hurt

Sheikhspear

You forget effort for men and women is never equal. Most usually setup is - "Women: - I wanna fuck around, while you are doing relation provision load, you are low quality beta so I knew you will not have anything besides me or at least you will have a lot hurdles, while I get carte blanche and free fun of dating apps". Few outcomes then - guy complies and everything slowly decays to dead bedroom, guy complies and somehow gets women which actually makes him invest emotionally - women gets "regret" and sometimes even tries to reset or halt her own side-adventures (sometimes those are unfullfiling, "fuckboys" only want to fuck) stop fucking around. Regret is because what she was receiving from him now is going to another women. This happens if women underestimate men and overestimate herself (she is for example old, not desirable petite girl) and he just sliped on frame in relations, but he is genuinely capable. Self-aware and confident men would kick her out to the street where she belongs, once she suggests stuff like that - relationship by this point is doomed - those kind of suggestions are indication that something gone wrong.

Ignas

I just hate women nature in dating. As men must be better in all the capacities than entire population and be better than her in her emotional worldview, for her only to claim "equality". I have no sympathy anymore for most women issues at all or trust for goodness of character.

Ignas

Finally made it to the end of the video! I enjoyed it and both men did a good job. I also would love to hear how the one-sided open relationship works. I'd only heard of this once, she was the open end and he was monogamous to her. The man said simply 'Technically it's not one-sided, I'm free to fuck around too. I just don't like to. I'd rather fuck her.' Is it really that simple?

Jennifer Coopman

Hi James, question for you: Would you be ok if your potential woman watched Alexander's videos?

Jennifer Coopman

In my view, a woman who withholds sex as a price for commitment is not going to get commitment from a high quality man. Why? Because if he gives up a relationship commitment that easily, then he is a relationship slut. He is being too easy. His scrutiny takes longer, and if he isn’t in fact taking longer, he’s not doing his due diligence. Also, a woman interested in having sex with a male because she sees him as hot means that her choice to engage sexually with the male is not solely transactional, as it would be with most other males she engages with. Therefore if he is a high value male, she should be doing well under his scrutiny with early sex. One last thing, although I take the evolutionary argument very seriously, birth control has changed the game. But I think there’s a misnomer. Sex before birth control did not necessarily risk pregnancy, because oral sex was a genuine negotiating option. It used to be that men and women had a middle ground with “third base” (oral sex). Nowadays, oral sex is and has for a long time been becoming an unnecessary and exotic sex act due to the pill, and the idea that “third base” precedes “home plate” is not really an active and functioning metaphor anymore as far as I can tell. So, in sum, the measure of a high vs. low quality woman cannot be viewed as unchanged from the evolutionary past.

Todd McDaniels

Oof, tough one to watch Alexander but definitely good content. This one adds perspective to the pick up side of manosphere content and unfortunately it’s a lot of this guy. However, I will say that he is calmer and more willing to listen than most.

Kevin Pereira

Whatever most women say simply append "...right now" to it and you'll be far better off as a man. Women are emotional. As such they do not base decisions off of facts but instead feelings. 'twas ever thus. Know it. We dress it up and put makeup on it but it's only a matter of time before this reality reveals itself. Menopause is the ultimate example of this.

Kent C Johnson

Some truth in what you are saying. But ask yourself this. Is it worth it to spend all that time thinking about it? Aren't we acting more like women by obsessing over these things? Let them obsess over it that is the job of the feminine. But it is true that men must lead, make decisions, and start rewarding women who are less promiscuous.

Samuel Morse

It's called the dual-mating strategy: alpha fucks, beta bucks. Every woman has it. The goal for a man is to be both in a woman's life. And that can only be achieved in places where women are not exposed to their unrestrained nature. It's like asking a baby to take a sip of hot chocolate and expecting them not to cry and go ballistic and do whatever it takes when they don't get anymore. Banging your head against a wall doesn't even describe how futile attempting to have a healthy relationship in the West is.

James Kerr

You have pretty much explained verbatim why monogamous relationships can no longer exist in the West anymore. If you're serious about a relationship and children, you will have to move abroad to a patriarchal country in a non-Westernised part of the nation (rules out big cities), get with a virgin woman there that has been brought up with very little access to the internet/social media and stay with her there. As soon as women get a taste for social media, there is no coming back for them. Alpha widowing is absolutely a very real phenomenon which is why a partner count of zero in all manner of things is the only way to guarantee a woman that is likely to be faithful and satisfied long-term. You still have to rock her world of course, but you should want to anyway because that kind of woman deserves it completely. As for FOMO (hate that term and that people actually feel it, I couldn't care less for it)... how would she fear missing out on what she doesn't know is out there? Women are only happiest and the most faithful when they are kept naive and, to a degree, sheltered from their own nature and the culture that allows their nature to be completely unrestrained. That's what monogamy and our civilization and others had done for thousands of years and it worked. Now, with the advent of feminism in the 60s, there is no coming back for any woman that has had a taste of her unchained nature. So, enter into a relationship with one at your own peril, but for me I will never touch another Western and non-virgin woman in a romantic way ever again, it will be a casual arrangement only and I have zero plans on changing that.

James Kerr

The 'best women' who I've dated (feminine, romantic, generous, asking for long term commitment, early 30s) were also the women who were in the midst of leaving a marriage to be with me, because I was stimulating their emotions more than their husband was. The younger women were mostly disasters of one sort or another. And the point of this being that, in all my experience, its really just a matter of time before their true nature comes out, in the 'best women', it may take 10+ years but eventually theyll screw you. I really felt bad for their husbands, they were actually great men too (very good looking, rich, talented, etc but it didn't matter!!) I am a rare case, as I'm a performer in nightclubs with access to young beautiful women on a daily basis for many years. Please hear me when I tell you that I've seen it all, and women are FAR MORE SAVAGE than most men who value loyalty & integrity could ever imagine being. I got into this game to find true love, and I've had it for brief moments in my 25+ years of dating & relatonships. I've reluctantly learned to play the field, been with hundreds of women, and my heart still aches for the couple that I really adored who dropped the ball. My conclusion after all of this has been a tough one to swallow, you just can't count on women for anything whatsoever, never give them the benefit of the doubt, because it will surely come back to bite you when you least expect it.

nvrndng

First of all, thank you for putting this all together so well in your comment. Really nailed it for me and I'm saving this in my notebooks. To respond to your last paragraph, I have tried them all. Virgin early 20s, Party girl early 20s, Smart girl 25-30, Career woman early 30s, Mature Mid/Late-30s. They all come with their own set of slippery issues that make themselves impossible to pin down and have a normal stable relationship with. The 'best women

nvrndng

The conversation around the one hour mark about promiscuity was so interesting and I found myself agreeing with both of them. And when I realized that, it made see my personal experiences a differently than before. What Alexander was saying about the promiscuous woman being rational about overcoming her biology and being at peace with it, but those women are rare. My first thought was (of course) myself, because that's how I always felt when I was promiscuous - at peace with it. I've even referred to myself as a happy slut. But I bet that was only because, for most of my casual sex experiences, I was cheating while already in a committed relationship. So when I said to myself 'No I don't feel bad about myself for having casual sex, nor am I worried about giving it up too fast, or that he might not commit, etc', I probably felt that way, not because I was at peace with being promiscuous and therefore I was an empowered radical feminist who didn't need a man, but because I already had those unconscious needs fulfilled, for security, love, respect from a partner. So I didn't need it from my casual sex partners. I fear I mislabeled it as not needing it from ANY man, even while I was simultaneously getting it. I wonder if that's why unattached promiscuous women put themselves in that 'high quality' happy slut category: maybe they truly don't need those things from a man? Until they decide they do, of course! Which I think ultimately that's why I found myself leaning towards Alexander's position on that topic as being more correct. I probably need to think about that some more, but that was my thought process when listening.

Jennifer Coopman

Great talk. A society that participates in casual sex with the end goal being a long term happy relationship creates the very society where a long term happy relationship isn't possible in. Dating multiple partners at a time or short term serial relationships, hook ups etc sets the pattern for that. Our drive for polyamory is stronger than monogamy as we'v been polygamous for a much longer part of our evolution. Our animal nature doesn't care for our long term happiness, our biology drives us to act on reproducing the strongest genes and surviving. Biology is brutal and raw, our psychology/consciousness is what attempts to refine biological urges into something more sustainable for happiness. As we have monogamous and polyamorous genetics it depends which genetic drive we feed or the environment stimulates (epi-genetics). In the modern world we are stimulating the poly drive ( through social media, internet, big cities, no social stigma against sex, birth control etc) which could have been fine in the past when life expectancy was 30 and we lived in a tribe with high trust between each other but now we live 3x as long in a different world so a committed mono relationship is what will give us emotional stability. It has to be a conscious practiced choice or we devolve into our lower instincts as the environment is pulling at those particular instincts. Im really unsure on the 'alpha widow' affect the red pill talks about. It states that its not necessarily the number of partners but the alphas and intensity of the experiences a woman's had in her past that will make her unhappy to settle in a relationship of lesser emotional intensity. So a woman could have slept with 15 people but if your her best she will be satisfied (hypergamy) with you. If a woman has slept with only 2 but they were alphas or say one was a emotionally abusive relationship which triggered her emotionally very intensely (although negatively) and your only her 3rd partner but can't provide her those emotions are you doomed? Its not just about body count but the nature of those experiences, or how intensely have she been imprinted. If you come and blow all her past away she could be happy, but there is always fomo so even if you are her best she could think what else is out there? Due to having social media/access to lots of guys. We'r told not to settle with a woman too young in her party years (18-23) as she'll question if your really her best later and want to see her options/resent you for not allowing her to see her options out of fomo. But if you only consider girls from mid 20's say when they hit epiphany phase and realise they need to settle down as they finally notice their ageing and have younger competition, by that age they would have had more experiences that could have alpha widow'd them and bring baggage to you. Even a virgin which trad cons deem unicorn status isn't a win win as they could get fomo and want to explore in todays sexual market place after they've broken it with you. Would love clarification or if anyone has ideas about this :)

Sheikhspear

We are so spoiled as an audience. Like most people, I watch a lot of YouTube videos, but also read a lot of opinion pieces. I haven't found very many video-makers or so-called 'journalists' who are as articulate or intelligent as Alexander. I'm sometimes relieved to come back to the channel after being on the rest of the internet. But where I really notice it is in these interviews. Such superior communication skills, it makes me jealous!

Jennifer Coopman

I knew this guy for a while now. He's a PUA and is really deep into the technical game, especially with online dating and texting. I have moved on from that phase now but did learned a lot from it. So keen to listen to the conversation! There is another group of dating coaches called The Ultimate Man Project, which teaches the most advanced technical game in the field. It would be amazing to see you interview the UMP coaches

John

I am so excited to give this a watch! xxx

Alisha