scientists not stopping to think about the consequences of thier actions is the most dangerous aspect. for example neuroscientists not stopping to think that they could compartmentalise the human mind to such a degree human meaning will die and human society will collapse as a result.
Her fundamental error is that the power to set healthy boundaries is a product of self-esteem and your upbringing-not looks alone. In fact, very beautiful looking women e.g models, are notoriously insecure. Likewise for anyone else basing their worth on looks alone. Same goes for guys who base their worth only on what they earn. As a result, ordinary women are often far better adjusted with self esteem more frequently being based on a range of commonly understood mundane factors, like: personality, communication skills, sense of humour-for example. In contrast, having always been gassed up based on your looks and having shallow expectations to match-is not a good recipe for self-esteem, or setting healthy boundaries. It may also come as a surprise to Louise, that in this world of beautiful women and powerful men, dynamics are different. Far fewer men are true simps. And while a lot of guys who are good with money are not always great with women, many of those kinds of women- at that level- understand they are replaceable and who the real prize is. So these women are, not at all, as all poweful as Louise would like to suggest.
Once again here goes a woman lying…😂 Beautiful women have less sex because they only see a small fraction of the top men at viable sexual partners. Women are HYPERGAMOUS therefore if a woman is an 8 she will ONLY be interested in men who are 8s and up. Compared to the average women who are 5s that will find men who are 5s and up as viable potential sexual partner. Making their pool of potential sexual partners 2.5 times bigger for the average woman aka the 5s compared to the 8s who will ONLY have sex with the rare top 20 percent men.
Not too sure about this being from a big city in the UK , most " beautiful women" here have been highly active but the thing is most of these beautiful women try to hide it but you find out when you start to get to know them and it all comes out that they have been nailed by half the lads you know lol
She never claimed it was anecdotal. Every claim is a judgment. And whether it's BS or not depends on if it's true. Go look at research on the correlation between number of sexual partners and attractiveness.
These guru-esque figures like Louise or J. Peterson have lots of ideas about dating dynamics but very little curiosity in trying to prove their theories systematically. It’s just anecdotal evidence and personal feelings combined with a very weird, cult like way of delivering their dogmatic message about the imminent downfall of western civilization - I guess every era has to have their Cassandras. The 10 or 20 beautiful women that came up to her and told her they were not engaging in causal sex don’t constitute any kind of evidence… what worries me is that Louise (and other figures who engage in the same kind of motivated reasoning) seem blissfully unaware of the fallacious heuristics they continually use and instead present their message as rational and scientific.
If hyper-rational data was required to express any novel thought, we would’ve never had people like Plato or Nietzsche or Jung. There’s a place for both science and philosophy.
@@contekozlovski Plato helped lay down the foundation for the entire future of Western civilization, for one. Nietzche’s philosophy laid the groundwork for the rationalist renaissance in the 20th century, and Jung’s ideas have helped innumerable people build more resilient and healthier psyches. I’m honestly wondering if that was a serious question.
The irony being that she is exactly right , according to surveys. Number of Sexual partners follow a normal distribution relative to attractiveness. Ugly women didn’t have that many because they couldn’t attract that many partners. Incredibly attractive women didn’t have that many partners because they were selective, and would have high status men quickly offer commitments. So they don’t need to sleep around Average to cute women had the most sex. Because they were often attractive enough to garner attention from high quality men using sex as bait, but not hot enough to keep commitment.
Yeah, no. It's the smart women who aren't giving it up. They know they can make their own success and (perhaps) find satisfaction in other endeavors. The situation is just more nuanced and complicated, alas.
this ain't it. it's ego. they feel they deserve top tier men but for whatever reason aren't getting them - perhaps as they're not willing to engage in the hypersexuality thing. I know a girl who is smoking hot but regularly mentions being hard up... but her standards are far too high and superficial
There's really nothing wrong with that (putting aside the word superficial). In fact, men would do well to take that lead and develop some f_____g standards.
Two things, one lack of refinement, by saying "seggs" she is including all the abysmally bad seggs. It would be better to specify "good mutually consensual and mutually pleasant and safe seggs". Two, anecdote might not be evidence, but I know several kind women who are very conventionally beautiful and also are very seggsually active, regularly having lots of joyful seggs in a broad kind of ways, not just the drab PIV 2 minute pump and snore. But the examples of women I mention are neurodivergent and queer. As we are friends (not with "benefits") we talk about these aspects of life. My sense is that this lady mostly has experience with neurotypical and heteroseggsual people and draws conclusions from there. Not realizing that not all people and in particular not all women fit in those consigned boxes that work so well for her and her similar kind.
The type of conventionally beautiful woman who in two months date a cis-woman, a cis-man, a trans-man and a trans-woman and has mutually consensual and pleasant and safe seggs with all of them in all kinds of ways including qinque and besides all that also live responsible lives, making a living, paying the bills, caring for loved ones and friends, do not fit her paradigm. Yet they do exist.
Then what is "beautiful", in the queer scene many don't fit the heteroseggsual beauty standard. Say a "butch" doesn't fit the mold of the conventional heteroseggsual beauty standards, but can be regarded as very beautiful in her own subculture.
I think she is just making this up. I've only ever seen beautiful women run rings around men. She is trying to covertly communicate that she thinks only ugly women have casual sex. Definitely not what I've seen. I've also noticed beautiful women can sleep with a guy quite fast and he will still want a relationship with her. Beautiful women can just do whatever they want. Carry on!
you read a lot into what she said that she didn't actually say. i think she's correct, but just for the wrong reasons. the best looking women get approached less because a lot of men are intimidated by their looks & assume they are married or have a boyfriend, so most men don't even try to talk to them, therefore a lot of these women don't get as much sex as you would think. uglier women get more sex because men think, oh she'll be nice & down to earth, she has to be because she's ugly & that is usually the case. so a guy can easily sleep with a girl who is a 4 for a casual fling, so ugly girls & mid girls do tend to get more sex & get approached more. beautiful women's ego's are usually huge so they often feel they are too good to approach men, so if men don't approach them & they don't approach men... they just never get approached & they never get sex.
She didn't say all beautiful women have less sex. She said beautiful women have enough power that they can request for a committed relationship, and still they will find a man. More average women, if they request for a committed relationship, they might get nothing, so they try to go with the hookup culture.
@@trevorandrade Makes sense. Less attractive women could then use that to gauge how a man truly feels about them then. If they're looking for a committed partner, leaving because you don't put out is a the biggest red flag they could get. Unfortunately, pick-mes and women (and men too) with low self esteem would rather a guy (or woman) stick around around only for sex just so they don't have to deal with being alone/lonely.
@@officersquareheadYou're making a lot of sense. Only, ironically, a lot of very good looking women have terribly low self esteem. This is common knowledge and she has said this herself, elsewhere. I'm 99% certain. Plus, there are plenty of mediocre looking women with great self esteem because 1 Their self-esteem is less likely to be based on looks alone 2 They may, additionally, be brought up to value other traits about themselves-and others 3 They may also be less damaged by the Chad phenomenon by having missed out on this entirely. Or, having Chad as an exception, rather than as a rule. Taken together, all of these factors combined, may mean average women-at least the ones who are brought up well, or, are sensible-have a broader, healhier, view of relationships-of themselves and of others. Whereas very good looking women may be spoiled and have a giant sense of entitlement driven by how they are treated owing to their looks. Instead of maturing normally, having realistic expectations, and being generally out of touch with the mundane every day ingredients of normal relationships. Even their partners may be just like this, to a large extent, albeit in a slightly different way.
Hes very smart, but in todays world u can onl talk to idiots. idiots in power. idiots in charge. idiots on the way to extinct all humans. Even normal scientists, which are duber than him, ive met them...its really sad, but anyway, the prediction is 25-35 years. almost all Humans will be D E A D. That includes u...yet still, nothing is done. while it could be.
Why would you willingly put yourself in a situation with women like that? Say you get 5 hoes, like actual hoes on you, and you then whine and bitch about "they don't listen, they only want stuff for free" Yadda Yadda, that's not on them. You put yourself in that position. That's on you. Your wallet might be fat, but your head's as broke as a drug addict with a gambling problem.
They are not “giving up their life for you”. They are making a trade off based on their values and level of consciousness. They are making choices that fit the life they believe they want/ deserve / are capable of living…. Those men who you are revering as selfless and not wishing to oppress women? Are often the very men who do. The level of stress they take on (and don’t release) is often taken out on their wives, or in the pub (in neglect of their wife and children) There is no judgement. We need to recognise life is complex and not black and white.
In Canada, it’s not Conservative my friend it’s called libertarian with the butterfly
Colonial waste, so he has a psychological dogma that keeps them, then lose marks going keep the fascist right winger
its toyota not nissan dumas
scientists not stopping to think about the consequences of thier actions is the most dangerous aspect. for example neuroscientists not stopping to think that they could compartmentalise the human mind to such a degree human meaning will die and human society will collapse as a result.
chris breezy
Both are essential for society.. Yet no one understand it anymore now a day.
They don't have less sex; they have less casual sex.
Why is Kenny G in here?
Cap 😂
Cap 😂
Facts
What's with the baby-making smooth jazz?
What’s the lift music? Jesus.
Her fundamental error is that the power to set healthy boundaries is a product of self-esteem and your upbringing-not looks alone. In fact, very beautiful looking women e.g models, are notoriously insecure. Likewise for anyone else basing their worth on looks alone. Same goes for guys who base their worth only on what they earn. As a result, ordinary women are often far better adjusted with self esteem more frequently being based on a range of commonly understood mundane factors, like: personality, communication skills, sense of humour-for example. In contrast, having always been gassed up based on your looks and having shallow expectations to match-is not a good recipe for self-esteem, or setting healthy boundaries. It may also come as a surprise to Louise, that in this world of beautiful women and powerful men, dynamics are different. Far fewer men are true simps. And while a lot of guys who are good with money are not always great with women, many of those kinds of women- at that level- understand they are replaceable and who the real prize is. So these women are, not at all, as all poweful as Louise would like to suggest.
Louise Perry is very beautiful.
Once again here goes a woman lying…😂 Beautiful women have less sex because they only see a small fraction of the top men at viable sexual partners. Women are HYPERGAMOUS therefore if a woman is an 8 she will ONLY be interested in men who are 8s and up. Compared to the average women who are 5s that will find men who are 5s and up as viable potential sexual partner. Making their pool of potential sexual partners 2.5 times bigger for the average woman aka the 5s compared to the 8s who will ONLY have sex with the rare top 20 percent men.
Source: Dude trust me bro
So the ugly woman are just thriving! LOL
Not too sure about this being from a big city in the UK , most " beautiful women" here have been highly active but the thing is most of these beautiful women try to hide it but you find out when you start to get to know them and it all comes out that they have been nailed by half the lads you know lol
🤣🤣🤣.. Imagine marrying a woman who half ur m8s banged
Judgey anecdotal BS.
She never claimed it was anecdotal. Every claim is a judgment. And whether it's BS or not depends on if it's true. Go look at research on the correlation between number of sexual partners and attractiveness.
These guru-esque figures like Louise or J. Peterson have lots of ideas about dating dynamics but very little curiosity in trying to prove their theories systematically. It’s just anecdotal evidence and personal feelings combined with a very weird, cult like way of delivering their dogmatic message about the imminent downfall of western civilization - I guess every era has to have their Cassandras. The 10 or 20 beautiful women that came up to her and told her they were not engaging in causal sex don’t constitute any kind of evidence… what worries me is that Louise (and other figures who engage in the same kind of motivated reasoning) seem blissfully unaware of the fallacious heuristics they continually use and instead present their message as rational and scientific.
If hyper-rational data was required to express any novel thought, we would’ve never had people like Plato or Nietzsche or Jung. There’s a place for both science and philosophy.
@@Pccart1121how were they right and how did they improve the world?
@@contekozlovski Plato helped lay down the foundation for the entire future of Western civilization, for one. Nietzche’s philosophy laid the groundwork for the rationalist renaissance in the 20th century, and Jung’s ideas have helped innumerable people build more resilient and healthier psyches. I’m honestly wondering if that was a serious question.
The irony being that she is exactly right , according to surveys. Number of Sexual partners follow a normal distribution relative to attractiveness. Ugly women didn’t have that many because they couldn’t attract that many partners. Incredibly attractive women didn’t have that many partners because they were selective, and would have high status men quickly offer commitments. So they don’t need to sleep around Average to cute women had the most sex. Because they were often attractive enough to garner attention from high quality men using sex as bait, but not hot enough to keep commitment.
@@marcusplenty1153 citations please, and of worthwhile meta analysis considering how the replication crisis is going
Yeah, no. It's the smart women who aren't giving it up. They know they can make their own success and (perhaps) find satisfaction in other endeavors. The situation is just more nuanced and complicated, alas.
this ain't it. it's ego. they feel they deserve top tier men but for whatever reason aren't getting them - perhaps as they're not willing to engage in the hypersexuality thing. I know a girl who is smoking hot but regularly mentions being hard up... but her standards are far too high and superficial
There's really nothing wrong with that (putting aside the word superficial). In fact, men would do well to take that lead and develop some f_____g standards.
that's literally her point
she must be f****** a lot of because she is not beautiful
turn the f****** music off
They are also very intelligent which is a shame that they are not passing on their intelligence and beauty to their offspring.
Everybody opting out.
None, i am trying to be as rational as possible
Two things, one lack of refinement, by saying "seggs" she is including all the abysmally bad seggs. It would be better to specify "good mutually consensual and mutually pleasant and safe seggs". Two, anecdote might not be evidence, but I know several kind women who are very conventionally beautiful and also are very seggsually active, regularly having lots of joyful seggs in a broad kind of ways, not just the drab PIV 2 minute pump and snore. But the examples of women I mention are neurodivergent and queer. As we are friends (not with "benefits") we talk about these aspects of life. My sense is that this lady mostly has experience with neurotypical and heteroseggsual people and draws conclusions from there. Not realizing that not all people and in particular not all women fit in those consigned boxes that work so well for her and her similar kind.
The type of conventionally beautiful woman who in two months date a cis-woman, a cis-man, a trans-man and a trans-woman and has mutually consensual and pleasant and safe seggs with all of them in all kinds of ways including qinque and besides all that also live responsible lives, making a living, paying the bills, caring for loved ones and friends, do not fit her paradigm. Yet they do exist.
Then what is "beautiful", in the queer scene many don't fit the heteroseggsual beauty standard. Say a "butch" doesn't fit the mold of the conventional heteroseggsual beauty standards, but can be regarded as very beautiful in her own subculture.
Weird music could hardly hear her
It's like something you'd hear on the midnight ceefax run on BBC2
😂
I think she is just making this up. I've only ever seen beautiful women run rings around men. She is trying to covertly communicate that she thinks only ugly women have casual sex. Definitely not what I've seen. I've also noticed beautiful women can sleep with a guy quite fast and he will still want a relationship with her. Beautiful women can just do whatever they want. Carry on!
Are you talking about 20 yr olds or 40 yr olds?! I stopped giving into social pressure 15 yrs ago..... sexier, happier, fulfilled. 💃🏻
You're just coping
you're right i think.
you read a lot into what she said that she didn't actually say. i think she's correct, but just for the wrong reasons. the best looking women get approached less because a lot of men are intimidated by their looks & assume they are married or have a boyfriend, so most men don't even try to talk to them, therefore a lot of these women don't get as much sex as you would think. uglier women get more sex because men think, oh she'll be nice & down to earth, she has to be because she's ugly & that is usually the case. so a guy can easily sleep with a girl who is a 4 for a casual fling, so ugly girls & mid girls do tend to get more sex & get approached more. beautiful women's ego's are usually huge so they often feel they are too good to approach men, so if men don't approach them & they don't approach men... they just never get approached & they never get sex.
She didn't say all beautiful women have less sex. She said beautiful women have enough power that they can request for a committed relationship, and still they will find a man. More average women, if they request for a committed relationship, they might get nothing, so they try to go with the hookup culture.
That background music is awful.
Yes but why?
Because guys won't leave them if they don't put out
@@trevorandrade Makes sense. Less attractive women could then use that to gauge how a man truly feels about them then. If they're looking for a committed partner, leaving because you don't put out is a the biggest red flag they could get. Unfortunately, pick-mes and women (and men too) with low self esteem would rather a guy (or woman) stick around around only for sex just so they don't have to deal with being alone/lonely.
@@officersquareheadYou're making a lot of sense. Only, ironically, a lot of very good looking women have terribly low self esteem. This is common knowledge and she has said this herself, elsewhere. I'm 99% certain. Plus, there are plenty of mediocre looking women with great self esteem because 1 Their self-esteem is less likely to be based on looks alone 2 They may, additionally, be brought up to value other traits about themselves-and others 3 They may also be less damaged by the Chad phenomenon by having missed out on this entirely. Or, having Chad as an exception, rather than as a rule. Taken together, all of these factors combined, may mean average women-at least the ones who are brought up well, or, are sensible-have a broader, healhier, view of relationships-of themselves and of others. Whereas very good looking women may be spoiled and have a giant sense of entitlement driven by how they are treated owing to their looks. Instead of maturing normally, having realistic expectations, and being generally out of touch with the mundane every day ingredients of normal relationships. Even their partners may be just like this, to a large extent, albeit in a slightly different way.
He’s a liar, ignore him
Who cares
that's so true
😢fsjshri🎉yori
Ever notice how the only people who like Andrew Tate are all boys? 💗🧡💛💚💙💜
Men and women do like Andrew Tate as well.
Jordan Peterson is a disingenuous piece of crap but this actually made sense. He's still a dishonest QUACK though.
Hes very smart, but in todays world u can onl talk to idiots. idiots in power. idiots in charge. idiots on the way to extinct all humans. Even normal scientists, which are duber than him, ive met them...its really sad, but anyway, the prediction is 25-35 years. almost all Humans will be D E A D. That includes u...yet still, nothing is done. while it could be.
Why would you willingly put yourself in a situation with women like that? Say you get 5 hoes, like actual hoes on you, and you then whine and bitch about "they don't listen, they only want stuff for free" Yadda Yadda, that's not on them. You put yourself in that position. That's on you. Your wallet might be fat, but your head's as broke as a drug addict with a gambling problem.
If it's a game he's the booby prize 😂
He’s old news you can stop sucking his dick now
Unequally equal the ultimate double standard
The truth always hurt 😢
Scamdrew tate
Truth hurts 😂
@@MWAclanGaming You buy what he's saying? Dude is a literal sex trafficker
Yikes
They are not “giving up their life for you”. They are making a trade off based on their values and level of consciousness. They are making choices that fit the life they believe they want/ deserve / are capable of living…. Those men who you are revering as selfless and not wishing to oppress women? Are often the very men who do. The level of stress they take on (and don’t release) is often taken out on their wives, or in the pub (in neglect of their wife and children) There is no judgement. We need to recognise life is complex and not black and white.
Now i want food, fuck
We are the expendable gender, and we take pride in that
WoW bro.. Well said