Better Living Through Misogyny

Orion Taraban, PhD claims to offer "better living through psychology" in his PsycHacks podcast and in a self-published book entitled, The Value of Others, in which he describes and advocates for an "economic model of relationships." In reality, he offers half-baked red-pill advice that is nothing more than misogyny posing as relationship counseling for men.

Taraban explicitly states that love has nothing to do with romantic relationships.

What a Relationship Is

According to Taraban's economic model, relationships are the medium of exchange for "unequal goods of comparable value." In other words, they facilitate a mutually beneficial exchange, to wit: Women have sex with men because they want the material goodies they can provide. Men, likewise, provide material goods in order to get sex. Taraban explicitly states that love has nothing to do with romantic relationships.

The process that produces relationships between men and women occurs in the "sexual marketplace" in which everyone has a fixed value according to current cultural standards and personal preference. He likens it to a boat dock where captains, i.e., men, negotiate with passengers, i.e., women, for passage on their vessel. The "vessel" in this context is a metaphor for everything the man brings to the sexual marketplace that has value to women, which boils down to the material benefits he can afford his passengers and little else.

From the start, this analogy implies a chauvinistic relationship between the sexes. Men are the ones who build and pilot the vessel and determine its course. Women are passengers who go wherever the captain wants to take them. They can choose the vessel to travel on, of course, and its destination, but once onboard they have no authority to determine its course. To do so would constitute a "mutiny" punishable in the harshest terms.

You might think that in this day and age, women are capable of building and piloting their own vessels, so they too can be captains. Taraban agrees that this is theoretically possible, but says that it rarely occurs because most men do not want to be passengers on a female captain's vessel, and most women balk at the thought of taking on a male passenger. The sexist assumptions implicit in both of these sentiments elude Taraban. He never considers that the entire metaphor of captains and passengers is suspect and should no longer apply to a modern and egalitarian "sexual marketplace," but this would subvert his economic model of relationships.

The Please-No of Relationships

In Taraban's economic model, people enter into romantic relationships in order to get things from other people. Because people don't give things away just because others want them, a negotiating process is necessary. Thus negotiation is the fundamental basis of all relationships; those who are good at it get their needs met, while those who aren't go wanting.

Taraban illustrates this point by drawing on his prior training as an actor in New York City. In school, he played a theater game called please-no, the objective of which is for a "wanter" to convince a "giver" to give him or her what they want simply by uttering the word please. The giver can respond only with yes or no, and must start the game saying no.

The problem with Taraban's view of romantic relationships isn't that he's entirely wrong, but that he's so incredibly right.

Taraban considers the lessons he learned from the please-no game to be crucial to his understanding of romantic relationships. Generally speaking, it is the male who asks for what he wants from the female, which is sex. For the female to retain her market value, she must not give it away too cheaply, withholding her favors until she receives sufficient compensation. In later chapters, the author describes strategies for being a successful wanter in a world of reluctant pleasers.

The problem with Taraban's view of romantic relationships isn't that he's entirely wrong, but that he's so incredibly right. He does indeed describe the world of the so-called sexual marketplace for a large segment of the population.

Why then do I take him to task? Because no one with the imprimatur of the supposedly august field of psychology, who purports to offer "better living" through its nostrums, should be so devoid of human decency as is Taraban. His endorsement of a capitalistic, exchange-of-goods-for-services approach to relationships turns women into whores and men into John's. It is utterly unconscionable.

[Taraban] is Andrew Tate wrapped in the legitimizing cloak of psychological wisdom and insight, weaponizing psychology in the service of misogyny and sexism.

In his book, Value, and elsewhere, Taraban speaks not in the healing language of psychology but in the sordid vernacular of the red-pill world of alpha males and passive beta males, of chads and incels, of dominance and submission. He is Andrew Tate wrapped in the legitimizing cloak of psychological wisdom and insight, weaponizing psychology in the service of misogyny and sexism.

Unfortunately, Taraban shares his advice and counsel widely through the PsycHacks podcast, through YouTube interviews with content creators, and in an online group for men (of course). Psychology is supposed to ease human suffering, but Taraban does not contribute to that cause. He is buttressing the most loathsome attitudes and practices found in the dating world, and for that reason deserves to be criticized and condemned.

Tarabon's issue is the way he describes a basic truth about modern-day partnered relationships: that both parties must bring something more to the table than their looks and personalities. That is, they must have built something in their lives that has value to themselves and a potential mate, e.g., a career, wealth, an exciting lifestyle, and the like. Tarabon frames this issue based on outdated and sexist assumptions about men and women—his captains and passengers metaphor. His advice, therefore, is misguided.

Better living through misogyny is no way for a decent, self-respecting man to attract a partner.