Dating Doctor On What Women Really Want & The NEW Dating Rules To Attract Women | Dr. Orion Taraban

Key takeaways on dating, attraction, and “wellness” (emotional safety, realistic expectations, and self-work)

1) What women want (and why it can look “group-driven”)

• Women often gravitate toward what other women are gravitating toward because it can signal safety and reduce social risk.
• When many women deviate from the “center” of what’s popular/visible, it can create vulnerability, anxiety, and comparison stress.
• Social media can amplify this through a constant “highlight reel” (babies + careers + perfect social life), which can increase depression/anxiety from feeling like you’re drifting away from the norm.

2) “Sexual marketplace” ideas: filtering, crowd signals, and scarcity

Dating behavior is compared to a marketplace with too many options, where people use heuristics (shortcuts), such as:

• Choosing boats/partners with a crowd already around them
• Assuming others have done some vetting

Additional concepts:

• The Matthew principle analogy: interest attracts more interest, creating an accelerating advantage.
• The “ring phenomenon” (marriage increasing attention) can occur because:
  • being “off the market” signals safety and lower perceived risk
  • scarcity increases desire (“want” = desire + lack)

3) Build dating productivity by using multiple “wheels”

Success is framed as running multiple channels at once:

• Dating apps
• Cold approach / pickup
• Social circle (work, community, faith, living area)
• Social media

Tip:

• If you’re serious, “spin up all four wheels,” accept that it may take many dates, and treat each channel as requiring a different skillset.

4) Rejection is part of the process (numbers game)

• Men are described as needing a rejection/attempts numbers game, including:
  • expectation-setting: you may get rejected many times before success
• Women are described as defaulting more to “no” under normal circumstances, while men default more to “yes”—but this is framed as driven by relative options and value, not only biology.

5) Sexual Marketplace Value (SMV): three types

“Value” can mean different things:

• Normative SMV: social archetypes (what “most people” find attractive; alignment with cultural ideals)
• Perceived SMV: what a specific person believes about you (fit with their tastes/types)
• Transactive SMV: what partners you can actually access/attract in real exchanges (what you “can get,” confirmed via outcomes)

How to reduce the “icky” feeling:

• Everyone uses some implicit value-ranking; the goal is clarity, not shame.

6) Age dynamics and “peak” timing (as framed in the conversation)

• Women’s perceived value is described as starting higher due to cues tied to youth/fertility.
• Men’s perceived value may rise as they develop resources/status/skills.
• A claimed crossover is around age ~30, based on referenced research/logic.
• For women who want kids, prioritizing in the 20s is argued as biologically relevant, though timing is presented as contingent on goals.

7) Peak self-improvement strategies (practical “raise your SMV” advice)

To increase normative attractiveness (framed as self-care + style + basics):

• Learn style
• Workout / improve fitness
• Maintain basic hygiene
• For women: dressing/femininity choices and makeup use (context-dependent)
• Don’t try to date “the population”—identify and lean into your best-fit type (your perceived SMV path)

Additional strategy:

• Aim to be highly attractive to a small set of “true-fans” rather than broadly liked by everyone.

8) Emotional dynamics: “balance of attraction” and who should be the “adorer”

He describes relationships as often asymmetrical:

• one person is the adorer (likes more)
• the other is the adored (likes less)

Claim:

• Men often do better (and relationships can feel better) when the man is the adorer/adored role arrangement that provides the relationship’s emotional “spark” and chemistry.
• Reason given: emotional intensity can affect retention—women may leave sooner if emotional intensity is absent.

9) Attraction and healing: why therapy/self-work changes who you want

The argument:

• Attraction can be shaped by childhood “templates” and reenactment patterns (Freud-like ideas).
• You may repeatedly choose familiar dynamics—even painful ones.

How healing shifts attraction:

• people may stop being drawn to “roller coaster” partners
• and start preferring stable, supportive dynamics

A “wellness” framing emerges:

• relationships should reduce your problems
• ideally make your life better, not just provide excitement

10) Monogamy and long-term relationships: incentives, optionality, and realism

• Monogamy is portrayed as more cultural than natural/guaranteed.
• Marriage failure is framed less as moral failure and more as:
  • too much optionality
  • people shifting their personal selves over time
  • relationships becoming “roommate”/function-based once desire declines
  • mismatch in what each person still needs after the original “purpose” (e.g., having kids) is accomplished

He suggests:

• relationships shouldn’t be forced “to death” if compatibility has run its course.

11) Relationship design: reduce pressure to be everything

Don’t expect one partner to be:

• best friend + lover + therapist + mom/dad + personal chef + cheerleader

Instead:

• use the romantic partner for a few key needs
• meet other needs with friends/community/other relationships
• this reduces burden and can improve stability

---

Presenters / sources

Presenter / author

• Dr. Orion Taraban (dating/relationship author; discussed The Value of Others; YouTube channel Psychax)

Referenced theorists/books/sources

• Sigmund Freud
• “Sex at Dawn” (anthropological comparison)
• Esther Perel (referenced re: “monogamousish”)
• “Meeting in Captivity” (Perel’s book, as mentioned)
• Kevin Kelly (“true fans” analogy)
• School of Life (quote referenced; speaker not named)
• Freud’s reenactment/transferential ideas (beyond Freud, no single named source)