The Culture War #56 The Death Of Western Man & His Revival w/ Rollo Tomassi & Tim Gordon
Host:
Tim Pool
Guests:
Rollo Tomassi | therationalmale.com
Tim Gordon | Retvrn.us
Producers:
Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X)
Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X)
Connect with TENET Media:
https://www.tenetmedia.com/
https://twitter.com/watchTENETnow
https://www.facebook.com/watchTENET
https://rumble.com/c/c-5080150
https://www.instagram.com/watchtenet/
https://www.tiktok.com/@watchtenet
https://www.youtube.com/@watchTENET
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There's an interesting divide politically where women seem to be skewing leftward and men seem to be skewing to the right.
And I believe it's plainly obvious there is a strong moral decay in this country and in the West in general, which has led to a lot of interesting conversations around dating, masculinity.
Jordan Peterson, of course, becomes extremely popular by telling young men to clean their rooms and lift heavy things.
Andrew Tate becomes extremely popular for similar reasons.
Maybe young men are looking for strong and masculine role models that can teach them how to be strong men, and they're not getting that anymore.
Or maybe something else is going on.
So we're going to talk about all of that.
We're going to debate a bunch.
And let's talk about the death of the Western man and his revival.
We got a couple of guests.
Do you want to introduce yourself first?
unidentified
Rollo Tomasi, I'm the co-host of Access Vegas, also The Rational Male.
I'm the author of The Rational Male, as well as the five book series, The Rational Male.
I thought it would be interesting to ask Ian here, because he recently started working out, and it's spiking his testosterone, and he's getting angrier, and he was just working out the other day.
unidentified
I didn't know, but Rollo, you play Magic the Gathering, so I'm glad I'm here.
It's all about family, and that's literally what the term means, is power to fathers.
In this country, I hope we're going to talk about the declining interest in men and family, and of course patriarchy is all about men who are siring children with one wife monogamously, and it's being made unattractive to them by a kind of design from the top.
Well, I mean, it's honestly, I think that there's probably a lot of crossover between like, say, patriarchy and the red pill, you know, red pill thought, let's just say.
And this, I believe, the concept of the red pill, the way you're describing it, predates MAGA and politics.
unidentified
Oh yeah, well you gotta remember, like I've been doing this, the material I guess, for 22 years now.
So really since about 2004, 2002, somewhere around there.
The early pick-up artist days all the way up through, you know, what became the manosphere, what became the red pill, what we call it today.
So, um, I, I think a lot of it gets bastardized, especially during election seasons, like right around 2015, 2016, you got a Candace Owens who used to be, call herself, you know, red pill black.
That was her, her first Twitter handle.
I remember those days too, because I remember when you used to strap a GoPro to your head and you'd go down to Berkeley and, you know, go and see if somebody is going to stir something up there, you know, Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter.
Um, but we go, we tend to go in cycles and I think that a lot of people sort of appropriate the red pill to like, you know, represent whatever their, you know, their pet ideology happens to be.
And usually it comes up like during election season, same thing happened in 2019, 2020, same thing happening right now.
Yeah.
I think of it as like an awakening, like from the matrix comes from that movie.
Like, do you want to take the red pill and wake up and see reality as it is?
Or do you want to take the blue pill?
It's sort of like breaking, breaking the cycle of, of seeing things one way and then being aware.
I knew when I refer to red pill, I refer to it as red pill awareness.
So what is it in terms of the, is it intersexual dynamics?
How do you, what is the red pill in regards to that?
Well, I mean, a lot of it, I think a lot of the, what we call red pill right now is sort of a bastardization of really what is the praxeology of the red pill, which is, it's essentially just data.
It's essentially just understanding data and then forming opinions.
And again, are you familiar with the OODA loop?
I've heard that before.
What is it?
It's a military term, but it's also like coders use it as well.
It's observe, orient, decide, and act.
So of the first two, observe and orient, that would be the red pill, like understanding what's going on, orienting yourself to what's going on.
Decide and act is really sort of the practice.
What are you going to do with the information that you already have?
So when I'm referring to the red pill, it's about intersexual dynamics, but it's about understanding the stats.
It's understanding the data first, orienting to that data, interpreting it, and then deciding and then acting.
That's usually where you've got like, say, Pearl Davis, or you've got Andrew Tate, or these are people who want to go out there and make a living or go commercialize the decide and the act part of that OTA loop right there.
Yeah, for those that aren't familiar, it's a specific way of describing young men who lock themselves in their room, do nothing all day, play video games, don't exercise, don't get sunlight, don't work.
I think it's because we have the ability to do that right now, because we have the luxury of being able to do those things.
We live in a, I mean, Western societies right now, it's, those young men can do that.
Yeah.
We've never been a more sedated society than we are right now.
So we sedate ourselves with pornography.
We sedate ourselves with the internet.
We sedate ourselves with video games.
We sedate ourselves with weed.
We sedate ourselves with alcohol, with prescription opiates.
name your sedation right now and I will point out where in society it is affordable and it's a luxury that we can we can have right now simply because we live in you know a very rich society and I would I would agree with all of those problems role is just identified but I would I would add this loop that Egalitarianism is the real beginning.
It began in 1848 at something called the Seneca Falls Convention of first-wave feminists.
These were the worst sorts of feminists and we've all bought the trope that first-wave feminism was somehow good.
So we have sex egalitarianism telling brainwashing men and women that they're the same thing.
Brainwashing Christians that they're the same thing.
That women need to be in the workforce.
Basically a non-Christian view of human sexuality was pushed on young Christian men.
Whether it's a combination of sort of Muslim and Jewish views about sexuality.
Christianity mocked.
Marriage and family spurned, and it's interesting when you look at what's coming down from FBI, CIA, NSA, really a negative view of marriage pushed in Hollywood by something I call a Moon-Beasley complex, right?
Women are fun, romantic, feminine, while they're looking to court a man, and then as soon as they get engaged, you put a ring on it, they're depicted like Daphne Moon or Pam Beasley as furrowing the brow and then marriage, the boot comes down and it's hell.
- Yes. - Okay, just wondering if, you know, what I find interesting, we've talked about this quite a bit when it comes up, but I despise "Married With Children." You ever see that show?
unidentified
- Yes. - I was a kid. - I could never get behind that show. - Wasn't funny.
But the thing is, on that, people all identified, Tim, that married with children was unsubtly about hating marriage.
What happened, what really came in in the late 80s, early 90s, You see it, I picked The Office and Frasier because they're two of the biggest sitcoms of all time.
You see with Daphne Moon and Pam Beasley that very romantic relationships are begun the standard way with gender non-egalitarianism.
The woman is feminine, the man is masculine.
Jim and Pam, they were America's sweethearts.
But with Moon Beasley Complex, which is predictive programming that's distinguishable from Married with Children, what you have is the foot slowly coming down, and by the time, literally if you go to seasons 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of Frasier, once Niles and Daphne are together, I don't know if you guys remember that show, one of the greatest of all time, she's just frowning.
Every single shot of Daphne Now Niall's his wife.
She's frowning.
She's miserable.
She's so pleasant and lovely before that, and then it slowly turns when they get together and get engaged, and it's the exact same character arc in the nine seasons of The Office.
This is predictive programming, and it comes down from the top, and it's part of our...
unidentified
You also have the, the, the archetype of the sort of the doofy dad, like you were mentioning Homer Simpson, like that's- Peter Griffin.
Those are the, those are the archetypes you're, you're getting really since the, well, I guess the late seventies, early eighties through where we are right now.
You basically have three archetypes.
You've got the doofy dad who needs mom, Marge, to save him from himself, right?
You know, she's with her feminine while she's going to be the one who's going to like sort of, you know, her intuition, right?
She's going to save him from like, you know, Setting the house on fire.
The guy who's like, he's just a controlling, domineering, possessive son of a bitch who is just this side of like sending her to a, you know, women's shelter.
To the moon.
Yeah, exactly.
Jackie Gleason archetype.
And then there's really more in recent times, I think it's the incompetent guy.
It's the more millennial slash Gen Z Zoomer guy who doesn't know how to drive a stick.
He doesn't know how to tie a tie.
He doesn't know how to do, you know, he's incompetent.
So those are really sort of the three archetypes that women I think that they have to choose from, and they don't wanna choose from any of those.
See, I gotta give a shout out to Futurama back when we had good shows.
I mean, they're bringing it back, I guess, but it's like the first episode, I think, they go to the moon, and Fry and Leela, characters in the show, are doing a moon tour, and it's like, and here's the history of moon exploration, and it was whalers on the moon, and then they show a clip where it's like, here's a reenactment from early American astronauts, and it's Jackie Gleason going, one of these days, bang, zoom.
Straight to the moon.
And then Leela's like, I didn't realize your astronauts were so fat.
He's like, he's not an astronaut.
He was just using space travel for, as a metaphor for beating his wife.
I guess it's funny because it's true.
unidentified
I've got this train of thought now that you mentioned 1848, the beginning of this was the feminine, the rise of the feminist movement.
So is this like with the hyper-industrialist movement to get the women into the workforce, get women rights, to get them out on their feet?
Because this is like right around when the railroads are starting to get the 1800s, like industrialization.
And And then that leads to corporate oligopoly, which leads to communism, like no-fault divorce in the 80s, but like, is this all part of the destruction of that?
I don't think it's any, maybe he'll confer with this, I don't think it's any coincidence that Marxism and feminism came up right around the same time.
Sure.
I would argue that in the initial, right after Senate, I use, when I talk about feminism, I don't talk about it in waves because I don't believe there were any waves.
I think it's the same fucking thing that it's been for forever, okay?
Um, it's only been interrupted by wars and civil unrest.
And when we got to the point where it was, uh, what 1920 is when we had the 19th amendment ratified, right.
It was the suffragette movement was supposed to be just so we can get our women can get the right to vote and everything, but it was much more than that.
Uh, they were referred to as terrorists back then in the United States and in the UK at that time.
Yeah, right.
I mean, seriously, bombing police precincts, planning assassinations, things like that.
There's a really great book.
It's called The Suffragette Bombers.
And it goes through the news cycle of what was going on during that time.
And really, they were referred to as terrorists right up until maybe the early 1900s.
And then by the time we get to 1920, And we ratify the 19th amendment.
Now we move from the suffragette into feminism proper.
And until we get to about 1965, when we have the advent of hormonal birth control, we are interrupted by two world wars.
God knows how many different revolutions and everything else.
But it's no coincidence that either Marxism was sort of a tandem to that, or it was something that picked up on the movement and sort of found common ground together.
It's interesting you said there's no waves, because I'm just thinking now feminism is one beast that only kind of changes shape as technology changes.
It's like the radio.
We have to stop thinking of it in waves, because I think a lot of people say, well, first wave feminism was great.
Actually, it's a really, really important chapter, too, of Case for Patriarchy.
I traced it out from 1848, which is memorialized in a document called Declaration of Grievances by Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
Who was this literal witch who was running things at 1848, and they itemized the big goals of feminism then, and it's really staggering to people when they see.
I go line item, first wave feminism.
Mallory and Kate Millett second wave feminism from a 1970s New York boardroom where they're making a chant of what does second wave feminism stand for.
It is self-same, like Rollo just said.
Sex egalitarianism, convince people from the top that men and women aren't different.
We're totally different.
We're totally polarized.
Contraception, women in the workplace, Women out of the home and be equally promiscuous to match this Lilith view of men that the feminists have.
That all comes right out of the 1848 document.
Also get women in clergy, which is like fourth wave feminism.
One thing that we've talked about is the lack of civic responsibility that women retained despite getting the right to vote.
And so my view is pretty much You want to be equal, then you have equal responsibilities along with those equal rights, and those responsibilities are literally everything.
How is it that today, men are required to sign up for the draft, but women are not, but women expect full civic privilege?
Well, I mean, you're not even—okay, if you want to be a naturalized citizen in the United States, and you're male, and you're 18, you have to sign up for selective services.
So, I actually think one of the quickest ways to resolve a lot of these issues, quite literally, is for all men to mandate, or I shouldn't say mandate, but to demand equal civic responsibility with equal civil rights.
Anybody who wants civic privileges has to be held responsible to the same degree.
If men and women are the same, women should not have that privilege of avoiding the draft.
But real quick, the reality is, I get these conservatives then going, Jim wants to draft women!
No, it's because outright liberals would reject the premise.
I guarantee you, if you go to a woman and say, vote right now, you have the right to vote and you get drafted, or you can't vote and you can't be drafted, 60-70% say, do not draft me.
I would rather not vote.
I don't care about voting anyway.
So, ask that question and see what the result you get is.
But I actually think, fine.
In any capacity, anybody wants to participate in our society, they have to have the same responsibilities as everybody else.
But the problem with this is, as you know, you're just trying to demonstrate the inequality equality.
It's...
Hegelian dialectic, false equality, and that's basically the kind of centric society that Rollo's talking about, is that everything in society is geared toward lending the appearance of equality with men when it comes to benefits But not burdens, and you could take it to war.
There's a pro one that they paired alongside Steph Curry in the NBA as if they were shooting the same ball.
She wasn't shooting a basketball.
She wasn't shooting a regulation-sized ball.
So it's all bread and circuses.
And she did really well.
And it's like, but you're throwing a softball.
This guy's throwing a baseball.
It's a different sport.
Sports are fundamentally Masculine.
And yet, cuckservatives today will jump all over if you're like, okay, sports are fundamentally masculine.
They're training for military.
I hope we all agree on that.
Maybe not.
But conservatives will jump all over your case if you're like, okay, so it's gender dysphoria for a man to want to play a man's sport once you've stuck a woman in there.
I agree that's gender dysphoria, but I think we're disagreeing as to where it becomes dysphoric.
Typical conservatives today will say, well, women should have their own league.
Why?
If it's egalitarian, why should they have their own league?
If we really believe that women are basically just low-functioning men, which is not what I believe, I believe women are They're beautiful havers of babies, and they create what's good and beautiful in the world, what's crafty in the world, what men want to fight for.
Women are great cheerleaders.
Men are the ones going out playing the sports.
So why are we sticking them, fakely, next to Steph Curry as if they could compete when everyone knows they can't?
It's laughable too because we're launching this big skate thing.
April 6th is our big opening for the Boonies and we're getting flack because I have a ton of video segments I've done where I said female skateboarders are that if there is any sport where you can see the distinction plain as day, it is skateboarding.
When I watch tennis, I know nothing about tennis.
I see two men play tennis, I see the ball go back and forth, and I'm like, okay.
I watch two men play tennis, I see the ball go back and forth, I say, okay.
I don't really understand the difference in the court size, or the rackets, or the speed, or any of that stuff.
But you watch skateboarding, and you watch a dude do a double backflip over a 100 foot gap, and then fly up 47 feet in the air, slam and hit the ground, and then walk away from it, and then you watch women do that, and they just jump, and they do no trick at all.
You're like, okay, wait, well, the women are literally doing nothing.
The men are doing these crazy aerial acrobatics.
To the layman, you can literally watch female skateboarding.
And I mean no disrespect to the fe- I have friends who are female skateboarders, many of them.
You can plainly see...
The gap between males and females in skateboarding is, it's 100x.
It is insane.
We watched, we pulled up, I think it was on the Culture War, we pulled up an X Games street skateboarding women's, and yeah, it was on the show we were talking with some skateboarders, and we were bringing up the difference between male and females in skateboarding, and the best female skaters in the world are as good as 12 year old boys who've been skating for four months.
And then you watch the best men in the world.
And I can do a play by play and be like, never in my life, no matter how hard I try, would I get to that level?
These are the cream of the crop, the best of the best guys that are doing things we couldn't even imagine were possible.
You watch the women and you're like, I'm 38, semi-retired, and I could do all those tricks.
You see this, I think it was the Fallon Fox incident in MMA 12 years ago or whatever.
The female fighters did not know they were going up against a male.
One woman had her skull cracked and she said, I've never felt a strike so powerful before.
I think what happens is, We've socialized people from a very young age.
And you know what, I blame comic books and cartoons.
We've talked about this.
Watching X-Men or other cartoons when you're a kid, there is no distinction between males and females.
They are both superpowers.
They're both equally as powerful.
So then I think you get young women who grow up on this stuff.
And maybe when they're young teenagers, the distinctions are different.
But after 14, 15, you look at male grip strength.
The average male is stronger than the strongest female in terms of grip strength, which is, it's like a wild thing to consider.
Then you end up, I think, with many women who begin entering sports genuinely believing that there is no distinction.
Not all women, I think a lot of women clearly understand that men and women are very different, but a lot of women are probably thinking- Until they get punched in the face.
unidentified
Until, like Mike Tyson said, everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.
But the leftist worldview, the blank slate theory says it's fine.
unidentified
That's where I was going next.
This entire conversation, I've had this a million times, it's founded on two things.
One is the blank slate.
The other thing is social constructionism.
We think that because if we pair up the blank slate, like everybody's equal, everybody has a, an equal chance.
We're all, we're all basically the same except for the plumbing.
And other than that, we're all, you know, everybody can do what everybody else can't.
Then you have the social construction narrative that goes along with that.
Everything that you're about is because society embedded it in you.
Both of those are patently false.
And we've gone from, let's say like right around 2000, once we have the internet, the rise of the internet, we have more and more, um, Access to information these days, we can see empirically that men and women are different.
We can see empirically that men and men are different and women and women are different.
So when we're talking about female skateboarders, I think within that context of that particular sport, there are some women who are going to excel in that sport within the context of it being a female division sport.
But then there's also men who are going to be playing at a different level in the context of a male sport.
But the fundamental difference here is we have been acculturated and socialized for so long to believe that the blank slate is something that we all should aspire to.
We can make a better society as a result of it, or egalitarianism, as you were saying.
That's really where egalitarianism comes from.
It comes from this communitarian way of thinking about things rather than a hierarchical way of thinking things.
For men, men tend to organize societies in hierarchies.
Women tend to organize it in the round.
It tends to be more communitarian because it takes a village to raise a child.
They're more interested in sort of the collective, whereas men are always trying to get one step up above each other.
So that's how we rank our soldiers in the hierarchy of like, say, you're the colonel in the chain of command, right?
Same thing applies to our businesses.
You're the CEO, you're the COO, you're the CFO, you're whatever down to the janitor, right?
So we tend to organize things in hierarchies.
Women tend to organize it in the round.
Ever since right around, say, the post-sexual revolution era, we have been organizing society in the round.
We've been organizing it in egalitarian terms, in communitarian terms, at the expense of all of these institutions, let's just say, that were prior organized via Hierarchy.
So when we're talking about patriarchy, patriarchy is a hierarchy, whereas for matriarchy, ideally anyways, should be in the round.
It should be something that's more egalitarian.
The problem is, is that's no way to organize society either one way or the other, where we're grossing out in one or we're grossing out in the other.
Right now, that's why I kept saying we live in a gynocentric social order ever since we've had hormonal birth control, because that was the great equalizer from as far back as, say, 1965.
So what we're seeing right now is like whenever you see, what was it?
The guy who was the swimmer who was like the number 427th male swimmer becomes the number one female swimmer when he declares that he actually identifies as a female.
Now he's the number one.
Now he wins because he's biologically a male who is competing in the context of a female sport.
In this case, it's swimming, right?
And we go, oh yes, we love that.
Well, that's fine when it's swimming.
It's not so fine when now you've got to go and do an MMA fight and somebody's going to get their skull cracked because we still believe that men and women should be equal and they should be able to do this until the rubber meets the road.
Now here's the other thing that happens is when women want to compete in those areas, they have to either change the nature of the game or they have to get a whole lot better.
When the WNBA first came out, there was talk about lowering the baskets of Yeah, so that they could dunk, right?
Well, they threw that idea out later on because they got more taller women who could actually dunk because they thought that that was what's going to put asses in the seats for the WNBA.
No, it's still struggling as a sport today.
But the fundamental lesson of that is that we're going to change the nature of the game To suit the talents of the player.
Now, that's in sports.
Think about how we use that same institution in other things.
We're going to lower the requirements for women to be in combat positions in the U.S.
military because we want to get more women in there because we still believe in this blank slate bullshit where we think that women can be just as effective as combat soldiers, as men can be.
So a friend of mine growing up was, for a period, one of the top female skateboarders.
She actually was really good.
Comparable to the guys in Chicago, she was like, for whatever reason, way better.
Good friend of mine.
And I got to go with her to the X Games when I was 18 and she was 17.
The third place prize, I believe at the time, was like $1,300.
For women in the X Games.
For men, it was $13,000.
At least that's what we were told at the time.
I don't know, the numbers could be slightly different.
First place for the men's was like $30,000.
First place for the women's was like $3,000.
And so there was this organization that I had actually... I knew the founder of, and I knew several of the pro females that were involved in it, said, this is discrimination.
You have two contests.
You have a men's contest and a women's contest.
You then give the women 10% of what the men get.
That's sex discrimination.
If you want to pay the top prizes, ESPN at the time said, women don't sell tickets.
And their response was, you selling tickets is your problem, not the athlete's problem.
If you're saying you want the best men and the best women in the world, you can't pay them separately.
It was an interesting argument.
ESPN refused and said, we don't care because we don't make money.
We'd sooner just get rid of it than have to spend 10x on something that doesn't make money.
So what I was told by some of the people involved was, They announced a press conference to announce either a lawsuit or some action to be taken against Disney ESPN for sex-based discrimination and paying them in less.
However, the problem was the female athletes did not want to boycott.
They were happy to be getting whatever sponsorships they could, they were happy to get whatever cash they could, and they were concerned that ESPN would cancel the women's sporting- the women's street events because quite literally nobody bought tickets to go see them.
So what this organization did, at least is what they told me, they announced publicly a press conference and they said the top female athletes in the world are going to be giving a press conference breaking down sex pay discrimination at the X Games.
And they sent notice to ESPN saying, you're not going to be happy with what comes next.
However, knowing that the women did not actually want to do it, didn't want to boycott, they didn't tell any of the women that there was going to be a press conference.
And so when the press conference happened, no one showed up.
When ESPN then asks, wait, where are they at?
Where's the press conference?
They went, wow, I guess they're boycotting you.
You're in trouble now.
Now the press is going to be that they're refusing to even show up.
ESPN immediately backed down and said, we will pay parity now.
So now you have the X Games subsidizing sporting events that don't sell tickets.
Where we are at right now is the propaganda, the lies, the manipulation, and allowing males to compete in female sports, but you never see the inverse.
It's fascinating that the hypocrisy or the paradox doesn't exist in the mind of the left, liberal, or whatever, that we actually don't get Ever!
Controversy around a biological female attempting to compete in male sports.
And the reality is, for most major league sports, I believe for all of them except for college, there is no male-female distinction in the major leagues.
A woman is allowed to try out for the NBA, a woman is allowed to try out for the NFL, they just don't make it.
Many women have actually tried to be kickers in the NFL, and they've come close, but they've never quite made it.
There is no restriction for them.
In female sports, there is a restriction, but now they've removed that.
So, we have seen a couple things.
Mac Beggs is a biological female, taking male cross-sex hormones, identifying as a male, and competing against females.
It was actually due to the law requiring women to compete against women and men against men that resulted in someone taking testosterone, a female, winning all of these fights and having more muscle mass and things like that.
And then you end up, of course, with the same scenario where it's biological males competing against females and not in male leagues.
It only, only ever affects female sports.
In which case, we are entering, we are entering the room, we are walking through the door where there will be no more female sports.
It will just be identity-based sports.
There will be the Merit League, and then there will be the Identity League.
They wander out and they're like, oh, daddy, can we do layup drills with you and Gaby?
Yeah, of course.
They're interested in it for four minutes.
What you cannot discount in a gynocentric society that this guy's described for many, many years, quite aptly, Is the fact that fathers have gotten it into their mind, like, oh, I guess this is the new normal now.
And they're pushing their daughters.
So my daughters come out there, they play for four minutes.
So then they go back in the house and they go do something they really want to do.
But I don't tell them, no, you can't come shoot layouts.
I do keep Gabe out there.
And he wants to stay out there, but there's a fundamentally different female nature.
So we all, I thought, agreed.
unidentified
That sex egalitarianism is wrong.
Let's parse it.
I'm gonna go, like, I agree with what you're saying, but I'm gonna go on the biological side of things here.
Like, if we look at Megan Rapinoe, for example, who, you know, wants to have equal pay for, like, you know, playing soccer and everything.
If you look at it from the economics perspective, actually the female soccer team is making more money than the male soccer team if you, by rate of comparison, and you put it, like, within market versus market.
The female, the female soccer team is actually making more money than the male soccer team is because they make more money.
And as a portion of that particular, uh, take of the money that they're making right there as a result, we still have women saying, well, we're not being paid as much as they are.
They just simply just don't understand the economics of it, but they want that equality.
They want, we want, we want gender parity.
We want 77 cents on the dollar, whatever it is, you know, the, the gender pay gap, but it's not, it is not real, but, uh, just ask Dr. Phil.
Um, but the, um, the, the long and short of it here is that when you have a Megan Rapinoe talking about that, it's building that narrative and really what it's building is this idea that we're, we're supposed to be a blank slate society that we're supposed to all be equal.
And the problem with the equality is that equality is a false god.
So when we're talking, like I don't believe in equality, period, end of story.
Because when we're talking about equality, it doesn't exist inside of a vacuum like Megan Rapinoe would like to say, "Well, it's apples for apples." It's not apples for apples.
You are female, they are male.
You are in a different market than they are.
It's this idea of having sort of this idealized, egalitarian, equalist society.
Whereas what are we expecting from either sex?
So when we're talking, it's easy to make this example about sports, okay?
Because men have, you know, we have broader shoulders, we have more upper body muscle mass, everything else.
It's easy to point that out.
What about when we're talking about mathematics?
What about when we're talking about chess?
What about when we're talking about other things that aren't even necessarily physical?
But I forget the name of the teacher, the college guy who was talking about how women do not excel in certain aspects of like, men have better spatial ability to like, you know, rotate a three-dimensional object.
We can throw with more force.
We're innately born with that as our firmware to be able to do certain things.
We have certain predilections that we're born with because it's just built into our psyches.
It's built into our thing.
But then we're going to say, well, that's horrible.
Can you teach a young woman, a young girl to be a pretty good pitcher for a little league team?
Yeah, you can do that, but it's easier to do it with a male because a male already has that innate firmware that's already part of their starting pack.
What conservatives are kind of tepid on this, which is most everyone, they'll be agreeing with us.
And then you push the point and you're like, well, I could literally drag my six girls out there for as long as I keep my son out there and they could get slightly less inadequate at basketball, but they'd be unhappy and I would be conditioning them with gender dysphoria and conservatives won't take the point.
That the capacity to do something, as it's rejected by the natural law, which tells us our male nature, females, their female nature.
Because I could go to my wife's closet and put on her dress, and it's not like a force field, it flies off my body or something like that, I can't get the dress to stay on.
Conservatives will say, well, if he has the capacity to put on a dress, I guess it's not wrong.
We're all tempted to start going there.
Tim, you're tempted to start going.
Girls can stand on a skateboard and learn to roll and learn a couple basic flip tricks.
Like, I know they can.
There's nothing in nature that repels them from doing that.
What I guess we're saying is that, which is pure agreement so far, is that they're being conditioned at all levels, from the top down, and their fathers, to want to do that.
Whereas before, it's not in their nature to want to do it.
A neighbor the other day, really nice guy, came by.
He saw me shooting with my boy.
He was like, you got six girls, you gotta get them out there.
I'm like, no.
They don't want to be out here, man.
He's like, what about the female NBA player you said?
No, but what I'm telling you is, if your daughter said, if she said, I want to stay outside and play basketball with you, I would say, yeah, well, that's fine, but I'm also your father, so you can stay out here maybe a little longer than the other girls, but since you're, and this wouldn't happen and doesn't happen, but, and I have a larger than a female basketball team is all my, Crypto-feminist neighbors have pointed out to me, it doesn't happen.
But if it did, I'd say, okay, you could stay out a couple extra minutes.
Now go in the house and learn to cook.
That's what a father does.
And that's the difference between conservatives in 2014 and 2015 objecting to third wave gender dysphoria, which is like Bruce Jenner puts on a dress and says, ontologically speaking, I can be a female.
The point I'm making is, I know many females who skateboard, and if their dad said you can't skateboard anymore, they would hide a skateboard at their friend's house, Well, I'm not sure what they would do.
I grew up with people, there were very few female skateboarders, one or two, and they wanted to skate, and they would go skate, and they would go skate by themselves.
Okay, no, you said what they would do if their father- My friends growing up, and I'm at the X Games, and there's dozens of young women who skate, chose to be there, wanted to be there, asked for the equipment, said they want to be there, and I think I do not agree with the idea that the father should be like, no.
Well, as a father of six girls, it's absolutely your job to correct and say, look, this is ultimately not going to make you happy if any of my kids are running into the street.
I correct them all the time, Tim, and I say, no, this is not ultimately good for you.
If my kids want to eat strychnine, they never have, I'd say, no, this is not good for you.
Oh, I didn't say the same thing, but this is just a hypothetical.
You gave the hypothetical of them running away, and all I'm saying is, it's not good for them That's gender dysphoria, to do the same things as men.
And what I'm challenging conservatives to do is to have a look at the real difference between men and women, because we all agreed on it, all four of us, there's a real difference, and say, why are we so uncomfortable with the functional differences between men and women?
I'm not talking about putting on a dress when you're a guy, but what you should familiarize yourself with is a hardcore feminist sociologist, Wolfer and Stevenson, I did a study in the 70s after women were driven into the workforce by shame.
It's called The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, Time Life has covered it.
Every five years they notice as women entered and drove the workforce, really act like men in 1970, Female happiness, particularly white suburban female happiness, went down every year.
And they call it a paradox.
I would just say this is a phenomenon.
There is a female nature, Tim.
There is a male nature, and this is why, it's bliss, but this is why I'm saying as a dad of six girls, I don't have that Luxury.
Like, I want them to be the most happy, meaning a moral, Eudaimonian, Aristotelian happiness.
I want them to be the most happy possible, so if they run in the street, that's obvious danger.
If they want to start doing boy things 5, 6, 7, 8 hours a day, that will make them feel like inadequate boys.
You said all the girls you knew aren't good skaters.
They're good for females.
Exactly.
They're good for females, but they're always going to be comparing themselves to the standard in a male sport.
It's like there's a cylinder in the middle of the joint and then there's two platforms that work independently of each other with single wheels that go in every direction.
Travis Pastrana is based, sponsored by Black Rifle, I believe, and they're married and they have lots of kids.
I don't see why Lindsay should have been told not to be a skateboarder.
unidentified
True, yeah.
I mean, playing for fun is one thing, and getting good at something can be great for your confidence, but playing professionally, you just want the best.
Humans.
But anyway, you brought up cheerleading, and I think it is a super important role.
This is something I've learned.
Say in football, the crowd is the 13th man on the field, because if you've ever done cheerleading, or if you've ever been in the crowd in the enemy team, the opposing team can hear your voice.
It's a proxy for war.
When they hit the ball and you scream and the people that are on the defensive shock and stand, get shocked and like miss the ball because they're terrified by your scream.
You win as a cheerleader.
Like the woman empowering the men is a big part of the success of the team.
But I will also not the women, but people empowering the crowd, empowering the team with their voices and their movement is like massively important.
It's similar with a woman in a family.
You know, that's what she's doing for the man in a lot of ways.
What I always tell people, though, is exception makes bad law.
And there's a reason the law of averages always wins.
The reason that those two feminists, Wolfer and Stevenson, their research was so important was because they wanted The data to show something that they were honest enough to publish otherwise.
They gainsaid their own conclusion, which was, we thought that women would be happier when they started doing a function.
I'm not talking about gender dysphoria, actually claiming to be men, but functionally.
Acting like men.
And functional gender dysphoria, just feminism, it's actually far more pervasive than Bruce Jenner putting on a dress.
It affects 99% of women out there.
And it's far more insidious.
And they're like, wow, women are becoming unhappy.
I want my daughters to grow up and be happy in the Aristotelian Christian sense.
That means you correct him.
You're like, yeah, you can do that.
Like I said, I didn't, people are going to be seeking to, you know, liberals do this, Tim.
They're going to be like, this guy said he will never let his daughter out.
No, that's cool.
And if one of the six daughters wants to stay out an extra five or 10 minutes, fine.
But they don't want to stay out much longer than that.
The way the guys, by their nature, want to stay out one, two, three, four hours.
And yeah, there's, exception makes bad law.
So there might be one girl out of a million that wants to stay out.
All day long, and skate, and shoot.
But that's bad law for us to legislate in society.
I'm not talking about legislating.
unidentified
I got a question for you.
I know you don't have a daughter, but if you had a daughter, would you allow her to compete in beauty pageants?
But the child pageants I say absolutely no, absolutely no.
If it is more of like the combination of talent where they have like what's your talent, what's your, then you have to speak, then you have to wear a formal dress and display, absolutely.
Have a platform have a have a yeah like I I don't like the weird sexualized child beauty pageants So I'd say no to the generic, but if it's how we typically view Wear a formal dress There's like there's like the dress portion then there's the talent portion then there's the speech portion.
unidentified
That's fine So the reason I'm asking that is because that is a more stereotypical female Proclivity let's just say to be a more of a girly girl as opposed to being the tomboy I want to skate right my daughter can do a ripstick.
She's not competing in ripstick competitions anymore But she has my daughter has been in pageants before right because she really wanted to be in that she really wanted to do good and she really wanted to apply herself to that and
I think one of the problems that we have, particularly in the 21st century anyways, is because we believe in this sort of gender equalism, I think, is that we tend to say, okay, well, how horrible it is that you won't encourage your daughter to do, you know, skateboarding, but you will, you're okay with her doing beauty pageants, or the opposite way around.
Because when he was talking about like there are, and I believe you were too, Talking about the differences in male nature versus female nature, there are certain proclivities that both boys and girls tend to gravitate towards.
And in that vein, all I was saying is, and I'm not defensive on the point, I'd love to have rational debate about it, but it's better for a woman to get good at woman things And for men to get better at men things.
Women who get married and have kids are not, for the most part, working at the New York Times, writing articles about the joys of childlessness.
So the prominent voices from females in media tend to be childless, unmarried women.
Because, simply put, married women are raising kids and focusing on family.
The married guys are focusing on making money for their families and things like that.
So, I guess the first question is, Is it, everything we just talked about that's resulting in men not getting married, how do we solve this problem?
What do you think?
unidentified
Incentives, I think that's the first place to go.
When you're looking at women going into OnlyFans, I've talked about this with Andrew Wilson before.
We're saying, well, you know, how do you write the course of the ship, right?
What do we do with that?
Now that we have all this information, what are we going to do with this information?
Promote OnlyFans.
Well, the thing is, is that we need to find ways to disincentivize OnlyFans.
We need to re-incentivize men getting back into doing things that are more productive for themselves or following something that they can play to their strengths.
And the place that that begins is by removing those sedations from those guys.
When it comes to porn, I mean, there are certainly people who use OnlyFans for legitimate reasons, but that's not the tendency for what OnlyFans is.
However, we're experiencing an interesting sort of ideological bifurcation.
OnlyFans is driving women to quit the workforce to become hookers.
So there's numerous stories of women who are like, I was a nurse.
I didn't want to do that.
Now I'm a hooker.
There are stories like, I was a police officer and then I realized there's more money in being a hooker online.
And I say hooker because you're selling sex.
And just because you put it on the phone as opposed to a brothel doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned.
You're doing a peep show, you're doing a peep show, that's a hooker.
unidentified
But the incentive is what keeps them going.
Mike Sartain and I, we're on Access Vegas and we're interviewing this one, what's her name?
Ava James.
Ava James used to be a teacher, a special education teacher.
Like she taught autistic children, I think it was in Canada.
But you think about this, you go through, I don't know how many years of college to get to the point where you can actually do something like that.
And then you've got to have special education certification on top of that.
How many student loans are you taking out so that you can be a special needs teacher on top of everything else?
You're paid maybe $40,000, $50,000 as a starting salary if you're lucky, depending on what school system and where you get into.
And you've just spent the last maybe six to eight years of your life to become that teacher.
And then you go, you know what?
Fuck it.
I think I'm going to be an OnlyFans person because And now she's like a 0.01% top earner on OnlyFans, making millions of dollars and going, why did I spend the last six to eight years doing what I'm doing?
Now, I'm not saying that all women can do that, but the possibility, the perception that it's a possibility for women to earn more money than they do as a nurse or as they do as a, you know, a surgeon or an attorney or something like that, it's a much better, more lucrative prospect.
Historically, if the mother was unable to produce enough, a wet nurse, another woman in the town or village who was producing, would nurse their baby for them.
So let's go back to the question I have is, With OnlyFans, I certainly see it's destroying family.
It's sedating men, as you described it.
It's creating these addictions.
Video games, and it's not just video games, there's drugs, alcohol too, but video games certainly have this effect.
Do we want some job society to be done by women, or should it just be the workforce is male, and the women are at home with the kids and helping raise the family?
unidentified
The latter, for me.
Well, if we're going to say shoulds, then the latter.
But what I'm saying is that we're in a position right now where that's kind of a moot point.
If you want to write the course of the ship, we have to work with what we have right now.
I've talked to Zuby about this, where he was saying, I don't understand why OnlyFans is so popular.
I mean, it's just basically pornography.
You can go stroke off to porn for free if you wanted to.
And I told him, I said, it's not because of that.
It's because of the connection that those men believe that they can have with that person that's on the other end.
If they're not paying for the sex, there has to be a sexual element to it, don't get me wrong, but the top earners are not, you know, jet screaming hootie queens with blue eyes and big tits and look like the stereotypical playboy model.
They look like the girl that's attainable.
They look like the seven, seven and a half, not the 10.
And so they want to have that, the girlfriend experience, but they're looking for that connection.
And so you asked me like, you said, well, what about the incels?
What about the hikikomoris and everything else?
They can jerk off all they want to, but they want to have that connection that they're not getting because those women are doing OnlyFans.
The reason why they get so much traffic on this, and the reason why a lot of what they can sell to young men is this, is because it simulates personal connection and relationship.
Yeah, if it's okay, I'd love to give the original sort of track shifting question a shot.
There are two answers to my, two answers I would give, and they have each kind of their own components.
I would say men aren't getting married because of the stuff we've talked about before.
Moon Beasley Complex, it's being depicted at all levels of society in a predictive way that's tracking with mimetic desire with the herd from the top of the media on down through Agenda 2030 and things like that.
It's water falling down, as they say, through media, through Hollywood, and it's Influencing the minds of common good people in Mississippi, where I moved when I left LA, so that they're saying gender dysphoric things.
And eventually, people just think about marriage.
I taught high school for eight years, college for two years.
Young men would see my wife, beautiful, lovely, laughing wife, just come eat lunch with me.
And they'd be like, how do you get that?
Um, that looks like the nicest woman in the world.
I'm like, because we're not fighting against our nature.
We love each other.
We were best friends.
I knew my wife right before she graduated high school.
And it's the opposite of the moon Beasley complex.
If you allow women to be women and men to be men.
You're gonna be happy and love each other until the day you die.
It's a natural thing.
Women and men are naturally drawn to each other until it's programmed out.
So the first thing is, Moon Beasley Complex is wrong.
Like, women do want to be goodly, obedient wives, and men want to be goodly, loving husbands.
What I think happens is, we go from a women should be able to, to a women have to.
And so we see this with most things actually, interestingly in technology.
The cell phone is a luxury.
If you have a cell phone, you're easier to reach.
So when the cell phone comes out, you got this gigantic weird object, and you have like a purse.
It was really funny, like the first phones, you had to like put it down onto like this big thing, and then pick it up, and uh...
Now, your office can call you from anywhere.
Car phones were the easiest way to do it because the heavy electronics could be stored in the car.
It was a luxury to have that made you more valuable, but it was not required.
These days, if you don't have a cell phone, you ain't getting the job.
If you go back to feminism, the original idea... I shouldn't say back to feminism, but in the era of 1970s, late 70s or whatever, women entering the workplace more heavily, the idea was women should be allowed to apply for jobs if they want.
What ends up happening is the market gets flooded with more and more labor, but the job supply isn't increasing.
So now the demand for jobs is massive and the supply of jobs is low, dropping wages and creating a snowball rolling down a hill where it comes to the point where...
You have a guy go apply for a job and they say, look, we need someone who can do this job.
It's, you know, let's say, uh, mail room and deliveries.
And the guy says, well, look, I'm trying to start a family, right?
I'm, I'm, you know, 20 years old and I got, I got to be able to take care of my family.
I'm sorry.
That amount of money is not going to cut it.
And it's like, well, then we'll find someone else.
And he says, good luck.
Cause every guy you meet is going to say the same thing.
So you give me the money that I'm asking for now.
And we stopped wasting our time and they go, you know, what he's right.
Then more and more women start entering the workplace and lower skilled jobs are now flooded with a massive supply.
They then say, well, look, you know, I got a young woman who can handle the mail, so I don't have to hire you.
You can leave.
And so then the woman gets offered slightly less for whatever reason.
It's not so much that it is inherently just because it's women doing it.
It is because there's a massive influx of labor into the market without an increase in supply.
unidentified
I was going to say also, if you go back in, I've been working on this sort of a Pet project of mine called 1971 and if you go and you look at the era between say 1965 and 1975 you see a lot of the social changes that we kind of take for granted today all occurred right around the time that hormonal birth control came in then you have the sexual revolution then you have no fault divorce then you had the week went off the gold standard in 1971
They're not, but they are co-related, let's just say.
So if you go and you look at the rise in hormonal birth control use, the popularity from 1965 to where we are right now, and you look at the rise in divorces, divorce rates, it tracks almost identically to that.
When they started, when they wanted credit cards, the bank said no.
When they started getting divorces, they had guaranteed income.
Right.
unidentified
- Now the banks are like, we can make money on this. - And 1971, they're now on fiat currency.
So they're like, yes, ladies, you've come a long way, baby.
You know? - But anyway, go back to what you were saying. - And also another thing that tracks in 1971 is if you look at, this is more to your point, when you see women coming into the labor force, the mean wages stay pretty much the same.
And we are getting now a problem reaction solution type scenario where you get a massive explosion of labor supply.
The point I was making earlier is that with this massive increase in supply, I'm sorry, increase in demand, supply of labor and demand for labor is down.
Supply of jobs is low, but demand for jobs is high.
It makes it so that when...
Employers now have this massive competition in front of them.
They pay lower.
Wages stagnate, but they have max amount of workers.
Productivity is on the rise because these jobs are being filled, and they don't got to pay as much.
But this means now, 30, 40, 50 years on, what do you have?
It is now a requirement for a dual income.
It used to be, hey, I'm having a family, my wife's at home, you pay me what I'm worth or else.
Are you guys familiar with the dialogue between American feminist Betty Friedan and older French feminist Simone de Beauvoir from the middle of the century, middle of the 20th century?
Dubovoir said to Betty Friedan, you Americans, you're so obsessed with liberty, if feminism's ever to preponderate, then you need to do like we French do.
You get it into the lawfare, you force women away from the hearth and the home.
Because women do not want to be in the workplace, I've already cited the paradox of declining female happiness.
They will not leave unless you force them.
This is what we did in France.
And Betty Friedan said, yes, you're right, Americans do like our Libertas more.
But what we use here and what we're gonna use in our movement is shame.
Is shame.
And shame is this invisible, very hard to metric force.
That was coming up earlier when we were talking about female sports, like, well, you know, it's invisible.
Yeah, you can always point the law and say in France, they forced the women out into the workplace and disincentivized them, even punished them.
In America, it followed the second wave feminism.
I also don't believe in the waves, but second wave feminism is a historical matter.
Is what actually invisibly, secretly, subtly forced women into the workplace in the 70s.
And when you guys ask something like, well, are there any good female jobs?
No, women fundamentally want to be home.
And it's bad that either shame or legislation force them away from doing something that makes them happy into doing something that makes them unhappy.
And ultimately, I would say I was a school teacher in the most expensive state.
I'm a native Angeleno.
And my wife never worked after we came back from, after I went to law school.
And I was a school teacher and we were raising four, five, six kids before I started making more money.
So, let's start here, I mean, your thoughts clearly, men should get married, have families, do you agree with that or what's your view?
unidentified
I think that ideally that's great, I think we have to work with what we have right now, so like when a lot of people want to criticize the red pill or whatever it is, I think it's really taking a more pragmatic approach to it.
So like for what he's saying, I think from like sort of a religious socio, you know, sociological perspective, I understand the want for that, but I look at things in a bit more, in a more pragmatic way.
So if we look at what, like I was saying before, if we look at where the rise in divorce happened, if we look at where the decline, we're at like six per 1000 people right now for marriage.
We're at the lowest rate of marriage in the United States.
Since they started recording it back in the mid-1800s.
I blame Reagan.
Well, you can also blame the fact that we had hormonal birth control, which then leads to the rise in divorce.
Then we have no-fault divorce, which comes into play right around 1968 with Ronald Reagan, and then state by state by state by state starts adopting it.
And now women can get credit because we're now on fiat currency because we don't have a gold backing it anymore.
Then you've got, was it 1974 was Roe v. Wade?
73.
73.
Yeah.
Then you got Roe v. Wade.
Now you have on-demand abortion, which is a fail-safe for bad reproductive choices that women are making at this time.
So even if you're on the pill, it's not going to make that much difference because now you can go and have an on-demand, safe and legal abortions, for lack of a better term.
Then you've got Title IX.
Then you've got the Duluth model of feminism, which says that the man is always the aggressor whenever there's a domestic dispute.
And if you track back all the way to, say, 1965, there's one invention that unsettled human history at this point, and that was the advent of hormonal birth control, which, for better or worse, gives at least the impression that you can now have sex and women now are in control of the human reproductive process at this stage.
One sex gets to determine whether or not a child is born or is not.
Just so we know about, just so we're tracking on the same.
But right up until that point, I know I've had this debate with other people before saying like, well, Uh, it's because men controlled women because of economic factors there.
You needed to have one.
Only the man was going out and making money at that time.
And the woman was at home taking care of, you know, home and heart at that, at that point.
Well, if you look at the things that have to happen between say 1965 and 2024, and then the things that happened prior, like say in the greatest generation, all the way up to 1965, the baby boomer generation there, it's the logical outcome or the logical extension of that, of hormonal birth control is free love, the hippies, of hormonal birth control is free love, the hippies, the, you know, uh, uh, sexual revolution and everything that come follows in its wake.
I don't see it as some sort of nefarious plot by some shadow corporation of Illuminati.
They might have stepped in to take advantage of that situation, But we're just simply following our own human nature at this point, which is where we're really at.
But how do we write the course of the ship?
Well, it would be great if we could all get back to going and just having these wonderful, you know, patriarchal marriages.
That would be awesome, you know, if we could get back to that.
But I don't see that as a tenable solution at this point.
I think there needs to be, well, like, for instance, if you're looking at, like, these guys, like, we're talking about, like, say, I bring his name up.
We've got Destiny who's in an open marriage and now he's in a divorced situation, right?
You've got people trying to figure out or rejigger marriage for themselves now because we're still clinging to these 20th century ideals in a 21st century reality where we have all this data.
Saying, you know, look, we're at six per 1,000, you know, people are getting married.
Divorce rates are at about, you know, aggregate, they're at about 56%.
So at least half of marriages are going to fail anyways.
I think what we need to do is have some sort of marriage reform.
I think that's really where it starts.
If you want people to get married, again, incentivize getting married and disincentivize the things that keep them from getting married.
Yeah, and so that means a young boy, there is a 100-150 people, meaning you're gonna have that many children or so as people die, people are growing.
And so these young men are growing up right alongside the women in their communities.
And so when it comes time for adulthood, marriage... I love the idea of like how early homes were dealt with.
It was you lived with your parents and then you were getting a new home to have your own family.
But think about this.
This young man and this young woman.
Then decide, okay, we're gonna get married.
Maybe it's a culture that had an arranged marriage or otherwise, but their worldviews were identical.
They grew up in the same circumstances, with the same environments, the same weather challenges, slightly different familial problems, slightly different resource problems, giving them a slightly different perspective.
But when it came to, how do we solve problems?
What do we believe?
Typically, let's say the United States, they're Christian, they go to church together, they know a lot of the same people.
And so, the way I see it today is, One of the problems we have with marriage is a guy from New York meets a woman from Florida who moved to New York, grew up wildly different worlds, completely disagree, and they decide, you know what?
I like this person.
There's an attraction here.
They get along, they date, and they want to get married, but their worldviews are completely fragmented, which results in conflict.
They don't get along.
I think marriage, I believe it is probably the case.
I haven't looked it up, but I'd be willing to bet you could find the science that justifies this.
People who get married at a very, very young age probably will not get divorced.
I think the data is true on that.
unidentified
It depends on how early they're getting married.
If you're getting married at 18 or 19, you're definitely getting divorced.
People who grow up together in similar communities are less likely to get divorced.
So likelihood.
Especially if they have a shared faith.
Uh, shared moral structure.
Uh, quite simply, if you have a guy who believes marriage is something that is important and you must adhere to it, no fault divorce is bad.
And he meets a woman who completely agrees on that, the likelihood of divorce is very low.
Because even if they're finding themselves to have issues, they'll be like, we should get couples therapy because we agree the morality here is we must remain married.
Do you know what the odds are on dual praying together every day?
If you spend five minutes as a married couple praying, I'm not even sure this is Christian specific, though it was run by Christians, what the odds of divorce are?
What is it, like zero?
It's one out of 1,152.
They ran this in the middle 90s when the divorce rates were the highest.
They re-ran it around 2010.
So when I hear People saying, and I'm usually in the minority, I am in this room right now on this particular facet of the topic, that it's a 20th century ideal or something like that.
No, this is a fundamental principle.
This is the single cell of society, marriage and family.
We can't do without it.
And it's fundamental to human nature.
It's fundamental to human happiness.
It's what people want to do.
I don't think you're the minority on that.
Wait, what do we do though?
But I am.
Like when people say, we can't do this anymore.
All I say is try.
Try praying together for 10 minutes a day.
And for a Christian society, which is what we are, if you pray together, your odds are less than .01 of getting a divorce.
They re-ran those 20 years apart.
And it works out very well for the Christian couple.
Now, I will say this, that the view, and I do agree, I strongly agree, that no-fault divorce is an absolute catastrophe, it's an absurdism, but I represent the one worldview That's extant, under the sun, that doesn't even acknowledge divorce, Roman Catholicism, the other types of Christians do, Jews do, Muslims do.
We don't even say it's real.
So, when we're talking about a Christian society, I can't talk about marriage as a contract.
As a natural thing, it's not a contract.
This is a blood oath, taken between a man and a woman, and we say, we call all our friends together and we say, we swear, over these two swans, or whatever, Whatever he says in Outlaw King, that I will not be parted from this.
This is one flesh with me.
So when you hear Dennis Prager or, I don't know, some of the other red pill guys like- Dennis Prager, good.
I'm just saying, the view of marriage as a contract is a Jewish and a Muslim thing.
It's not a Christian thing.
So when you talk to a bunch of Christian young men, mostly white young Christian men, and you're giving them this foreign concept of marriage as this kind of Jewish Muslim thing, it's a contract.
Yeah, I don't want people breaking that, but it's not just a contract, and it's fundamentally anathema.
It doesn't work.
What we need to be telling young men to do is, hey, if you want to get married, even if you're not praying 10 minutes a day with your spouses, try it!
- So here's the problem. - Let's talk to Christians as Christians. - And the problem is you end up getting married and then you think you're doing everything right.
You have a person there.
You said, this is a, this is not a contract.
This is a blood oath till death do us part.
And she says, okay.
And then for, for one reason or another, seven years later, she says, I've decided I just don't want to do this anymore.
I've initiated divorce proceedings.
Get out of my house.
unidentified
It's not that I don't think that in an idealized state, marriage is a great thing.
It is.
It's just the way that we're doing it now.
seven and a half years.
And they'll say, well, Rollo Tomasi sounds like he's very anti-marriage.
I'm like, I am not anti-marriage whatsoever.
I am anti the way that we do it now.
So it's not that I don't think that in an idealized state, marriage is a great thing.
It is, it's just the way that we're doing it now.
And it goes back to your point where we're talking about how we're saying there's a guy that's on the East coast and a guy or a woman on the West coast and they can find each other and they say, hey, otherwise I probably wouldn't want to get with this girl.
But because we have this shared connection, because we have the ability through mass communication to be able to find somebody all the way across the world, we're now in a global sexual marketplace.
We're not in a local sexual marketplace, which would have been more like the 100 to 150 people within that particular township.
That's a localized sexual marketplace.
If you're completely cut off from the rest of the world, your prospects for marrying somebody or getting your high school sweetheart are pretty much limited to that local sexual marketplace.
Now that we have opened up the sexual marketplace to be global, with dating apps with what we know what it doesn't have to be that you could play World of Warcraft and find some chick that you like that's across the you know across the ocean from you right but you guys are ignoring my sorry i'm not ignoring that i'm just i'm just finding a roundabout way to get to it i'm not saying that like you know the the The religious aspect of it is not something that we should take into consideration.
But what I am saying is that the way that we do marriage now, when we're including the state in that, this goes more to your point, women have the full force of the state that is backing them because we're in a gynocentric society.
I'm saying you're telling like the challenge for young men is be honorable and be noble and you can't read someone else's mind and they could betray you.
Okay, but let's deal with the numbers as they are.
What I'm proposing scales to any size population in the world.
So I agree with the localism thing.
I'm a big localism guy, states rights guy, subsidiarity.
Leave that aside because like, I just want to hear people react to if you pray together 10 minutes a day to say, oh, you can't pray away big problems.
Well, of course, that's true.
But the numbers say it's less than 0.01 percent one out of a thousand less than one out of 1100 no one's responding that everyone hits you with one out of two in other words you're not gonna get a divorce if you Pursue the kinds of behaviors that lend to staying married.
And I do agree that no-fault divorce is a complete catastrophe.
But what if men, as they seem to be today, continue to pursue this contract?
It's not a contract.
With stupid tortfeasors.
If you keep getting it... I was in contract law for a while.
If some man keeps getting into a bum deal, it doesn't matter how good contract law is, if he keeps finding the worst tortfeasors to enter into contracts with, there will be malfeasance.
And that seems to be at the heart of it.
Men say, I want this trapping of Christendom, which built Western civilization.
Aristotle and Christendom.
I want this.
I want the single-celled society, but I don't want to pray seven minutes a day, even though the numbers bear that out.
The issue is... It's the one I brought up, though.
And so you made a point about getting married and all that stuff, and my point was, which you ignored, is that right now the weight of the state heavily benefits women and even encourages women to initiate divorces.
If I went to anyone with investment advice and I said, I got a great investment plan for you.
You're gonna buy into a company with a 40 to 50% chance you not only lose half of what you own, but you become homeless in a matter of several years.
They'd be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, what kind of investment is that?
No, no, no, no, hold on, it's important.
The chances you're going to work alongside another person who will help you have a family and all that, with a 50, 40 to 50% chance you are kicked out of your own home, lose half your stuff, have to pay child support, have to pay alimony, and strong possibility you never see your kids again.
That's what's being proposed to young men these days.
I'm saying the question, the broader prompt was, what can be done that's doable, that's within the reach of young men who are so bothered by these stats?
They're less good stats because you're entering less search criteria.
Tim, have you ever...
When I'm saying, yeah, if you consider the broad population, it's like one out of two.
You're talking about the population that pursues the course of action that tends to achieve long marriages.
You have to, in dating, before you get married, make sure she is willing to pray with you on whatever average you are saying people should be praying together.
And if she does over a certain amount of time, then perhaps you have a trustworthy relationship.
unidentified
We need to also remember that Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, okay?
People were getting married in feudal Japan, okay?
Marriage is not just specifically a Christian thing.
I'm looking at marriage from a particular – marriage in human societies is a formalization of monogamy.
That's really basically what it is.
It's like we need a ceremony to say that Joe is going to be with Sally, and that's that.
We're going to put a wedding ring on so nobody hits on either one of these.
They're already reserved.
They're a pair.
Leave them alone.
Let them go make a family together.
Like I said, whether that's in feudal Japan or that's in Western Europe makes no difference.
As human societies, we have always formalized monogamy, and we call it marriage.
Okay?
Now, getting back to your point, have you ever heard of coverture laws?
Do you know what a coverture law is?
This was something I researched when I was doing my fourth book, which is religion.
There's a big healthy section in there on marriage.
Coverture laws in the, I want to say like the 1700s, 1800s, somewhere around there, coverture laws were laws that would put men in charge of their wives' assets, their resources.
So when feminists used to say, well, you know, well, they still do today.
They said, well, you know, women couldn't own property.
They couldn't have their own money.
They couldn't go to school.
No, they could do all of those things.
Women had land.
Women had money back then.
The problem is if they got married, which is what they had to do back then, is that once they got married, their husbands were now in control of that land and now in control of that Of the money, like it could inherit a business from their fathers or something like that.
Because under the marriage contract of the times, it was a man was responsible financially and even criminally.
If that woman drove that company into the ground, the man, the husband was responsible for that.
Same thing with children back then.
If the child was a criminal, the husband was responsible for the state of their own children.
So it's not that women couldn't hold land, couldn't hold money.
It's that the contract that was marriage of that time implied a responsibility to men at that time that meant that they had to be very, very careful of that.
And they would say like, okay, well, you don't want this family to go bankrupt because you're allowing this woman to still be in control of whatever her company was or whatever that land was.
And so it transferred ownership over to the man.
What was happening at that time was that women had more rights, technically more rights, and more maneuverability outside of marriage if they had land, if they had money, than they did inside because they would immediately lose control to that.
The problem that we're having today is that we have coverture laws, but they're for men these days.
Men have more maneuverability and more power over their own lives outside of marriage than they do inside of marriage today.
Because if you have a business today, if you have debt, community debt, if you have a credit card debt, that now becomes the debt of the marriage, not the debt of the individual anymore.
So when you bring that into the marriage, now you're paying off her student loans.
Now you're paying off Her credit card bills for when she was in college.
Now you are paying off whatever your, like, the potential exists that if you have a company, that you could lose half of your company in a divorce settlement.
It's not just lose half my stuff, it's lose half my company and half of the investment that I have put into this particular thing just because you signed a marriage contract.
I mean, if you look at Bezos and Mackenzie, I guess she goes by Scott now, There's an interesting argument as an aside that many articles, namely leftist ones, argue she's a co-founder of Amazon.
And I don't know the degree to which she assisted Jeff when he was founding the company.
If she takes this stock in the divorce and then destroys it, Amazon goes down with it.
Ownership in a company is not just the value of the company, it's the ability to burn it to the ground.
So, I'll jump to this real quick.
70% of divorces are initiated by women.
So, the issue that we see in the modern era, and I think a lot of young men, you probably encountered this, will tell you why they're not getting married.
Women have a financial incentive to get divorced.
If at any point they're unhappy, they could consider, should we go to marriage counseling and therapy and try and repair this relationship and figure it out?
Well, then she looks at it and she says, Well, I'm going to get the house.
I can do whatever I want.
And he's got to pay me for the rest of my life.
There is a financial and there is a massive incentive and benefit.
The reason why I think marriage is likely more often initiated by women, simply because women benefit from, I'm sorry, divorces.
They say, here are the reasons why women initiate divorce.
I'm like, no, no, no, no.
That could explain why women initiate divorce.
It doesn't explain why they'd initiate divorce more than men.
These articles say things like they have unmet needs or... Whatever emotionalist answer that they can give.
Men don't want to initiate divorce because they get kicked out of their homes more often, they don't get to see their kids, they have to pay alimony and child support typically, and the women are more likely to because in their mind, if I'm unhappy in this relationship, I can say outright right now I leave and I get taken care of.
I don't got to work.
I get free.
unidentified
I'll quote another stat for you.
This is from like James Sexton is a good friend of mine.
He's the divorce attorney.
He's been on Lex Freed.
Oh, this guy's awesome.
Yeah.
He's awesome.
You should get, you should definitely get James on here.
One of the things that if you look at the average age of first marriage right now for men and women in the United States, for women, it is now 30 and for men, it is now 32.
I'll tell you because the average duration of, and marriage before divorce occurs is anywhere between five to nine years.
Average is seven.
So if the woman gets married at 30, she's 37 on average when she gets divorced just prior to when she's about 40, when she, when she's saying, you know, I better, I better shit or get off the pot.
I'm either going to stay with this guy or I'm not going to stay with this guy.
By the way, 90% of divorces are initiated by college-educated women, when we put that in there.
My fourth book is called Don't Go to College.
Yeah, and of course everyone agrees that if you denude the statistics of all meaningful behaviors that could curb eventual divorce, yes, the feminism is going to crush the men.
If you denude it of any kind of meaningful set of structures that a man can take as a patriarch, as the leader of a home, then these statistics will crush Any of those men who are not attempting to take control of the situation?
What are the conditions?
unidentified
The problem is you're not going to out-alpha the state.
That's what I'm saying.
As it stands right now, I understand what you're saying.
From a spiritual perspective, I get it.
I don't mean spiritually, I mean naturally.
From the perspective that we're in right now, Like, people ask me, like, Rola, when's the pendulum going to swing back?
When are we going to get back to the good old days of the 19th?
And I'm like, there is no fucking pendulum.
We only go forward.
You only go forward.
You can learn from what's happening in the past, but we only go forward from here.
I think one of the reasons why I have such a debate about marriage today is because we're still, like I said, we're still clinging to these ideals of the 20th century.
We want to be like, Uh, our grandparents, well, grandma and grandpa stayed together for so long and they really loved each other.
And then like in the seventies, you're like, I was a, I'm Gen X. Right.
So it was like, I was a latchkey kid.
My parents split up when I was like eight years old.
Right.
I'm used to that right now.
It's, it's like, like just common, you know, I take it for granted at this point.
But I shouldn't have to take it for granted.
I should be able to say, okay, maybe we can do things in a better way.
Maybe there's some change, some tweak, some disincentivizing or some incentivizing to say, hey, you know what?
Marriage ain't such a bad thing, but we got to be able to disincentivize the idea of, I'm just going to go in and I'm going to take the retirement program that is marriage for women.
We need to take away the incentives for that being a retirement program for women.
We need to disincentivize being a single mom.
I think what happens is when we look at, like, prior to the sexual revolution, you also have to take into account the sort of the sexual mores that were going on at that time.
My mother-in-law happens to be, like, from a generation that was prior to the sexual revolution.
So if a woman became pregnant, like, back in her generation, that was very shameful.
It wasn't even a religious thing.
It was just something that society says, oh, well, you know, this girl's 16 years old.
We're going to do what's called putting her away.
What they would do is they would take that girl and they would go and put her with her grandparents.
She would either have the child and give it up for adoption, or the grandparents would adopt it and say it's their own, right?
And then they would put her back in the family and things would continue as normal.
Now in a post-sexual revolution society, we have taken child rearing from a marriage-based model to a child support-based model.
And so now to be a single mother is something to be very proud of.
Every Mother's Day, we're like, oh, I never needed a dad.
You go, girl, you're just as, a woman can perform exactly the same functions as a mother can perform the same functions as a father. - But wait, I don't wanna be like my grandparents.
But what we have effectively done is we've made men superfluous.
They're nice to have around, but we don't actually need them until, of course, they become something of a financial incentive so that we can, seven years later, get divorced and we can live a different lifestyle.
Overwhelmingly, it is women supporting the war in Ukraine Which is fascinating.
And what I mean by that is- Yeah, because they're getting death benefits.
I'm particularly extrapolating the data, but women vote Democrat at a very, very high rate relative to men.
Certainly men do vote Democrat too, but I believe Pew Research a couple of years ago, it's like 55% of men vote Republican, 45% Democrat.
Among women, it's like 70%.
So there is a higher proportion of women who are voting in favor of Democrat policy, which sends our money to war and conflict and combat.
Pushing us towards World War 3 in which they have no material obligation to their lives the way men do with the draft.
So, I take particular offense to this, but to go back to what you were saying, I don't know if you saw the video, someone did a man on the street where they go around asking men, do men need women?
And so my point about war is, Many of these women, 70% voting Democrat, are pushing us towards a massive war, where as soon as the war breaks out, they immediately turn around and beg the men to save their lives.
The paradigm that's being described is a mischaracterization.
I don't want to be like my grandparents.
Three of my four grandparents were all involved in divorces.
I never will be.
So I think what you're largely describing, the 1950s mentality, is the way we never were.
So I'm not looking to the 50s as some paragon of marital excellence.
I'm looking at practically what human nature is, what people are attracted to, and the numbers.
What really works.
So I already mentioned prayer.
I'm looking at what, not necessarily Rollo, but what the other red pill influencers are telling men to do.
Don't get married till you're 30 or 35.
I think you agree with that one.
Run around, increase your sexual marketplace value, and have lots of sex.
Well, it turns out that if you have as many as three premarital sex partners, this increases the odds of divorce by 400%.
If your body count goes to six, that number increases your odds of divorce to 500%.
It goes all the way up.
It scales up.
So if you don't want to get a divorce, you do have to think ahead of time, same as we tell the young women, Avoid premarital sex.
The numbers bear this out.
Those are real numbers.
These aren't religious numbers or something like that.
Eventually pray.
And most of all, contraception.
Contraception increases divorce before or during marriage between 160 and 200% depending on the types of contraception.
And I would say also, this is the second point I never got to make earlier, the purpose of marriage and family Is procreation.
And most Americans, most Christians are included in this, have onboarded a fundamentally contraceptive mindset.
If you tell them, hey, what's the purpose of nutrition?
Well, why do we eat?
Well, that's to get nutrients from food, to be fit.
Guys should have, you know, strong muscles.
Women should be lean.
And fat people are abusing the pleasure that they get as a byproduct from food.
What's the telos?
What's the natural end of your metabolic system?
It's lean nutrition.
It delivers pleasure as a secondary thing.
Everyone gets that, particularly all the young men that are listening to The Red Pill.
They're like, yeah, that's cool.
Then you say, now, let's apply the same analysis to the reproductive system.
America's society has been brain-swiped by a contraceptive mindset.
What's the point of the male and the female procreative apparatus?
They'll say, oh, well, pleasure.
No, it's not pleasure.
It has a very, very discreet, very self-evident purpose.
It's procreation.
And same as the fatty can abuse food and calories to put first things second and second things first, and that's what makes them fat.
You're eating McDonald's cheeseburgers because you think pleasure is the point of food, even though it's a by-product.
If we reverse, and as C.S.
Lewis said, put first things first and second things second, we understand that sex is fundamentally for family, And yes, it also delivers tons of pleasure.
Everyone knows that.
Then we will restore a view of marriage and family, which is, if you combine it with all the other things I've said, properly ordered.
I think there is a conscious and willful effort to destroy.
I don't think it's a grand Illuminati scheme.
Some people would argue that, you know, the globalists are trying to No, to a certain degree, yes, there are powerful interests that think climate change, they follow the Malthusian idea of the population bomb and stuff like that.
A lot of it, though, I think comes from the general concept of civil rights in that live and let live.
So as you're describing...
If people wanna buy cheeseburgers and buy cheeseburgers, they can buy cheeseburgers.
And most people agree, you can eat your cheeseburgers, but what ends up happening?
You end up with a nation of morbidly obese individuals who demand bigger plane seats, bigger planes.
I mean, this is nonsensical.
They want free healthcare for their health ailments from their bad choices that we have to pay for when we are trying to do things right.
So I believe most of the issues we're seeing is more emergent, and I don't know how you quite solve for that unless you say, okay, that's it, fine, we're putting punitive taxes like Bloomberg tried to do on sodas in New York.
unidentified
Well, you also are looking at, again, the human animal, the human machine right here.
So if you're looking at, if you want to talk about it in terms of obesity rates right now, the reason why we are, what, 75% of the United States is like overweight, something like 30, 35% are morbidly obese right now.
Why is that?
Well, because we have access to super high calorie, high saturated fats, you know, seed oils, whatever you want to call it.
Okay, so we have all of this access to foods that we never had in our evolutionary past.
Of course we wanted, of course we're going to be, our natural proclivity is going to be to overeat, particularly high-carb, high-starch diets because we didn't have those.
That meant a really good survival prospect to when we were living in hunter-gatherer tribes.
We wanted to have like, you know, nice sweet foods because that gave us an energy boost that might also aid us in our survival.
The same thing can be applied to sexuality, whether it's reproduction or it's survival, if you look at what evolutionary psychologists will call a genetic gap.
We are in a technological era right now, Where we're still this animal that was on the Sub-Saharan African plains that we're now in sort of these semi-medieval societies, but with this godlike technology at this point.
So we don't have to chase down our food anymore.
We don't have to hunt our food anymore.
We don't have to expend the calories to get the calories anymore.
Right now the latest numbers going for the Wikipedia 2015 is about 80% of men are overweight with what looks like we've got 30% obese and about 10% morbidly obese and then... Average female weight is 170.5 with a height of like 5'6".
Oh my gosh!
So around 24.
25% of women are overweight.
An additional, what looks like, holy smokes, what are we looking at?
Another, is that another, 35% are obese, and what looks like about 12 to 13% are morbidly obese.
Overall, overweight among women is a few points, it appears, lower as of 2015 than men.
But wait, I thought you were saying, Rollo, that marriage is an ancient idea.
You sound like me when you say we sell the same nature and proclivities.
unidentified
It's not necessarily an ancient idea.
I'm just saying that it's a formalization of monogamy is what it is.
But like, for instance, if this is an experiment that I run through is like whenever I go to an airport, especially in Vegas, you can walk through that.
What I would suggest people do is if you get to TSA and you're walking from TSA to your gate, put your phone away and just people watch because especially a major metropolitan airport and just look at the people that are around you.
That's the average American.
Not the people sitting in this room, not the people that we have on Access Vegas, not the people that are on Fresh and Fit, not the people that are on whatever podcast you want to talk about.
Those are not the average.
The average you will find walking from TSA to your gate.
I want to say too, like, For everybody listening, consider the opinions of all of us in this room, and then realize, like, even Ian recently started lifting.
So, this is not, like, I imagine if you went and got a random sampling of Americans, you'd have people being like, what's wrong with eating a cheeseburger?
And then, like, we're more the kind of people, it's like...
You know, I've been skateboarding for 20-some-odd years, so now I've added lifting to my routine.
I've actually started doing proper training and stuff.
So I've got to do upper body because I've only ever done the lower body stuff, but even as an aside, I'm not someone who is typically tracking macros or doing any of that lifting stuff.
Only recently I've done it.
But I have always been athletic.
And the interesting thing for skateboarders, I call it the lowest tier of professional sports.
Literally.
I was talking about Richie Jackson, I made the joke.
I'm like, he's a professional athlete, but he's like the lowest tier.
Skateboarders drink, they smoke, they don't eat properly, they wear weird clothes, they just don't care.
They don't even realize they're athletes, so they're getting an ancillary background benefit to their goofing off.
But I'm like, it's time to take this thing seriously.
But more to the point, The opinions you're hearing in this room are a bunch of guys who have taken these things to a certain degree seriously and are trying to be responsible.
I think it would probably be worrying and terrifying to people if we actually just did, like, maybe we should do this too when we move to the new studio.
Where we can do these panels where we just bring in a random sampling of people and ask them very similar questions.
They're going to be like, what do you have for breakfast?
And they're going to be like, you know, a handful of pancakes, leftover pizza.
You know, I drink a milkshake.
I see this funny video.
You said the average weight of a woman is 170.
And there was that viral TikTok where a woman's like, I am addicted to coffee.
And she's holding a Frappuccino.
It's a milkshake!
unidentified
People are like, I love chocolate, but no, you're talking about the sweetness, which is the sugar.
Well, that guy sitting right over there is currently solving that problem.
His name is Nicholas Stumphauser, and he is solving The precise problem.
unidentified
Instagram is just funnel marketing for women, pretty much.
It's funnel marketing for women is basically what it is.
No, I was going to say is we live in a time, again, going back to the example I was talking about having, you know, access to unlimited access to high starch, high carb foods.
The same thing applies to pornography right now.
We have like a nine-year-old kid with a cell phone in hand has access to a level of sexuality that was reserved for like Caligula and ancient pharaohs and Caesars of the time.
Well, everything that we've, everything that we've done when we were talking about sexuality, um, getting hardcore pornography used to be something like you had to really find, you have to really go hunt for when in the mid eighties, right?
Like if your, if your uncle had a hustler or something like that, that was, that was considered something where you're like, you know, you're going to hang onto this because this is your, this is your hustler, right?
Now you just need a cell phone.
Now it's free.
That's why I was trying to make the point between like the difference between only fans and just, and hardcore pornography because only fans offer something that pornography does But I got good news, OK?
We're going to be, in 30 years, the podcast is going to have a robot being like, you cannot deny me my rights.
I am alive.
I want and desire and you're going to be like, no, you're a machine.
You're a washing machine.
We invented you and that's going to be the debate.
unidentified
Except we'll have electrodes plugged into our brains.
I forget the name of the act.
There's actually a name for this phenomenon, but it's Every new invention every new meat particularly media whether it's photography or it's like a style of painting like renaissance style painting up through the internet every new technology that is developed in In human society it succeeds or it fails in its application towards pornography towards facilitating human sexuality There's a name for it.
I can't remember the name of it, but Uber, too.
I mean, you can go out with a girl, go on a date, get drunk, and you don't have to drive home.
I get this all the time.
People will say, like, oh, Rollo, wouldn't it be great if we would legalize prostitution, right?
I live in Nevada, okay?
Big deal, right?
But I tell these guys, I said, we already do.
All you gotta do is go on Trist.com or Spare the Games or some shit like that.
There's apps.
There's an app for that.
Seeking Arrangement?
Seeking Arrangement is more for sugaring, but if you go to Trist or, like, Skip the Games is what it's called, .com.
They're basically applications that facilitate in-call and out-call escorts.
You can live in Maryland, I bet you anything.
You could probably go on Trist.com and probably have a hooker here in half an hour.
We'll do this for like the final portion of the show.
One thing we've talked about quite a bit is how dating apps have altered the market and resulted in incels, and to a certain degree, femcels, but less so.
A lot of data showing that young men are more likely to be virgins.
I remember we had Seamus Coghlan on IRL and he said, based.
And I said, no, no, no, no, no.
No, no.
Young men should be married and having families.
They shouldn't be virgins.
So not based, you know, on the surface, perhaps.
But here's what I see happening.
And I talked about this quite a long time ago.
It used to be that, at least when I was growing up, you didn't have... 18, I think, we had some social media apps in MySpace or something.
We didn't really use it.
It wasn't... We didn't really have dating apps.
OkCupid, I think, was starting to come around.
But for the most part, you're an 18-year-old guy.
You start college.
Now you're in this community of, you know, a few thousand young people and you form social circles.
And so people are texting each other.
If you have cell phones, maybe some of you don't because I think 18 was before the ubiquity of the iPhone.
Some people had phones.
Some people didn't have texting plans.
So you're hanging out on campus.
You meet a girl.
You hit it off.
Now you're dating.
Her dating options are 18 to 22 within my college campus.
And so sometimes a freshman girl's dating, you know, a sophomore, junior guy in college or something like that.
But for the most part, it's constrained to the geography.
Dating apps come out.
And what happens?
Now, this 20-year-old woman in college is hanging out, you know, in a dorm.
She meets a bunch of people.
The next weekend, this 20-year-old guy texts her saying, Hey, you had really fun hanging out with you last weekend.
We should totally go and hang out.
Are you around?
And she thinks, Oh, this guy's kind of cute.
I liked him.
She says, Yeah, let me see what the plans are.
Then, she goes on Tinder.
And she gets a message from a guy who's 35.
This guy's got a convertible.
He makes $85,000 a year.
He lives in a studio apartment facing the lake in Chicago.
And he texts her and says, why don't you come hang out with me?
We'll drive down Lakeshore Drive in my convertible, grab a bite to eat, and I'll take you to the lake.
And she goes, whoa.
Then she texts back the other guy, what are you up to?
And he goes, we're hanging out in the dorm.
And she goes, that's cool.
Hey, I think I'm busy tonight.
How is a 20-year-old guy going to compete with a 30-year-old, 35-year-old, or 30-year-old guy who's got all of this access he can give?
And I'm not putting any shame or anything on the woman.
She's being presented with two options.
A young man with limited resources.
Choice paradox.
And an older guy who can give her a wild and fun night and more resources.
So what we ended up seeing in some of this data was that Guys who are in their 30s were actually having more sex and guys in their 20s were having less sex.
I think that is indicative of the social media.
unidentified
Yes, because you've opened it up to a global marketplace like I was saying before.
And I also want to point out that like a lot of people, I fielded this question before, a lot of people will take you to task on that saying, well, you know, not all, like think about how many women there are in college campuses, like just say between the ages of 18 and like, I don't know, 28, somewhere in there.
And are they all going off to fly, getting flew out to Miami to go beyond yacht parties?
That's not the point.
The point isn't if they're actually doing that.
The point is that the perception is that they could be doing it.
If the operation of these apps increases the rate by which women are going to older men by 5%, it's skewing in that direction, creating pressure where it becomes increasingly harder.
Then, what happens when a 20-year-old woman who's in college posts a video, maybe it's one out of 10,000, but she posts a video on Instagram where she's like, yacht party, look at what I got.
I'm with Drake!
Or there's some dude, and he's wearing, he works out, he's fit, he's got a ton of money, and he rented a yacht.
You can rent these yachts, if you're doing a four-hour tour, a couple grand.
A couple grand.
So a guy could save up and do it one time, or he and his buddies all pool in 400 bucks, 500 bucks, and then they pitch together to get the yacht.
Then they tell these young women, hey, I'll fly you out here.
For them, it's a quick hookup.
That young woman then posts on social media, look what I'm getting to do.
Other women are like, why aren't I getting to live this glamorous life?
unidentified
I'm hotter than that, bitch.
I could do that.
But then, okay, so here's the darker side of that.
So like, because essentially what he's doing is he's like, it's never been easier to, um, to manufacture, fabricate the cues of higher value today.
You can go rent a Lamborghini, go take an Instagram shot of it.
Or like, uh, you have all these guys or these women who were like, go, they literally have these, uh, you know, these dummy, uh, private jet interiors where you can go sit down and pretend like you're like on your, your Learjet going somewhere.
It's bullshit.
But like people will, you can go pay a fee, go get your Instagram shots.
Someone pointed this out in a viral video on TikTok and Instagram.
The jet covers were on, and the woman was walking up and smiling as she got into the jet, and they were like, no one boards a jet with the jet cover already on.
She's faking it.
There's a really funny 4chan green text post where a guy, he's like 5'6", man-lit, overweight.
I don't know if you saw this one.
And he's like, decide to stop sitting around doing nothing.
Hire friends to make fake music video.
Rent a boat and wear fake gold chains dancing on it.
Start sending messages to women.
He's like, buy fake followers.
Send messages to women on Instagram saying that I'm a famous rapper and they should come party with me.
Clearly, at least we're capturing the essence of it.
This shit is bread and circuses.
It's degeneracy, and the people that want something more, which is a resurgence, can find something more.
We started a matchmaking site, which It functions on a biological principle called assortative pairing, where basically a 4 out of 10 should match with a 4 out of 10 or a 5 out of 10, and people with similar body counts will find each other.
This is an evo-psych and biological perspective.
That people are, with social media, not doing their best to steward their own options, to collocate their own options.
Young men are wanting, they have a higher threshold for, a lower threshold for hooking up with chicks, and women have a lower threshold for getting married, and this is making people miss.
Well, if we go back to matchmaking, we've already had two engagements on this site we opened less than a year ago.
Folks that are serious about finding marriage, that are serious about being inspired, young, probably apostatized Christian white dudes mostly, but Christian American dudes, they realize the recreationalization of sex that you're describing here is gay.
It's the gay cruiser lifestyle for straights.
Like premarital sex is gay.
Contraception is fucking gay.
What they want, if they want a pretty, thin, fit, lovely, wifely young wife, can still be gotten.
I agree, but I do believe that there is a If we're looking at the solutions that are available, one of the strongest and most obvious is go to church.
I'm not Christian.
Believe in God.
Definitely not an atheist.
But I think it's plainly obvious that people of strong moral structures... So I'm not saying that church is a guarantee you find a good person.
Certainly there are bad churches.
But I'm saying the likelihood that if you want to have a marriage and a family, Going to church is 100 times you are more likely to find a life partner, male or female, who is going to have similar values, agree.
We don't get divorced.
That is amoral, that is evil, that is wrong.
We are in this together, through better or for worse, till death do us part.
You go to a bar and meet a woman, Yeah, you're gonna get divorced.
You meet a woman in church, like you said, with praying, substantially, substantially less likely.
unidentified
That's what Vinny O'Shaughnessy was saying, that I did his Unusual Suspects down at Valuetainment, and he was like, but what do you do?
Do you like, you believe in God?
Like, how long have you been believing in God over there?
They want men who are virgins or low body count, just as the other way around.
And we pair them on retvrn.us.
We pair them with someone that nature should do before social media fucked it all up.
Assortative pairing.
unidentified
Google that.
I have two anecdotal stories for you.
The first one is, I agree with you, first of all, but I also disagree.
I'm on both sides of this.
My daughter met her husband at church.
So she just got married, she's 25, and she just got married in August.
And so, exactly the way that you guys are describing, great.
I met my wife at a gig that I was playing.
It was at a bar and it was a place that you're not supposed to meet high quality women and you're not supposed to, you know, not supposed to, you know, you're never, you're gonna, you're gonna get divorced.
Well, here I am 27 and a half years later, my daughter is now married and looks like we're doing pretty well for ourselves.
It's possible.
It's possible.
It helps that my wife and I are on the same wavelength spiritually and life-wise and everything else.
Can it happen?
Yes, I'm sure it has happened.
Will it happen again for other people?
I don't know going forward, but I do know this is that it can happen in both situations.
I want to say this as a matter of fact, not opinion.
There is a strong likelihood, a strong correlation between church attendance and higher rates of happiness, just based on all of the ancillary factors around what it is.
I don't go to church.
A lot of people who work here do go to church, and that's, you know, and it's a big deal.
But it's not so much about faith.
There is a component of having faith and having higher rates of happiness.
It is quite literally just community, communal bond, people who are there for you.
I'm not saying that by walking into a church and praying, you feel happier.
I'm saying when you're around people who can support you, you feel happier.
When you're around people who can help you with moving, you're happier.
When you have community, you are happier.
You meet like-minded people, you will be happier.
There's a strong correlation.
I don't need to say church.
I say that because it's a traditional thing in this country that people used to do and we lost.
It could literally be anything where people come together on a regular basis to share ideas and be together and have community.
Then when someone's like, so if you're really sad, if you're depressed, maybe you lost your job, maybe you lost a family member, but you have something you consistently do like going to church and you show up, people are like, Ian's looking pretty sad.
Ian, are you all right?
And you'd be like, My cousin, man, and you're going to have people around you, they're going to hug you, they're going to take care of you.
That is increasing your rate of support and happiness.
We right now don't have it because people just lock themselves in their house.
unidentified
It's also the prayer.
There's something about like really focusing on a similar concept together that is very bonding.
And I think when you said you met your wife at a bar playing music, that's the kind of prayer I find playing music.
You're damn right.
That vibration.
It is certainly like an electromagnetic resonance in your brain that probably stimulates something similar to thinking and speaking.
I've met my wife at a bar playing, I was playing music.
Really?
unidentified
Let me get really quick on your, one of the things about happiness is it's very hard to quantify happiness.
Whenever people say, oh, these people are happier.
Childless women are happier than women who have children, right?
I've seen articles like that.
I've seen the opposite too.
I think when we use happiness, happiness is like the carrot on the end of the stick.
Happiness is a proximate goal.
It is not an ultimate goal.
So when we say, well, are you happy in your marriage?
Well, we're happy when we're doing something.
Happiness is an emotion.
It's what we feel when we have something, we're doing something that is intrinsically rewarding.
It's moving us from one state to another.
Same thing with depression, same thing with anxiety, and even negative emotions are easier to sort of like, you know, sort of categorize here.
But essentially what it's doing is it's saying, well, in happiness, you're doing this thing, you find something intrinsic, playing guitar, find that intrinsically rewarding, you'll keep doing that because the act of actually playing guitar or whatever it is that makes you happy, that feeling is going to drive you from one state to another state.
That's why I get really bent out of shape when people go, well, you know, married people are happier.
This person is happier.
This person who does this is happier.
It's like, no, that is just the carrot at the end of the stick, because what you're doing is you're saying that happiness is an ultimate goal.
I mean, before Christianity, I'm talking to Aristotle.
The one who looms over all of Western civilization says precisely the opposite.
Western civilization was built on eudaimonia, a Greek concept for a moral happiness that is by definition the telos, the goal, the purpose of human beings, the human state.
It's not pleasure.
Pleasure is the test for whether or not you've attained a virtue.
Happiness is literally, when we talk about it in its moral status, the purpose of human being.
The idea I think you're bringing up is that even in our darkest days, we have a moral, we have a logical understanding of, like, there's no point at which someone is just always happy.
They step on a nail.
They're not going to be like, this is great!
They're going to be like, ah, what's wrong?
It's the worst day ever.
But they are of sound logic mind to say, look, my life is generally good.
I can't let this stepping on a nail get me down today.
I want to say one more thing and then I'll give my final thought and then we'll go around for everybody else's.
I want to give a shout out to Andrew Tate for something he said.
I don't listen to a lot of Andrew Tate ever, but I saw this clip where he said, whether I'm happy or sad does not matter.
If I wake up and I am sad, it does not matter.
What matters is that I do my job.
Whether I'm happy or sad, I'm going to do my job.
And I'm paraphrasing the general quote, but that resonated with me.
If I wake up and I'm not feeling well, it doesn't matter.
I have a job to do.
Whether I'm happy or upset or whatever, I have to do the best that I can do.
And so I think that's an important thing to understand.
When you wake up, When you experience hardship, you can choose to give up or keep going in the face of that hardship, and perseverance is the number one factor in success.
So, we'll throw it to you guys for final thoughts on all this as we wind things up.
I don't know who wants to go first.
unidentified
Oh, I'll just go real quickly here.
As far as like happiness is concerned or sadness or anything else, those are human emotions.
I can change your emotion by changing your biochemistry right now.
They're not magic.
There's not something pixie dust from like outer space or some shit like that.
I can shoot you up with what, uh, you know, 200 milligrams of, of trend and you're going to.
Feel different.
It's going to alter your mood.
Okay, so it's not I think really what it comes down to the differences is the emotions that we feel as human beings like whether it's instinct emotion and reason when we're looking at the we're looking at the emotional set of things.
We have those as human beings as part of our innate nature.
To move us from one state to another.
So when Andrew Tate says something like, you know, depression doesn't really exist.
No, it exists, but you just don't understand the nature of that depression.
It's meant to move you from one state that's untenable for you to another state that is tenable for you.
Same thing with happiness.
Your purpose can be found in what it is that is making you happy.
Okay?
So if your purpose is to play guitar and guitar makes you feel happy while you are doing it, well, guess what?
You just found your purpose, right?
Guess what?
Now you want to paint the Sistine Chapel?
Great.
Awesome.
You feel good when you're doing that?
You feel bad when you're not doing those things or when you're limited and restrained from doing those things?
That's great.
The human condition is defined by discontent, not by content.
If anybody, if you get the new, the new, uh, you, you get your new degree, you get the new job, you get the new wife, you'll be, I'll be happy once I get these things.
And then once you get those things, you're like, fuck, where's the next, where's the next plateau?
Where's the next, where's the next part of the mountain that I need to climb to?
That's the whole point of being happy.
That's the whole point that there's nothing wrong with being discontent.
In fact, discontent is a feature, not a bug of human nature.
That's what keeps us going.
That's why we're the predominant species on this planet, is because we're always discontent in a good way.
You can manage that discontent either destructively or constructively.
So when you're doing it constructively, you're building things, it's pro-social.
When you're doing it destructively, it's anti-social.
I mean, that's a good conception of what we call the hedonic treadmill, where pleasure is taken to be happiness.
But I would seek to speak to all the young men out there, and I would just say, look, most of you are in some sense apostatized Christians, and therein lies the way, but take it back a few hundred more years.
Aristotle, the master of those who know, has given us the playbook.
This 300 years before even Christianity in a book called the Nicomachean Ethics.
True happiness is attainable.
It's the function argument.
It's when you are doing what you were put here to do.
And that's a different goal for men and women.
For men, this means the public life.
This means activity, expression.
For females, for women, it means the home life, domesticity.
It means receptivity, support, passivity in large ways.
And Aristotle's function argument dictates that, sure, with all the vicissitudes of life, the waves that come, that crash on you, you can make your day feel shitty.
You can't control everything.
That's pleasure.
And that's just a mood or a disposition, as Aristotle says, book two of the Ethics.
What's deeper is your habit and forming your character with morality and the manly virtues.
Quite simply, young men out there can still achieve happiness through all of this shit, through the porn addictions, through the pitfalls out there, there's eye candy the second we step out that door, premarital sex, and all the fornication, it's all...
A trap for you.
So you could still do it.
Just avoid all those pitfalls and look where you're supposed to look.
Serve your function best.
It's very different for men and women.
It's still very attainable and it's attainable in altogether natural forms.
unidentified
Yeah, I see happiness and fulfillment.
We may be having slightly different definitions for the same words, which is ultimately, you know, why we talk about what those words mean with each other.
But like, happiness is like, I see it as like, oh, I beat the video game.
I'm hanging out with my friends.
I'm laughing.
I'm so happy.
Then the game turns off.
I'm like, where are my kids?
What am I doing with my life?
I have not reached fulfillment, even though I experienced bouts of happiness in the moment.
But that's just how I define it.
So I don't know.
But I think there's differences between spiritual fulfillment and emotional happiness.
They seem very Different.
And they can coexist.
And they should coexist, I think, ideally.
But they're not the same thing.
So, you know, short-term pleasure ain't always the way.
The matchmaking site that's producing engagements, left and right, is return.us, R-E-T-V-R-N.us.
I'm on YouTube.
I do a three times a week show at Timothy Gordon.
The show's called Rules for Retrogrades.
My book is The Case for Patriarchy.
Everything I was talking about today, stats included, is there in The Case for Patriarchy.
My wife has a book called Ask Your Husband.
And that one has so far outsold mine for whatever that's worth.
Also, we're going to be releasing a documentary this fall called What a Woman Is, which sounds like a sequel, but it's not.
It's an original.
That is, as I italicized, what a woman is about true intersexuality and the function argument, the way that men and women were truly designed to be with each other and to make one another happy as long as a man doesn't act like a chick and a chick doesn't act like a dude.
