Today on the Matt Walsh Show, a new online trend has some people declaring themselves “superstraight.” The Left has condemned it as transphobic, but then again they condemn everything as transphobic. Also five headlines including BLM protesters fighting against racism by harassing little girls on their way to a cheerleading competition, Minneapolis braces for rioting as the Derek Chauvin trial begins, and lonely people have given rise to a new trend: cow cuddling. Plus in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss a pastor who got himself fired after he gave a sermon telling women that they have a responsibility to look attractive to their husbands. Did he have a point? I’ll see how many people I can tick off when we discuss that.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, a new online trend has some people declaring themselves super straight, the left has condemned it as transphobic, but then again, they condemn everything as transphobic.
Also, five headlines including BLM protesters fighting against racism by harassing little girls on their way to a cheerleading competition, Minneapolis braces for rioting as the Derek Chauvin trial begins, and lonely people have given rise to a new trend, cow cuddling.
Plus in our daily cancellation we'll discuss a pastor who got himself fired after he gave a sermon telling women that they have a responsibility to look attractive to their husbands.
Did he have a point?
I'll see how many people I can tick off when we discuss that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
Now in recent days a new trend online has provoked increasing concern from the left and the media.
The trend is called super straight.
This is a new sexual orientation, hot off the presses, though not really new at all, invented by a TikTok user in a video that has since been removed.
I'm not sure if he removed it himself or TikTok took it down as hate speech.
Certainly the left has declared the video hate speech.
An article posted to Yahoo bears the headline, a social media trend has people identifying as super straight.
The transphobic campaign was meant to divide LGBTQ people.
And Pink News declares transphobic trend Super Straight has links to the far-right and neo-Nazis.
Of course, because everything does.
The website Distractify says social media users explain how Super Straight is transphobia, not a sexuality.
And the article comes with a warning for those who didn't get the message from the headline that, quote, transphobic statements are ahead.
Before we go any further, I guess we should probably watch the video.
So let's watch the video that started all the commotion.
Here it is.
Yo guys, I made a new sexuality now, actually.
It's called super straight.
Okay?
Since straight people or straight men is myself, I get called transphobic because I wouldn't date a trans woman.
You know, they're like, would you date a trans woman?
I'm like, no, why?
That's a female.
Uh, no, like that's not a real woman to me.
Like I want real one.
No, you're just transphobic.
So now I'm super straight.
I only date the opposite gender women that are born women.
So you can't say I'm transphobic now because that's just my sexuality.
You know?
Pretty edgy stuff.
So the guy in the video, which that Yahoo article mentioned earlier, calls a hate and disinformation campaign.
That's what they said about that video.
It's a hate and disinformation campaign.
But he's really just making the point that he's attracted to females, which means he's not attracted to males, even males who identify as female.
The reason for this, by the way, is that generally speaking, a human being is sexually attracted to another human being based on who that other human being is, not based on what perception the other human has of themselves.
The idea of being attracted to another person's self-perception seems absurd, incomprehensible, because it is.
Now, I'm not going to go around calling myself super straight.
I don't think we should make any serious attempt to turn super straight into a thing.
Simply because being regular straight, a normal old heterosexual, already means being attracted to members of the opposite sex, to the exclusion of members of your same sex, even the ones who identify as members of the opposite sex.
Coming up with a new term would seem to surrender this ground and concede that it's possible for a person to be straight, and yet also attracted to members of his biological sex.
I don't want to do that, so I'm going to stick with plain old heterosexual to describe myself.
But, this super straight thing is more of a troll than anything else, and as a troll, I have to admit it's pretty funny, and it makes an important point.
And the point is pretty simple.
Two can play at that game.
Right?
If the left can go around inventing new sexualities out of whole cloth, then anybody can.
And if LGBT people can express pride in their sexual preference, then anybody can.
One of the trending hashtags on Twitter right now is superstraightpride, and many of the people using the hashtag are accusing those who criticize them of engaging in superphobia.
Now again, it's silly and really funny, but the point is that if you think this is silly, then all of the other invented sexualities and genders are just as silly.
And so is labeling someone transphobic or homophobic for criticizing you or disagreeing with you.
The left does not want to add super straight to the list of sexualities, but keep in mind that this is a list which includes, but is not limited to, allosexual, androsexual, asexual, autosexual, bicurious, bisexual, demisexual, fluid, gay, graysexual, gynosexual, heterosexual, heteroflexible, homoflexible, homosexual, lesbian, pansexual, queer, questioning, sapiosexual, sex-repulsed, scoliosexual, and spectrosexual.
By the way, a demisexual is just someone who needs to have an emotional connection to someone in order to be attracted to them.
That's a demisexual.
If you need that emotional attachment, that emotional connection, in order to feel the attraction.
So in other words, women.
Women are demisexual.
A sapiosexual is someone who finds intelligence attractive.
And a gynosexual, as the name suggests, is someone who is attracted to the female body.
So in other words, a straight man, or a lesbian, an allosexual, get this, an allosexual, I'm not making this up, and I just found this out this morning, is someone who experiences sexual attraction, okay?
If you're attracted to anyone, then you're an allosexual.
Any sexual attraction at all makes you an allosexual.
What this all means is that the super straight community is selling itself short, I think.
I mean, you could add a whole bunch of additional labels.
You could be a heterosexual, allosexual, gynosexual, super straight.
This is how ludicrous it's gotten.
There are already LGBT orientations and pride flags for people who are straight, but for whatever reason, don't want to call themselves that.
I say for whatever reason, but I know the reason.
The reason is that there is privilege that comes with being in the LGBT camp, being under that umbrella.
It's not cis heterosexual privilege.
It's LGBT privilege.
That's what we have in this culture.
And that's why straight people invent sexualities.
I mean, they remain straight, but they invent new labels just so they can fit, just so they can be in the club.
And if you have a club that everyone is desperate to be a part of, that's a pretty good indication that your club is privileged.
That's like the definition of a privileged club.
And all of these sexualities interact with the ever-expanding list of genders.
Now, this is certainly but a partial catalog, but that list includes agender, androgynine, androgynous, bigender, cisgender, genderfluid, gender non-conforming, gender questioning, gender variant, gender queer, intersex, non-binary, pangender, trans-female, trans-male, trans-person, trans-woman, trans-feminine, trans-masculine, two-spirit, and other.
And like I said, very partial list.
Matching up a sexuality with a gender is like a March Madness bracket.
There are like 98 trillion possible outcomes.
And all of these different words and labels are only meant to obscure the fact that, in reality, you know, it all still boils down to the same basic, quote, traditional possibilities.
When it comes to sexual orientation, the left has simply found a hundred different ways to repeat itself.
But, they hasten to remind you, only they are allowed to do that.
This is a game that only they are allowed to play.
They can invent genders, invent sexualities, express great pride in their new creations.
You cannot, they say.
You're not allowed.
According to their rules.
And that's a very good reason to break their rules and do it anyway.
Just to annoy them.
I mean, for no other reason.
So I'm a supporter of the super straight movement for that reason alone.
In fact, I think we could invent some more.
I mean, the sky is the limit.
Maybe we could come up with different sexualities based on the day of the week.
If you're attracted to somebody on a Tuesday, you're a Tuesday-sexual.
If it's Wednesday, you're a Wednesday-sexual.
Of course, Friday-sexual would be a popular identification.
I suspect there won't be a lot of Monday-sexuals.
Is this completely stupid?
Sure.
But the people who talk about demisexuals and allosexuals, you know, have no room to criticize.
And that's the point.
Two can indeed play at this game.
And if you don't like it, then maybe we should all stop playing it.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Before we get to the five headlines today, I want to tell you about our friends over at LifeLock.
You know, it's always a good time to think about protecting yourself online, protecting yourself from identity theft.
Especially now with the tax deadline approaching, it's important to take steps to avoid being a victim of tax scams.
There are a lot of them out there.
Cyber criminals have used social security numbers to file fake returns in an attempt to steal refunds.
So you file early, be aware of suspicious activities related to your return, and find out if you're eligible to apply for an IRS Identity Protection PIN.
This is just one of the ways that cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives.
It's important to understand all the different ways that it's affecting us.
Every day we put our information at risk on the internet.
In an instant, a cybercriminal can harm what's yours.
Your finances, your credit, they can take everything from you.
Good thing there's LifeLock.
LifeLock Helps detect a wide range of identity threats like your social security number being for sale on the dark web.
If they detect your information has potentially been compromised, they'll send you an alert and they're just going to make it very easy for you to protect yourself because it's really easy for identity thieves to take your identity.
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but you can keep what's yours with LifeLock Identity Theft Protection.
Join now and save 25% off your first year by going to LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh to save 25%.
All right.
And I apologize if you're watching the show and I seem, you know, more stiff and uncomfortable than usual.
It's because I woke up with a back injury that I suffered while sleeping.
And so I'm officially, this is a very recent thing for me, I guess kind of exciting, you know, a level of maturation and growth as a person.
When you really know, when you officially reach adulthood is when you wake up with injuries that you sustained while lying on a mattress sleeping.
And I'm at that point.
It's a new thing.
Pretty exciting, also painful.
All right, so the trial for Officer Derek Chauvin is set to begin in Minneapolis, and the city is already preparing for rioting, which, what does that tell you?
What does that tell you if you're in the group, if you're in BLM, or if you are among the people hoping that Derek Chauvin is convicted?
And it's already known ahead of time that if your side gets upset, you're going to riot.
What does that tell you about your side?
It's the same thing that happened around election time, right?
When cities have to board up shop, and they have to shut down, and they've got to bring in the National Guard ahead of time, and all that kind of stuff, because they're worried that you might get upset, that should tell you something about your side.
And if it's not clear by now, what it tells you is that you're not the good guys.
That's a pretty good indication.
And this is all why I just don't see... I don't know how this trial is going to go.
It's hard for me to see how he could possibly get a fair trial, especially in Minneapolis.
If they don't change the location of the trial, which doesn't look like they're going to, how could he possibly get a fair trial?
Because everyone in that jury is going to know.
They're going to know.
It's very clear that, you know, if he's acquitted, or even if he, you know, probably even if he's found guilty on a lesser charge, let's say he's found guilty on manslaughter, but not on murder.
Well, BLM, they're going to dox the jurors.
They're going to find out who those jurors were and they're going to destroy their lives, if not worse.
So you know that as a juror, sitting on that juror, you know that.
Unless you've been living in a cave, unless you've been unconscious for the last three years, four years, certainly for the last eight or nine months, you know that's the way it's gonna go.
That you listen to the facts, and if the facts tell you to acquit, you know that if that's the vote that you cast, if that's the decision you make, it could ruin your life.
You are going to be public enemy number one, and they're going to try to find you and hunt you down.
So it would require for that jury to, if the facts show that he should be acquitted, for the jury to make that decision would require immense personal courage on their part, which maybe they have that kind of courage.
The thing is, most people don't.
Nothing against people on jury.
I don't know who they are, but that's why we admire personal courage, because it's kind of a rare quality.
So we'll see.
Meanwhile, speaking of BLM, this is from the Courier-Journal.
It says, a racial justice protest outside the Kentucky International Convention Center over the weekend has drawn criticism from some community members who say demonstrators should not have targeted children entering a cheer competition.
Well, some community members say that.
Some community members are saying, maybe you don't target kids.
Some.
And then, of course, there are plenty on the pro-targeting-kids side.
It says, for several hours Saturday, a group of about 30 protesters walked around outside the downtown building, chanting into megaphones and calling on sparkly-dressed kids to recognize their white privilege.
Video from the scene has ignited anger on social media from residents who say the city's officials should do more to crack down on protests that have disrupted Louisville's streets and sidewalks for more than nine months.
We have some of that video.
Let's watch some of it now.
Do something black today with your white privilege besides cheer.
Do something black today with your white privilege besides cheer.
The reason why you get to be here in these pretty, gorgeous outfits, your gorgeous hair, your gorgeous clothes, is because of your white privilege.
Brianna is dead.
Black girls are marrying their babies while white women are in the golden chair competition.
Black mothers are burying their babies while white mothers sit their children in care competitions.
Do something black that will feel like freedom.
Thank you.
This is mental illness, you know.
The response, when you've got a woman screaming into a megaphone at little kids walking down the street, that's a mentally ill woman.
She should be put in a mental asylum.
That's what we need to do with someone like that.
Screaming at her about Breonna Taylor?
What the hell do these kids have to do with Breonna Taylor?
Breonna Taylor was shot by police accidentally, and so therefore that means that these little kids can't go to a cheer competition?
Connect those dots for me.
I'd like to hear you.
Well, you can't because you're insane.
You're a lunatic.
If you couldn't understand what you were saying into the megaphone, and this was if you're listening to the audio podcast, these were like little girls in their cheer outfits, going to a cheer competition, walking down the street, and then you've got these BLM scumbags screaming at them.
What do these kids do?
Nothing.
They're just kids.
It sounded like she said, do something black today with your white privilege besides cheer.
And then she also said, the reason that you're able to participate in a cheer competition is because of your white privilege.
Really?
So there are no black cheerleaders, huh?
This is a white thing?
Cheerleading is a reflection of white privilege?
So you're telling me... I'm not gonna find any... If you were to go into that cheer competition, you're telling me there wouldn't be plenty of black cheerleaders there too?
Really?
I was saying before, if you're on the side where cities have to shut down and board up shop because they're afraid that they're going to make you mad, that's an indication that you're on the wrong side, that you're the bad guy.
Well, here's another good hint.
If you're on the side that does that kind of thing, and it's not like this is some sort of unique occurrence, This is one of BLM's favorite tactics, just walking down the street harassing completely innocent random people or simply trying to go about their day.
Including kids.
So if you're on the side that does that, that should tell you something.
You're the bad guy.
All right, number two, Don Lemon, reacting to the Meghan Markle interview, said something pretty revealing yesterday about, you know, something that reveals something about the media mindset, the leftist mindset.
Let's take a listen.
I thought it was a fantastic interview.
I thought it was eye-opening.
I think that there was initially people thought that maybe Meghan and Harry didn't, that they should have waited it out longer.
They should have, you know, instead of just 18 months, that they could have made a difference inside the royal family.
But once you got a sense and you heard what they said to Oprah about why they did it, then you realize that maybe it wasn't going to work out for them.
And the best thing to do was come to America, do what they did, and speak out, and speak out with someone like Oprah.
I thought it was perfect.
I think that they handled it perfectly.
It sounded more acute.
It sounded more like a crisis, certainly, that they were in the middle of, and we really got a sense of that.
Brianna, also, people say, well, we haven't heard from the other side.
What's the other side gonna say?
They're gonna say, of course, we're not racist or whatever, but what did they do?
Think about their actions.
They did not stand up for Their own, because their own was married to a black woman, had a black child.
They didn't listen to him inside of the royal family.
They let him go.
They let him leave the country.
They wouldn't come to terms with what they wanted to do.
So listen, we've only heard from one side, but that one side at this point rings very true.
Yeah.
Don, thank you so much.
I was looking forward to this conversation.
You do not disappoint.
That's true.
He doesn't disappoint.
Except maybe not in the way that she means it.
He says we don't need to hear the other side, because what are they gonna say?
Of course they're gonna deny it.
Denying it is what a guilty person would do.
So, no reason to listen to the other side.
Let's assume that this story is correct.
Now, this is not shocking at all.
Of course, we know this is how the media operates.
Okay, from the media's perspective, we've heard the side that we like.
We prefer for this to be true.
You know, the person we've already determined is the good guy.
It paints them in a good light.
So, we're gonna assume that.
We're gonna move forward with it.
No reason to bother with things like getting to the truth, looking at both sides of it, being objective.
Who needs any of that?
This is the news media.
This is not what we do here.
So, exactly what you would expect, but interesting to hear him say the quiet part out loud, as I say.
Number three from the Daily Wire, it says, across the United States, a growing number of biological men are competing in women's sports as anti-discrimination laws at the federal and state level have opened the door for athletes to compete based on the gender with which they identify.
Of course, we knew about that.
It goes on to talk about four states that are in the process of passing laws To prevent biological males from participating in female sports.
And those states are South Dakota, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas.
In the process of passing laws saying, if you're a man, you can't participate in women's sports.
Which is great that those four states are doing that.
My question is, why isn't every Republican-controlled state doing this?
Better question would be, why didn't they do this Five years ago.
Why didn't they do this eight years ago?
You know, those of us with common sense and with eyes in front of our heads that can see, we saw this coming.
We knew it was going to get to this point.
It was obvious years ago.
So every Republican-controlled state should be doing exactly this.
And the great thing about this issue, and one of the reasons I talk about it so much, it's very important.
It's a very important issue because it deals with, especially when it comes to sports, men in women's sports, men in women's locker rooms, you're protecting kids, you're protecting their sports, you're protecting their safety and their privacy in the locker rooms.
It's important for that reason.
It's important also because we're dealing with fundamental truth Okay, with reality, are we going to be a society that recognizes basic fundamental realities?
I think that's pretty damn important, personally, to fight for that, to fight for basic reality.
So it's important on that ground.
The arguments you can make in favor of laws like this are bulletproof, unassailable, as in there is actually no argument on the other side.
There is no even semi-coherent argument for allowing the men into women's sports.
No argument has ever been made for it.
It's happening.
People do argue for it, but no one has ever actually presented an argument for it.
So, it's the right thing, you can make great arguments for it, and it's really popular.
So this is an opportunity to take a really important stand that will also be profoundly popular with the public.
Why not do it?
It's a win-win-win across the board.
Every Republican state should be doing this.
Every elected Republican should be on this issue, should be lining up on this issue, talking about it.
So, congratulations anyway to South Dakota, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Texas.
All right, also from the Daily Wire, it says, the two German shepherds belonging to President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden have been removed from the White House after displaying aggressive behavior.
CNN reported Major, who was adopted by Biden in November 2018 from a Delaware animal shelter, had what one of the people described as a biting incident with a member of the White House security.
The exact condition of the victim is unknown.
However, the episode was serious enough that the dogs were subsequently moved to Wilmington, Delaware, where they remain.
I only wanted to bring this up because, once again, I am vindicated.
I get a lot of grief for my anti-dog stances, but dogs are a national security threat.
So, your apology accepted from all the rest of you.
In other news, the Washington Post has a story about other animal news.
Specifically.
The Washington Post has a story about the latest wellness trend, which is called cow cuddling.
A farm in Arizona has started renting out its cows to random strangers who walk in looking to cuddle a large hairy beast.
The article says, cow cuddling sessions, which cost $75 an hour, are booked until June.
Owner Amy Takaha says she gets around 20 calls a day about the service she has offered for five years.
Business has picked up dramatically in the past year.
She said, they're just like happy pills, just to be around.
The nine cattle at her farm include Adorable, an Angus steer rescued from a ditch, Moonicorn, who has one eye and one horn.
I don't know, who wants to hug the... Is that the discounted rate?
So $75 an hour to hug a cow.
If you only got 45 bucks, they'll give you the one-eyed cow.
You only got 25.
Okay, we got a three-legged one in the back.
We'll bring that one out.
Also a miniature cow named Muchacha.
The bovines will amble over to guests for hugs and cuddles, she said.
They also like to roll over on their sides and rest their heads in people's laps.
Sometimes a turkey named Azalea or a chicken will come by to join in.
Participants often become emotional, she said, and some even vow to become vegetarian after looking deep into the creature's large brown eyes.
Okay.
Three really quick thoughts here.
One, this does say something very bleak and sad about the state of our culture, when people are turning to cows for companionship and for a break from the loneliness.
Actually, reading the story, it's a sad story.
A lot of people, they're saying how during the lockdowns and the pandemic, business has been especially strong because people are so lonely in the lockdowns.
And we know in our culture, people are increasingly rejecting family life and living on their own or with a roommate or something.
And now they've been locked in their home for months on end and they're feeling the isolation in a very acute way.
And now they have to turn to a cow for companionship.
My second point is, or really question is, did the cows consent to this?
How do we know?
How do the cows feel about this?
Being whored out in this way for lonely, desperate people to come and grope them.
And number three, I think, general principle, it's best not to get so familiar with your hamburgers.
Word of warning, just a caution.
All right, number five.
Finally, a bra broke out at a Bath and Body Works store in Arizona.
We have the video of this, and we have to play it.
I mean, anytime there's a fight at a retail store, you gotta play.
This is important stuff.
Let's play the video here.
This is at the Bath and Body Works in Arizona.
Okay, it's between, it looks like it's between, originally it was between an employee and a customer.
Both female.
All the people involved are female.
There's now about four women, five women at Bath and Body Works have jumped onto the dog pile.
Looks like it's like three employees versus one customer.
Oh, then another customer jumps in.
We have not seen a real punch thrown.
Okay, now...
So the reason for this, I think, I was trying to figure out why this happened, and there are kind of like conflicting reports about what started all this.
Originally, a report that I saw online, I think from the person who took the video, I believe, they said that it had something to do with distancing or masking or something.
It was like a dispute about that.
Um, but then the cops said, no, it had nothing to do with, with masking and nothing.
It was not a racial thing.
There's no race, no racial element.
What they said is that somebody had cut in line.
So the woman, the customer there originally in the, in the, in the, in the dog pile, she had cut in line.
Someone else didn't like that.
And that's how the fight started.
Now I will tell you, I don't condone violence.
I don't.
Especially not at a Bath and Body Works.
We all know Bath and Body Works is not the place for that.
I mean, Walmart is the place for that.
But I don't condone the violence, but I will say that cutting in line is one... I don't know if she actually did it.
This is an allegation.
I don't know if it's true.
I don't want to engage in defamation here, but cutting in line, if she did do that, is one of the worst sins a person can commit.
It is almost as bad as ditching the shopping cart in the parking lot.
And a lot of times it's the same person.
Cut in line to the grocery store, ditch the shopping cart.
In this case, a little bit of street justice dished out.
I can't say I'm going to complain about it.
That's all.
All right, let's move on to reading the YouTube comments.
This is from KM, says, my wife didn't always get along with my family, but she never spoke badly about them to anyone when she had every reason to want to.
It's called class, something you don't marry a prince for.
Also, what kind of pansy of a husband lets his wife smear his entire family to the entire world that gave him everything?
That was my point yesterday.
One of my points about the Meghan Markle interview, that this is your husband's family.
That you're talking about.
It's one thing if you have a dispute.
I mean, we've all had disputes with the in-laws.
And it's one thing if you hash that out with your spouse.
But to go on primetime television in front of 17 million viewers and tell Oprah about it.
What kind of wife does that to the husband?
But what kind of husband allows that to happen?
What kind of husband lets his wife go on national TV and bad mouth his family like that?
Not the place for it.
And I made this point yesterday, and a lot of people took exception with the word, let's.
I said this on Twitter, and there were a lot of responses.
What do you mean, let's?
Are you saying that a woman should have to ask permission before doing this?
Yeah.
Yes.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
I mean, you should absolutely ask your husband's permission before going on national TV to talk about his family in a negative way, or even in a positive way.
It's his family.
So yeah, you should ask permission before doing that, and it should not be granted.
Basic common sense there, I would think.
Jackson Prouse says, Matt, please don't ban me.
I didn't know I was supposed to salute you when you said Godspeed.
I was too busy weeping at the tragedy of the show being over.
I feel like you're trying to get by on the technicality, but I will allow it.
Joe says, now Joe is quoting me when I said, I never understood how Oprah became the big thing that she is.
And Joe's response is, it's called food, Matt.
Joe, that comment, I do not condone body shaming, comments like that.
I do not condone it at all.
How dare you, Joe?
I'm not going to have any of that here.
Let's see.
Bill Davis says, Matt, I can tell you...
Sorry.
Bill Davis says, Matt, I can tell you truly are an asshat, and I most likely wouldn't want to be friends with you or related to you, but everything you say is 100% right, and you make me laugh out loud every day.
I'll take it.
I will absolutely take that.
And Scott finally says, Matt, please shave your beard for a 200,000 subscriber special.
Well, Scott, you're just begging to get banned from the show, and your wish is granted.
You are, of course, banned.
Now I want to tell you about a new sponsor on the show that I'm very excited about, Total Gym.
The Total Gym Fit gives me a full body workout in the comfort of my home for about half the price of these expensive fitness bikes.
You can do over 85 exercises on one machine, whether you're a beginner or advanced, they have everything you need to get in the best shape of your life, burn calories and lose weight.
What makes it so effective is it works every muscle group using 11 levels of resistance, so you've got a lot of Versatility, a lot of different things that you can do.
You can work your core, your arms, your shoulders, your biceps, thighs, literally your whole body.
And a complete workout takes just 10 to 20 minutes per day.
What's great is it comes fully assembled so you can just take it out of the box and you can start working out immediately.
You know, we're all busier than ever these days.
It's hard to get to the gym.
It's hard to find time for that.
And that's why it's great to have the Total Gym at home.
And you know, I have it at my home.
The Total Gym Fit, and that's the best thing about it, is that it takes away all the excuses.
You know that you have it there, you've got it, you know, in the basement, you've got it somewhere in your house, in your room, and you can go and use it if you carve out 10 or 20 minutes.
I know you've got 10 to 20 minutes to use the Total Gym, the Total Gym Fit.
You've got the 10 to 20 minutes.
Go use it and get in the best shape of your life.
Right now, Total Gym is offering a 30-day in-home trial on the Total Gym Fit for just $1.
Seriously, $1.
So what do you have to lose?
Besides all those pounds, and no matter which Total Gym you try, my listeners can get an additional 20% off whatever discount they're currently running.
Just head to TotalGymDirect.com slash Walsh to get a special offer.
You must go to this URL, TotalGymDirect.com slash Walsh to get an additional 20% off.
You know, on election night, we announced that Candace Owens would be joining The Daily Wire with a new show.
Now the wait is finally over.
Candace's new show, Candace, will premiere next Friday, March 19th.
You may remember Candace from when Cardi B ranted about her for criticizing WAP or from when Harry Styles wore a dress.
And Candace famously replied, bring back manly men.
Many attempts to cancel Candace Owens, but you can't cancel Candace Owens.
Candace is also a founder of the Blexit Foundation, which works to change the narrative that surrounds America's minority communities.
Candace is also the author of the New York Times bestseller, Blackout, how black America can make its second escape from the Democrat plantation.
Candice will be exclusive to Daily Wire members.
If you are not yet a member, go to dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Candice to get 25% off.
Again, that's dailywire.com slash subscribe and use code Candice to get 25% off.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
Today it's time for a daily cancellation that is sure to get me in trouble if I don't handle this issue tactfully.
And we all know that I don't handle anything tactfully, so this will be no exception.
We begin with a report from KCTV.
It says, a Missouri pastor is on leave after he gave a sermon that many people say was sexist, misogynistic, and inappropriate.
Pastor Stuart Allen Clark took a leave of absence Tuesday from First General Baptist Church in Malden, Missouri, located in the state's southeast boot hill, after receiving widespread criticism for his sermon given in late February.
In his sermon, he explained that women need to lose weight and submit to the sexual desires of their husbands to keep the men from straying.
Clark also said wives need to wear makeup, dress nicely, have nice hair, and appear less butch.
Now, the article goes on to explain that Clark is now receiving professional counseling after getting fired, and the church has denounced his sermon.
Now, we do have, as you were hoping, a video of this sermon.
The whole thing is pretty long, but we could play the first minute or so, and here it is.
Let's listen.
Man, I want you to know a need that a man has that he won't ever tell you about, but since I'm the preacher man, I'll say it.
Your man needs an attractive wife.
Well, anybody else thinks about... Well, I shouldn't say that.
Your man needs an attractive wife.
A hockey player said, he said, I married a trophy wife and now she looks like the Stanley Cup.
You see what I'm talking about?
That's what I'm talking about.
Alright?
That's what I'm talking about.
And ladies here, here's the thing you need to know about men.
Don't give him a reason to be like this distracted boyfriend.
You hear me?
Don't give him a reason to be looking around.
Don't do that!
I've said this for a long time.
I'll say it again.
It's free, by the way.
I really don't believe women understand how visual men are.
I really don't.
I don't think it's in their capacity, their ability to understand how visual that men are.
I really don't think women understand how important it is for a man to have a beautiful woman on his arms.
So there you go.
Who's cancelled here?
Well, Pastor Clark is certainly cancelled.
Normally I wouldn't insult a person on the basis of their physical appearance, but if you're going to give a sermon like that, then you've invited the observation that you yourself are pudgy and out of shape.
Not to mention you're apparently wearing jeans at church while you give this sermon about the importance of putting effort into your appearance.
Now, it's possible the pastor isn't married, which means he would technically nullify some of my criticism, but still, married or not, if you're going to stand in front of a group of people and start lecturing them about being out of shape, You better have your own house in order, your own waistline in order.
All that said, you know, a million people have already made this point about the pastor.
He's lost his job.
He's a national pariah.
He's in counseling.
I don't think it's necessary to jump on the dog pile like we're at Bath and Body Works.
There is no reason why a bad sermon from some random pastor to Missouri needs to be a national issue.
I've heard many bad sermons in my day.
There's nothing especially remarkable about a bad sermon or even this one.
Um, the reason I'm bringing it up is that it raises an interesting issue, because I'm also canceling many of the people outraged by his comments.
Now, as I said, if you point out that the guy is throwing stones in a glass donut shop, fine, fair point.
But if you claim, as many people have, that it's not at all a woman's responsibility to tend to her appearance for the sake of her husband, then I have to disagree.
This pastor got it wrong because he was making this a one-way street, exempting himself, apparently, and it would seem, men in general.
But the problem is that many of his critics are saying that women simply shouldn't have to worry about being attractive to their husbands at all.
And that's not right either.
The reality is that spouses, both spouses, both sexes, Should put effort into their marriage, which means putting effort into themselves.
And it's not only about being physically attractive, by the way.
It's your responsibility to tend to your health so that you're around for your husband in the long run or your wife in the long run.
There's a good chance that in your later years, you're going to have to take care of your spouse or your spouse will have to take care of you.
And that's sickness and health and everything.
That's part of the deal.
But you don't want it to happen because you neglected your health and abused your body.
So there are a number of very good reasons for people in a marriage to do their best to remain healthy and to take care of their bodies.
This seems, again, like some more basic common sense, and it is.
But the problem is that people these days tend to think that the highest good is for an individual to live for themselves, even after they get married.
They don't want to accept that after you get married, your life is not solely your own anymore.
Your body is not solely your own anymore.
Now, I know when I say that, it sounds shocking.
You say, your body's not your own?
What are you talking about?
That only sounds shocking in a society that fails to understand, refuses to understand, the fundamental point and purpose of marriage.
If a phrase like, your body is not your own in marriage, shocks you, I ask you to consider why it would upset you if your spouse cheated on you.
I mean, what does the phrase, cheated on you, even mean?
What exactly has your spouse cheated?
In what way have they violated you?
Simply by offering their own body to someone else.
Doesn't concern you.
Why do you care?
Well, because they've shown a part of themselves.
They've given a part of themselves that they promised they would show and give only to you.
Their body is not solely their own.
They don't have the moral right in a marriage to go and give it to someone else.
By giving their body to someone else, they have taken something from you.
They've betrayed you.
Why?
Because again, their body is not their own.
Every person in a monogamous relationship agrees with that statement.
Every single one.
If they didn't agree, then they'd have no problem with their spouse going off and having sex with the secretary or a co-worker or whoever.
But every person in a monogamous relationship does have a problem with that.
A very large problem.
Which means they believe, even if they don't know they believe it, and they wouldn't put it like this, that their spouse's body, in some sense, belongs also to them, as their body belongs to their spouse.
Not just body, you know, life, everything, your entire person, body and all.
In marriage, you pledge all of yourself, body, soul, everything, to the other.
And that's the beauty, that's the mystery, that's the joy, the sacrifice of the sacrament.
That's the point of the sacrament.
I mean, it really has no point if that's not the point.
And all this means that, yes, part of that deal, take care of your body, take care of your health, for your spouse's sake, for your family's sake, for your children's sake, so that you're around for them, and for your own sake.
But again, there are certain aspects of this message that are difficult to deliver if you haven't yourself seen the inside of a gym since the Reagan administration.
And that's why this pastor, but also many of his critics, are canceled.
This is called equity.
This is my version of equity.
When I cancel everybody involved.
Always fun to do that.
And we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Also, tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts.
We're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Walsh Show is produced by Sean Hampton, executive producer Jeremy Boring, our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling, our technical director is Austin Stevens, production manager Pavel Vodovsky, the show is edited by Danny D'Amico, our audio is mixed by Mike Coromina, hair and makeup is done by Nika Geneva, and our production coordinator is McKenna Waters.
The Matt Walsh Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
Today on The Ben Shapiro Show, Joe Biden can't remember where he is or what he's doing, but his White House is doing an awful lot of radical stuff, and the CDC deigns to allow the vaccinated just a little bit of freedom.
