Ep. 1226 - 'Paw Patrol' Indoctrinates Pre-Schoolers With Radical LGBT Propaganda
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the makers of Paw Patrol have hired a new writer who happens to be an LGBT extremist activist. That's why her first move was to invent Paw Patrol's first non-binary character. This is blatant and radical LGBT indoctrination in one of the most popular children's shows in the world. We'll discuss. Also, the Left is touting a new poll that supposedly proves that most Americans agree with them on the trans issue. But the truth, as always, is the opposite. Plus, the Senate has relaxed its dress code so that John Fetterman can still dress like a slovenly bum. In our Daily Cancellation, should men care about a woman's "body count"? Yes of course they should.
Ep.1226
- - -
Click here to join the member exclusive portion of my show: https://utm.io/ueSEm
- - -
DailyWire+:
Want to work at The Daily Wire? For more information, click here and select “Careers”: https://bit.ly/3JR6n6d
Represent the Sweet Baby Gang by shopping my merch here: https://bit.ly/3EbNwyj
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
PureTalk - Switch to PureTalk and get 50% off your first month! Promo code WALSH https://bit.ly/42PmqaX
My Patriot Supply - Additional Savings on a 3-month Emergency Food Kit at http://www.preparewithwalsh.com/
ProVia - New Customers Save over 50% off Starter Package + Free Shipping
http://www.proviahair.com/Walsh
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Rv1VeF
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3KZC3oA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eBKjiA
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3RQp4rs
Today on the Matt Wall Show, the makers of Paw Patrol have hired a new writer who happens to be an LGBT extremist activist.
That's why her first move was to invent Paw Patrol's first non-binary character.
This is blatant and radical LGBT indoctrination in one of the most popular children's shows in the world, so it really does matter.
We'll discuss.
Also, the left is touting a new poll that supposedly proves that most Americans agree with them on the trans issue, but the truth, as always, is the opposite of what they're claiming.
Plus, the Senate has relaxed its dress code so that John Fetterman can still dress like a slovenly bum, and our daily cancellation Should men care about a woman's quote-unquote body count?
Yes, of course they should.
We'll discuss that and much more today on the Matt Wall Show.
You know a company's looking out for you when they actually upgrade your service
This is great news for new and current PureTalk customers.
PureTalk just added data to every plan and includes a mobile hotspot with no price increase whatsoever.
If you've considered PureTalk before but haven't made the switch, take a look again.
For just $20 a month, you'll get unlimited talk text and now 50% more 5G data plus their new mobile hotspot.
This is why I love PureTalk.
They're veteran owned and only hire the best customer service team located right here in
the great USA.
Most families are saving almost $1,000 a year while enjoying the most dependable 5G network
in America.
Remember, you vote with how you spend your money, so stop supporting woke wireless companies
that don't support you.
When you go to puretalk.com/walsh, you'll save an additional 50% off your first month
because they actually value you.
That's puretalk.com/walsh.
Pure Talk, wireless for Americans by Americans.
One of the biggest distinctions between shows that are made for adults and shows that are
made for children is that you rarely hear much about the people who make shows for children.
Studios go out of their way to promote the latest Christopher Nolan film or the latest action movie directed by James Cameron or whoever.
Adults are expected to buy tickets to see these films primarily on the basis of the famous people who worked on them.
But when it comes to productions that are intended for children, you're left oftentimes in the dark.
You're really not supposed to know anything about the people producing these shows.
Instead, those productions are marketed directly towards children, usually with the help of cutting-edge animation and CGI and all the rest of it.
Parents aren't told anything about who's putting this stuff together behind the curtain.
And that's why the other day I decided to take a close look at someone named Linz Amir.
Linz Amir is not a household name.
Very few people have ever heard of this person.
But recently Linz was hired by Nickelodeon to help write for a spin-off of the hugely popular children's show, Paw Patrol.
And if you're not familiar with Paw Patrol, chances are that you don't have kids, because every child under the age of seven has seen this show, sadly, for the most part.
And that's not an exaggeration, by the way.
According to Paramount, worldwide, more than 350 million households tune in to this show.
So, very, very popular.
Now, for the record, Just to get my own biases out of the way, I've already banned Paw Patrol in my house simply because it's an incredibly annoying, obnoxious children's show with dull, lifeless animation.
And before we even get to the wokeness, it's already everything that's wrong with children's entertainment.
There's no heart to this show.
It has no soul.
There's no creativity.
There's no art.
There's just nothing.
It is, at best, Mindless amusement for preschoolers.
Just lights and sounds and stimulation.
Not the kind of thing that I want to hear in the background at my house, and not the kind of content that any child benefits from consuming.
But most families do allow Paw Patrol into their homes, along with its spinoff, which is called Rubble and Crew.
As a result, with every episode, tens of millions of children are being exposed to content written and produced, not just by soulless automatons, But also by hyper left-wing ideologues, like this person, Lin Zemir.
So it's important to ask a basic question, which Nickelodeon and Paramount desperately don't want you to ask.
And that simple question is, who are these people?
Who is this person in particular?
Now before I get into what I learned by reading Linz Amir's book, here's a video that Amir uploaded recently to the internet for everyone to see.
This is footage from a key writer in one of the most popular children's television shows on the planet.
And to be clear, this is totally unedited.
Here it is.
Welcome to Queer Kid Stuff.
I'm Linz.
And I'm Teddy!
And this is my best stuff friend, Teddy.
And this is Teddy's Book Club, where we're reading LGBTQ plus picture books with you all every Saturday morning.
This week, we are reading a book called What's an Abortion Anyway?
Linz, what is an abortion anyway?
Well, we're just gonna have to find out in the book, Teddy.
This is What's an Abortion Anyway?
by Carly Maines and Emulsify.
And I'm really excited to read this book because I don't think there are any other picture books that talk about what an abortion is.
And it's a really important idea to understand right now.
Isn't it, Teddy?
Yeah, that's right.
My God, it's just a horror film.
And the reading level for this book, which is called What's an Abortion Anyway?, is for children ages 7 and up.
So the point, of course, is to indoctrinate children who can't possibly understand the ramifications of abortion as early as possible before they know what they're talking about.
And if you read this book, of course, it's the most overt pro-abortion propaganda you can possibly imagine.
It includes lines like this, for example, quote, Some people have abortions because their doctors say pregnancy could make them sick.
Another page contains this line, quote, Some people have abortions because they can't take care of a new baby right now.
Imagine actually saying this to a seven-year-old.
Like, imagine saying, Mommy loves you, but sometimes mommies don't love their children, so they kill them.
Isn't that wonderful?
I mean, this is depraved on the deepest possible level.
This is serial killer level crazy.
As for the arguments presented for abortion in the book, if you're seven years old, they might seem compelling, if not also extremely disconcerting.
After all, you're not told anything about what abortion actually is.
You're not informed that abortion means dismembering a child.
Instead, you're told that abortion makes life easier for the cartoon women in the pages you're reading.
And this is the kind of book that Linz Amir, the new Nickelodeon writer, is pushing.
And that made me wonder, what does Linz Amir write about in her own book?
That book is called Rainbow Parenting, Your Guide to Raising Queer Kids and Their Allies.
So here's a paragraph from the first chapter of that book.
Quote, We'll start at the very beginning.
Infancy.
I know it might seem silly to start so early.
Babies can barely say baba, let alone tell you their pronouns.
But I encourage you to think of infancy as a practice round.
You can create a queer and gender-affirming environment in their nursery, babble to them about consent while you're changing their diaper, and start up your well-rounded book collection.
A practice round.
It's great parenting advice.
Oh, you know, I mean, leaving the LGBT stuff aside for a second.
Already, even if you leave that aside, that's the worst parenting advice I've ever heard in my life.
You know, infancy, it's a practice round.
It's just, this is the rough draft.
Don't worry about it.
You can try out different things.
It doesn't make a difference.
They're only infants.
But of course, this person wants you to babble about sex and transgenderism with children who are in a nursery.
This is not some fleeting thought that Lin Zemir had.
She wrote it in her book.
And it was published.
And it goes from there, quote, you can introduce toddlers to big abstract concepts like queerness and difference and develop healthy skills like body kindness and consent.
Maybe infancy and toddlerhood seem a little early to introduce ideas about consent and body kindness, but it will help you build a strong and confident foundation.
So let's pause here for a second to make one thing absolutely clear.
If you're talking about topics like queerness with a toddler, you belong in a straitjacket or in a prison or both.
There's no way to spin that to be healthy or remotely appropriate.
But that's what this Nickelodeon writer is doing.
She's talking about the idea that toddlers, who don't know anything about the world, can benefit from a conversation about queerness.
It's incredible that this was edited and published, but it was.
And this author was not banished from civilization.
She got a promotion, writing for one of the top kids cartoon franchises in the country.
Lindsamyr will deny that there's anything radical about what she's doing, of course, but if you look at her YouTube channel, which is called Queer Kid Stuff, You'll quickly notice a pattern, which is that Linzamere is bent on sexualizing kids.
She even sings a whole song about kids being drag queens.
Watch.
Okay.
Sing along with me at home, alright?
If you're a drag queen and you know it, blow a kiss.
If you're a drag queen and you know it, blow a kiss.
If you're a drag queen and you know it, and you really want to show, if you're a drag queen and you know it, blow a kiss!
Alright, the next one is strike a pose, okay?
If you're a drag queen and you know it, strike a pose!
If you're a drag queen and you know it, strike a pose!
If you're a drag queen and you know it, and you really want to show, if you're a drag queen and you know it, strike a pose!
Nice poses, everyone.
Alright, the next one is, say ta-da!
If you're a drag queen and you know it, say ta-da!
Ta-da!
Okay, so Linz Amir has a bunch of videos like this.
And to be clear, again, this is not just her normalizing the concept of drag queens, which is bad enough.
Exposing kids to drag queens.
This is encouraging kids to be drag queens.
And instead of being denounced and condemned for this insanity, now she's writing for the Paw Patrol spin-off.
In that capacity, Amir has created the first non-binary character in Paw Patrol history.
This character is called River, and he, him, they, them, whatever, quote, rides a skateboard in the episode and wears socks and shoes that are the colors of the transgender flag.
Now, on Twitter, Robbie Starbuck has spotted this, and here's what he noticed about the character.
Watch.
Having been a director for some of the biggest stars in Hollywood, I feel like I have a duty to warn parents about something.
They're coming for your children.
They want your kids to be indoctrinated into far-left voters who believe anything the media feeds them.
And a lot of parents don't even realize it's happening.
Here's the most recent example.
This is the Paw Patrol spinoff called Rubble and Crew.
Sounds like no big deal, right?
So in this new Paw Patrol spinoff, they've got a new non-binary character.
Look at the socks and shoes.
This was intentional, and the writer admitted it.
Yeah, those were shoes and socks in the trans pride colors.
Now you might be asking, who was the writer?
The writer's somebody named Linz Amir, who runs a YouTube channel called Queer Kid Stuff, and it's as bad as it sounds.
They indoctrinate kids and provide quote-unquote LGBTQ plus resources for them.
These are the types of people spending time alone with your child indoctrinating them into this woke mass hysteria.
If you don't want people like this indoctrinating your kids and reaching the inside of your home with their woke far-left hysteria, it's time to turn the TV off, guys.
Rebel and Crew isn't alone.
Netflix did the same thing.
So did Transformers.
So did Blue's Clues.
They want to sexualize your kids.
This is a grooming pipeline.
It starts here with these subtle references in TV shows your kids get indoctrinated with.
Then they head off to public school where their teacher indoctrinates them further.
And before you know it, you have a child that is fully indoctrinated into the woke cult.
You know now, so you can stop it.
Turn the TV off.
So there you go.
And of course, again, it is worth emphasizing that in a just and sane society, which of course is not the kind of society we live in, but if we did live in such a society, then someone like Lin Zemir would be put under arrest.
There would be federal agents going to her house.
And rather than going to the homes of pro-lifers who protest at an abortion clinic, they'd be going to her house and they'd be carting her away in handcuffs.
And then you know what they'd be doing next is they'd be checking her basement to see for bodies down there because this is pure, depraved, serial killer behavior happening.
A couple things to note here.
First, this is not the first time that Paw Patrol has pushed this kind of propaganda on children.
Even back in 2020, they were, as you can see here, displaying the so-called non-binary flag by adorning a boat in the colors of the flag.
And this is not subtle at all, you know, unless you're in preschool.
And for that audience, the idea is to get them used to seeing these colors and associating them with something good and fun and welcoming so that when they encounter the non-binary flag in real life, they will draw that association.
Subliminal messaging is a big part of kids' cartoons these days.
As Robbie noted, it's part of virtually all children's entertainment now.
Now, if you've ever had a conversation with a proponent of this non-binary concept, you'll quickly notice that they struggle mightily to explain it or defend it.
They cannot answer any skeptical questions about it.
When they talk about non-binary, if you just ask them simply, what do you mean by that?
What do you mean non-binary?
How can someone be non-binary?
They can't answer.
They claim that some people are not on the sex binary, that they exist in some sort of state beyond male or female.
But if you ask them, for example, to name the third and fourth and fifth sexes, which they're claiming exists, if you ask them to give more information about these people who possess this transcendent identity, they can't do it.
So, how do you get people to buy into this concept, one that you can't defend or even answer any questions about?
The only way to do it is to indoctrinate them at a young age before they can think for themselves or ask these kinds of questions.
And that's exactly what's happening.
It's why Nickelodeon and Paramount have enlisted Linz to write for them.
Now they think they can get away with all of this because many people on social media, some of them conservatives, still like to claim that it's somehow frivolous or silly to complain about something like an LGBT character in a children's show.
This very segment that I'm doing right now is sure to be mocked later today on social media by leftists scoffing that I opened my show by complaining about Paw Patrol.
But the truth, the truth that the people scoffing know very well, Is that this is far more important than most of the topics that will make the top of a Fox News or CNN broadcast.
Because this is an explicit campaign to brainwash children when they are the most susceptible to it.
Under the guise of harmless entertainment using shows with innocuous names like Paw Patrol, adults are trying to brainwash children into a radical and sexualized ideology that those children cannot possibly understand or question.
Now there's a reason why the left, following their usual paradoxical routine, will mock conservatives who object to including a non-binary character in a show for preschoolers, but then also, in the very next breath, tearfully celebrates the inclusion of that character.
This is what they always do.
They insist that we should care about something, and then they mock us for caring about it.
You know, I'm pointing this out all the time.
This is the playbook.
They say, you know, look at this non-binary character in Paw Patrol.
Isn't this amazing?
It's a historic moment.
Everyone, look at this.
You should celebrate this.
And then, when we object, they respond by saying, well, why do you care anyway?
It's just a kid's show, you weirdo.
Well, you just told us to care.
You said it's a big deal.
And we believe you.
It is a big deal.
It's just that we don't think it's a big deal in the same way.
This is the game they constantly play.
And they expect us not to notice.
But they expect, most of all, what they demand.
Is that we take our children and put them in front of the television and then get out of the way.
Once your kid is sitting there, the entertainment industry says, okay, we'll take it from here.
Go sit in the other room and stare at your phone or something.
We got it, don't worry.
We'll take care of it.
They want us to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain or even what's happening in front of the curtain.
Just let them decide what our kids are exposed to, what ideas are presented to them.
What values are inculcated?
That's what they demand.
And if you step in as a parent and say, no, I'm not going to let you expose my kids to this, I'm not going to give you unfettered access to my child's brain and soul, then they'll kick and scream and mock and belittle you.
And so be it.
They can kick and scream away.
They aren't getting anywhere near my kids, I can tell you that.
I will protect them from this madness at all costs.
And that's the attitude that all parents need to have.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
So it's crucial to be ready for whatever comes your way.
Having a reliable food storage system can provide you with peace of mind and the assurance that you and your loved ones will be well taken care of.
Right now, My Patriot Supply is giving you 25% off a three-month emergency food kit to help you start growing your supply.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and grab this special price before it ends.
Your one week emergency food kit provides over 2,000 calories
each day for optimal strength and energy in stressful situations.
You can enjoy a wide variety of MyPatriot supply food from buttermilk pancakes and chicken alfredo
to rice pudding and their meals have you covered for every part of your day.
The best part is each meal is delicious.
Don't wait for disaster to strike before taking action.
Invest in your safety and well-being by securing your food storage today.
Go to preparewithwalsh.com and save 25% off a three month supply.
That's preparewithwalsh.com.
Well, you know, there's nothing the media loves more than talking about new polling data
that supports whatever narrative they're pushing.
And you also know that there's nothing I love more than pointing out how the polling data is bogus.
So, case in point, the media is pumping up this latest poll, and I'll read the headline from The Advocate, which is a gay propaganda site.
The headline is, Americans Don't Want Politicians Focusing on Transgender Issues Survey Finds.
The article says, Most Americans are not concerned with legislation around transgender issues and harbor doubts about whether lawmakers are informed enough on matters related to trans lives to create fair policies about access to gender-affirming care, according to a survey released on Monday.
In their second annual The State of Our Nation poll, the 19th and SurveyMonkey examined the state of women in America with a particular focus on women of color and LGBTQ individuals.
Respondents were asked about attitudes towards the economy, abortion, healthcare, guns, and the workplace, as well as attitudes towards gender-affirming care and trans rights.
Transgender issues don't feature prominently in most Americans' political priorities, according to the online survey of more than 20,000 adults conducted in late August.
Just 17% believe politicians should focus on restricting gender-affirming care, while 33% thought that they should protect transgender individuals.
While Republicans were more likely to support limiting trans rights, they opposed politicians focusing on transgender issues.
58% of Republicans oppose a focus on transgender issues compared to 49% of Independents and 32% of Democrats.
When it comes to gender-affirming care, Americans are divided.
More than 57% of survey respondents expressed their support for the rights of transgender adults to access gender-affirming care.
However, a significantly smaller percentage, 39%, indicated their support for gender-affirming care for minors, revealing a complex public opinion landscape on this critical issue.
Okay, so, this is a poll of 20,000 adults.
Sounds like a large sample size.
Sounds impressive.
And according to the reporting here, most Americans don't want politicians to focus on this issue, and most Americans support gender-affirming care for adults anyway.
Now, it's interesting that even in this poll that a gay news site is touting, even this poll finds that most Americans, a significant majority, are opposed to so-called gender-affirming care for minors.
So, this is the absolute best poll they can find for their side, and it finds that only 39% support doing this to minors.
Which is still way too high.
It shouldn't be 39%.
It should be 0%.
But it's not a majority.
And it's certainly smaller now than it would have been two years ago.
So it does show extraordinary progress on this issue.
And that's significant because, again, even in the polls that the left conducts and touts and promotes, if you actually get into the details, you find that even in those polls, they're losing.
They're on the losing side of this.
Now, the rest is supposed to be a victory for the pro-trans side.
Supposedly, most Americans don't care about this issue.
They generally support gender-affirming care, at least for adults.
But this is where you have to actually go to the poll itself and read the questions.
Always do this.
Anytime you hear about a poll, go and read the actual questions that they were asked.
And if you can't find the actual questions, anytime you hear a poll or survey, 75% of Americans say this.
Well, in the headline, it's always a paraphrase, at best, of what Americans in the poll allegedly said.
So you want to look at the poll itself, the actual language.
What question were they asked specifically, verbatim?
If you can't find that, then just ignore the poll completely.
It doesn't mean anything if they won't tell you what question was really asked.
In this case, I had clicked through a few times, but eventually I got to the SurveyMonkey poll itself, and here's how they phrase the trans questions.
Here's the phrasing.
Gender-affirming care for transgender adults includes any kind of care designed to support and affirm their gender identity, including therapy, consultation with doctors, hormones or other medication, and surgery.
In general, do you favor or oppose the right of transgender adults to have access to gender-affirming care?
So there it is.
This is the case with the left in general, but especially when it comes to LGBT and especially then with trans.
Everything they say is a lie.
You have to understand that everything they say is a lie.
They lie about everything.
They're not honest about a single damn thing.
Everything is skewed.
Everything is biased that comes from them.
So when you look at what the actual poll, how they're framing these questions, you see how ridiculous this is.
The polls automatically bunk.
Because it is, of course, using left-wing propaganda language to describe the issue, to set up the questions.
So anyone who's not fully informed will read that and think, oh, so, okay, so it's care to affirm someone's gender.
Well, that sounds okay, I guess.
Because the beautiful thing for them, and the way that you phrase that, is no matter where you stand on the trans issue, if you don't know any better, and you think, well, affirming the gender, that's, yeah, sure, we should affirm the gender.
Even people who don't believe you can change genders will think, yeah, we should affirm if a man's a man, we should affirm that.
Okay, yeah, okay.
The actual honest way to ask the question would be something like, doctors want to give people who are confused about their sex sterilization and castration drugs or cosmetically alter their genitals all in an effort to make the confused person look something like the opposite sex.
Do you support the right of doctors to do this to people who are confused?
That is honest phrasing of the question.
It's not biased.
That is actually what's going on.
You have people who are confused, and then you have doctors who are doing these things to them, including sterilization and castration.
That is literally what is happening.
That's what these drugs are designed to do.
And so that's an honest portrayal of the issue.
Now it sounds wildly biased on the anti side only because what's happening in reality is so horrific.
So if you describe it honestly, it sounds like you're biased against it.
And of course you are biased against it if you're just a decent, sane person.
It's like if you describe abortion honestly, automatically it's going to sound like pro-life propaganda.
Because abortion is a horrific thing.
There's no way to describe it honestly that doesn't sound horrific.
Now, you have to ask yourself, you take the question that I just presented, and you put that in front of people's faces, and you ask them that question, do doctors have the right to do this to confuse people?
You're probably gonna get 90% no, 95%.
But again, the funny thing is that they framed this in a way that was as biased as humanly possible in the other direction and as dishonest as possible.
And still, they couldn't rally significant support for their point of view.
They still can't do it.
No matter how they frame it.
And I think that speaks partially to how How insane their position is, that there's only so much you can do to cover it up, because ultimately it is what it is.
It speaks to that, and it speaks to the success of people on the right to make people more informed on this issue.
I think going back, say, two or three years ago, probably the average person had never even heard the phrase gender-affirming care.
Gender-affirming was not something that most people had even encountered.
And now I think you've got a large percentage of people who are familiar with that phrase, and they do understand what it means.
Because we have been able to draw these associations in the minds of average people.
Gender-affirming care actually means something evil and disgusting, and gender-affirming care is butchery.
So we've been able to create this honest and correct association in the minds of most people.
I think that's being reflected in a lot of these polls.
And by the way, the other thing to keep in mind is when you get polling on so-called gender-affirming care for adults, many of the people who say that, yeah, okay, I support that kind of care for adults, many of them, and I know this because I talk to people all the time, they have this position, I think it's wrong, but many of them Um, they think that it's horrible.
They're totally, they don't think that anyone should, they think it's a terrible thing.
Like, they're fully aware that a man who says he's a woman is actually a man and that for doctors to do that to him is terrible.
They think it's disgusting and awful, but they also just think that there's no way to stop it.
And so, you know, it's a disgusting and awful thing, but we should let people do the disgusting and awful thing.
That's a large percentage of the people who support gender-affirming care for adults.
That's the kind of support they're lending to it.
Their support is, this is terrible, but I don't think we have any right to stop people, and so they can do a terrible thing.
I think they're wrong about that.
I think it's terrible and we should stop people from doing it, but that's the support that the trans side is bragging about.
Okay, NBC News has this report.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has quietly changed the Senate's informal dress code to allow senators to wear whatever they want on the floor, a person with direct knowledge said.
A notice went out to the Senate, Sergeant-at-Arms, and relevant staff members late Friday, and the change will go into effect starting Monday.
The change will let Senator John Fetterman, who is often seen wearing a hoodie and baseball shorts, wear his casual attire on the Senate floor whenever he wants.
Fetterman, who was elected late in last year's midterm elections, wore a suit and tie at his swearing-in in January.
I guess has not worn it since.
However, he's worn his casual clothes after returning to the Senate following treatment for clinical depression this year.
So there's been a lot of conversation about this, including over on The View.
And as always, we know there's great insight being provided by those women who I think are, you know, in many ways the philosophers of our age.
Principal among them would be Whoopi Goldberg.
And here's what she had to say about it.
So yesterday, Chuck Schumer ended the dress code in Washington because they all have to wear suits and skirts and dresses and stuff.
And really did kind of a really wonderful thing for John Fetterman.
And people are upset on the other side of the aisle.
They think this is not something that should have been done, that it shouldn't have been changed.
Now, what's interesting is this kind of, for me, highlights an issue that the other side often has.
Which is?
It's okay if you don't want to wear shorts and a sweatsuit.
You're not obligated to.
But this is a guy who votes with one leg in and one leg out because he doesn't want to interrupt the flow of good-looking people in their suits and dresses.
Schumer said, you know what?
Let me be thoughtful.
Let's lighten it up so you can be more comfortable here.
I think that's great because it's not saying that everybody has to do it.
It's saying you can do it.
You can if you don't, if you've been feeling, my God, I'd just rather wear pants.
So more great insight there from the view.
And I mean, look, on the one hand, with this dress code thing, you could make the argument That these DC politicians are a bunch of scumbags and whores anyway, so why even bother with the formality?
You might as well abolish the dress code, because most of them are absolute scum, like the dregs of humanity.
Not all of them, but most of them.
And maybe there's like three that aren't.
So, you could say, just have them all look like slovenly bums, as John Fetterman does all the time.
Why not?
And you can make that argument, but that's not the argument that I will make, because I happen to believe in dress codes, and even though I wear flannel every day on this show, but there are environments where you're supposed to put in more effort, and you're supposed to meet a certain standard of dress, and if you're elected to the Senate, then you should be held to that standard.
You know, the idea that the most important thing in the world is for people to be comfortable is just absolutely wrong-headed and stupid.
I always like to flip this around because people like to say, oh, well, what do you need a dress code?
What do you need a dress code for?
Well, how about this?
Why can't you abide by it?
What's so difficult?
What?
No, we don't have to.
You've got something like a dress code that's been in place forever.
Everybody abides by it.
And then you come along and say, what do we need this for?
No, we're not the ones who have to explain ourselves to you.
People always get this wrong when it comes to dress codes or anything else.
When there's a tradition, a custom, a way that things are done, and everybody's doing it that way, then you come along and say, why should I have to do it?
No, you're putting the burden of proof on us.
We have to explain ourselves to you?
No, no, no.
You need to explain yourself.
Why shouldn't you do it?
Why shouldn't you?
Why can't you?
Why can't John Fetterman put a damn suit on?
Is he a child?
Is he a big, oafish, overgrown child?
Or is he a grown man and an elected official?
You know, we know he's making six figures.
He can afford a suit.
He can at least afford to run down to a men's warehouse and buy a few suits.
They've always got a special, like, buy 10 suits for, you know, $95 and get the 11th one free.
So he can go out and he can buy some suits.
He just doesn't feel like it.
He doesn't want to.
He wants to walk around every day looking like I look when I make an 11.30 p.m.
run to Walmart.
And yeah, if you're at Walmart at 11.30 p.m., or really any time of day, you can look as disheveled as you want, per tradition in that institution.
That's the tradition at Walmart.
If anything, it goes the other way.
If you look too formal at Walmart, then you're out of dress code.
But if you can't be bothered to abide by a simple dress code in the Senate, then you don't deserve to be there.
And if you can't treat... You know, it's funny that we hear so much about the sacred halls after January 6th.
The sacred halls at Capitol Hill and Congress.
It's a sacred place.
Sacred.
It's so sacred you can't even bother to put a suit on?
And it just, it blows my mind, with John Fetterman in particular, the way that we talk about him and treat this guy.
We treat him literally like he's a child.
The guys at United States Center, and Whoopi Goldberg is sitting there saying, oh good for him, he can wear his shorts.
That'll make him comfortable, he's a good boy.
You're a good boy, Johnny.
Just wear what you want.
As long as you're comfortable, are you having fun?
You want a juice box?
Are you a little hungry?
Did you bring your lunch today?
You need a Lunchable?
Did your mommy pack you?
Did your mommy pack you a lunch, Johnny?
We treat this guy like he's a, you know, special needs.
It's ridiculous.
He's a United States Senator.
And this, by the way, is, I believe that this was part of the reason why the stay at the hospital, I think this was part of it.
Call me cynical.
I am.
But the moment John Fetterman got elected, and everybody was talking about, is this guy even capable of performing the functions of the office?
And then he gets elected, and the moment he gets elected, pretty much, he's checking into a hospital with mental issues and depression.
And the thing is, the moment that happened, it was like this hush, this silence fell over him.
And suddenly, you're not allowed to criticize him anymore.
You're not allowed to hold him to any kind of standard.
And he's in the hospital for days on end, and he's a United States Senator who just got elected, and he's in the hospital with depression, and no one's allowed to ask any questions about it.
Like, what the hell?
What's going on?
You can't—you should step down if you can't do the job, if you're not emotionally capable.
Like, what's happening here?
How is this okay?
No, if you're elected as a senator, you cannot be checking yourself in to hospitals for mental health problems.
You need to step down from your position if you're doing that.
And that is so obvious, and no one would say it.
Like, we all know that.
But the moment that happens, the moment, you know, once you claim depression or something, it's like, oh, well, it's weak, we can't say anything, that's insensitive.
And so I think that this was, it was at least partially calculated.
Because now we treat this guy like he's a damn toddler.
And it was at least partially calculated.
There was a calculation, I believe.
Put him in the hospital, get the sympathy points up, and then next thing you know, we're changing the dress code for this guy.
And he's walking around babbling nonsense.
He's babbling nonsense.
He cannot string.
He literally cannot.
Listening to him talk, you feel like you're having a stroke.
Because it doesn't, what he's saying doesn't make any sense.
And that we're not supposed to notice either.
You can't notice, can't comment, it's insensitive.
You say too many mean things, you might end up back in the hospital with a mental health issue and that'll be your fault.
It is such an embarrassment.
I mean, and I know in some ways it seems like, this seems like a moot point also because I mean, all these people are embarrassing us all the time, but this thing with Federman in particular, it is, it's the kind of thing that historians are going to look back on.
And they're going to note, that's going to be one of those moments when they're tracing the decline and collapse of, you know, the United States, American society.
That's going to be one of the sort of landmark moments is when this guy was elected and allowed to stay in office, even though he has lost his mind completely.
Okay, one other thing that I thought was interesting.
NPR has this report.
Some women and non-binary drivers for Lyft can now match up with women and non-binary riders using a new feature launched by the Rideshare service earlier this week.
The in-app option called Women Plus Connect was added to Lyft's service in a move to improve safety after a raft of lawsuits in recent years accused the company of failing to protect passengers and drivers.
It's also designed to boost the number of women and non-binary drivers working for the San Francisco-based company.
Currently, they make up just 23% of the drivers on the platform, according to Lyft.
This highly requested feature offers more control over the driving experience for women and non-binary people, allowing them to feel that much more confident.
And with fewer barriers to driving, more women can access flexible earning opportunities, lifts out a statement.
So, this creates a situation where I believe it's both driver and rider can match up with women or non-binary if they so choose.
And I think the other ride-sharing apps have something like this, or they will if they don't.
Already.
Now, this is funny for a few reasons.
The first one being, if you're saying that women are at special risk when they drive for these services, then why are you trying to increase the number of women driving?
So, on one hand, they have this feature because women are at risk, we're told.
And actually, that part I would, you know, if you're doing something like driving for a cab service, a glorified cab service, like, you're better off being a man than a woman.
If you're a woman, there's more danger involved.
There's danger, you're interacting with strangers in cars, so there's danger no matter if you're a man or a woman.
There's going to be more danger for a woman than for a man.
So I don't deny that.
But if that's the case, then why is your next sentence that you're trying to bring in more women drivers?
If anything, you should be trying to have less so that they're not put in danger.
And then the second thing, of course, the irony is that in this effort to protect women, you're actually just putting them in more danger.
You're enabling perverts.
So now you can match up with women, whether it's a driver or a rider.
You can match up and say, I want a woman.
Well, clearly that can easily be abused.
Like the sort of people that you're worried about getting in
the car with a woman driver.
Well, those people that you're worried about, men presumably,
they know about this system and so they can easily game it.
It's just declaring themselves on the app to either be a woman or be non-binary
It's like literally all you have to do is just click a button, I assume.
And that's it.
And so those very people, that small minority of people who would potentially be a danger to women drivers.
All you're telling them is now you can be, now you, dangerous men, you can exclusively have women drivers picking you up by plugging yourself into this Women Connect thing.
Because, now, if it was some way where it was really just women, actual women who are allowed to take part in this Women Connect program, then that's one thing, but they can't They want to limit it to women for the safety of women, but they can't ideologically, and so it's not women connect, it's women plus connect, right?
So we're including non-binary, we're including trans, which means just any man.
The kind of man who, again, the vast majority of men are going to get picked up for a Lyft or an Uber, and there's not going to be any problem, and they're going to be like me, they're going to sit back, they're not going to even say a word except for hi, and when they get out they're going to say thanks, and that's going to be the end of it.
That small portion of men who are a danger, now they're saying, oh, okay, well, this is great.
Now I can only be matched with women drivers.
I'll just say that I'm non-binary.
It's like, no one can, there's no, it's not like there's any litmus test here.
No one can tell me that I'm not.
And then that goes to the final problem, of course, which is the most obvious one, which is that Lyft wants to have this program for women, but of course, They cannot define what a woman is.
And so it's just it doesn't work.
It's impossible.
It's impossible to make it work.
You can't do anything.
It turns out you can't do anything for women.
You cannot help women.
If you cannot define what it means, which is unfortunate.
Because in theory, again, something like this could make a lot of sense.
If my wife was ever to take an Uber or a Lyft, which very rarely has she ever had to do that, but if she did, I would prefer to have a woman pick her up.
If for some reason I'm out of town and I can't be there to help, I'd prefer to have a woman pick her up because I'd feel safer about that.
But because you can't define woman, it doesn't mean anything.
It means absolutely nothing.
As always.
Let's get to Was Walsh Wrong.
Are you one of the millions of American men and women dealing with premature hair thinning and hair loss?
Maybe you're scared about inheriting that thinning look because it runs in the family.
Well, finally, there's a real solution that delivers on its promise without the harsh side effects, unwanted chemicals, and unpleasant smells.
Provia Hair Care uses a safe, natural ingredient called Procapil to effectively target
the three main causes of premature hair thinning and loss.
Provia supports healthy scalp circulation and delivers nourishing nutrients
to strengthen hair follicles and anchor them to your scalp.
Provia guarantees more hair on your head than in the shower drain.
Provia is effective for men and women of any age and safe on color, treated, and styled hair.
Provia works guaranteed or 100% of your money back.
It's that easy.
Right now, new customers save over 50% off Provia's introductory package at proviahair.com/walsh.
See results for yourself right now.
That's ProviaHair.com slash Walsh.
So we've got a few comments here all having to do with the topic of drug legalization or drug criminalization, you know, on either end of the issue.
And there's some people that thought I was wrong, in my opinion, on that.
Ricky says, sorry, no drug should be illegal to an adult.
This is where the Republican Party goes off the rails.
Hypocrisy is palpable.
Small government is the goal, except when it restricts personal private behavior.
Then it's just fine to have a big government to watch the druggies.
Another says, I think the supervised drug sites are stupid, but I also think it's stupid to try to control what people put in their bodies.
Leslie says, what is the war on drugs accomplished?
The government has no right to tell people what drugs they can take.
Okay.
First of all, to the big government, small government thing, you notice that I don't often These days, talk about, well, the goal is small government.
I don't talk about that as much because, not because I don't want small government in a certain sense, but because it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Like, what do you mean small, big?
What do these words even mean when it comes to government?
It's just, it's just, it's a, it's a, that used to be the slogan on the right.
It was one of the big things, going back to the Tea Party days.
All the signs say, we want small government.
But that movement never achieved anything.
The government's only gotten bigger and bigger and bigger with each passing year, including under Republicans.
Every Republican president has increased the size of government exponentially.
Increased spending, increased all the rest of it.
And I think part of the reason for that is because it never, we always said small government, we never defined what we meant by that.
It's just a slogan.
And then it's used and abused in contexts like this.
Where trying to stop people from selling poison on the street corner is now, we can't do that because that's big government.
So I guess what I'm saying, Ricky, is that we have big government, we don't have small government, and you're one of the reasons why, people like you, that have taken the anti-big government label and you've abused it, and you have just expanded it to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore.
Now, it's also asked, what has the war on drugs accomplished?
Well, I would like to flip that around, Leslie, and ask you, what has legalization accomplished?
What has the decriminalization of drugs accomplished?
What has lax drug enforcement, which is what we're seeing in cities all across the country, what has that accomplished?
The legalization of marijuana, what has that ultimately accomplished?
You know, that's a question That you should ask and be able to answer.
What is that doing for society?
How is that making society any better?
You look around at any city and you see cities where they're very relaxed in their drug enforcement.
That's all across the country.
What is that?
Is that helping?
Is that doing anything for us?
Is that making society a better place?
Because I don't see it.
But the one thing that all of these comments always ignore, right, it's the same thing when we talk about so-called gender-affirming care.
And we always hear the same argument, even from conservatives on that, that, well, adults, adults, adults should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies.
Now, I don't agree with that statement.
I don't agree with that generalized statement.
Just because you're doing something to your own body doesn't automatically mean that it should always be legal.
Now, it's true that I think you have a lot more leeway with what you do to your own body and to yourself than you do with what you do to other people.
So there are going to be many more laws governing what you can do to someone else than there are governing what you can do to yourself.
But does that mean that there should be no laws governing what you do to yourself?
Anything at all is fine?
I don't agree with that.
And once again, I would ask you, does that make society a better place?
What does that achieve, you know, to have that kind of attitude?
But we can almost put that conversation to the side, because as I do with the issue of the gender transition industry, what am I always pointing out there?
I'm saying, yeah, I think that medical gender transition of adults should be illegal, but that is a restriction not on the gender-confused adults, but on the medical industry.
The restriction, I am saying, that doctors should not be allowed to do that to people.
Okay, and that's going to be a much harder argument for you to get over with your libertarian attitude.
Because if we're just talking about what someone does to themselves, and you can always say, well, that's what always, we're not talking about that.
Yeah, if a man goes out and just, you know, stands up one day and says, I'm a woman, like, there's no law that can stop him from saying that.
There's no law that can stop him from believing that about himself.
There's no law that can stop him in most contexts from, you know, putting on women's clothes in most contexts.
I mean, there are laws that can and should stop drag shows in front of children and that sort of thing.
But if a man wants to play dress up and play pretend, there's not a lot of laws that can or are stopping him from doing that.
But the gender transition, that's when you're bringing in another party that is doing something to that person.
And the thing they're doing to that person is abjectly destructive and harmful.
And so there should be laws that stop that other party from doing that to the person.
And just because the person says they want it, doesn't automatically make it okay.
Do you want to go there?
Do you want to say that not only should you be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself, but you should be able to do anything you want to another person as long as that other person agrees to it.
Do you want to go that far?
Because now we're not talking about bodily autonomy and people doing what they want to.
Now you're giving carte blanche on what people do to other people, as long as that other person quote-unquote agrees to it.
I don't think you'd want to go along with that.
I don't think that's a statement you'd want to make.
Because I think you understand that, well, there could be people who are confused, there could be people who are in a state of desperation, there could be people who are manipulated and coerced, and, you know, there are many contexts where someone might say they want something done to them, but it should not be done to them, because, you know, we should not abide by those wishes.
So, going back to the drug issue.
You're focused on the users, because that's the easy thing for you when you're a libertarian.
What about the dealers?
Okay, the people who are selling the poison.
That's the issue here.
So, I think that there should be laws and there should be punishments for users and dealers, personally.
But would you accept this compromise?
Okay, we're not going to put, if you're a user, we're not going to put you in jail.
But, if you are selling this stuff, if you are selling poison that kills people, and you're only doing it because you make money off of it, And they're an addict, and that's their excuse, but you're not addicted to selling drugs.
There's no drug-selling addiction.
You're doing it purely for profit, selling what you know is poison.
So, the sellers, let's take them and let's charge them with capital crimes.
Mass murder.
Because that's what they're doing.
Would you agree with that compromise?
Harsh penalties.
The drug trade is illegal.
You can't sell the drugs.
And so that is a law that governs the people that are selling.
It's not about what people are doing to their own bodies.
It's actually about what people are doing to other people's bodies.
But I think the people on the right who are critics of the so-called war on drugs, they wouldn't even agree with that.
Because the whole thing of do what you want to your body, that's all a smokescreen.
Because they actually think that not only should be able to do what you want to your own body, but that drug dealers should be able to do whatever they want to other people's bodies.
Which is a crazy point of view.
I mean, just imagine for a second, what if there was a corporation that was selling what it knew to be poison to people, and you have a CEO of the corporation who knows that this stuff is poison, and it is directly killing people.
And that there is no benefit of this stuff.
There's no benefit.
It is all harm, and it is directly killing people.
And the CEO knows that, and he sells it anyway, and he makes billions of dollars.
Now, I know you're going to say, well, that kind of thing does go on, okay?
There's plenty of pharmaceutical companies that have done that sort of thing.
And you're right.
But wouldn't you agree that, ideally, we should be taking the, you know, if there's a CEO who's selling poison, he knows it's poison, that that person should be going to prison?
That should be illegal to do, and that person should go to prison.
And the CEO should not be able to say, when he's a defendant in court, he shouldn't be able to say, well, what, they wanted to buy it?
Yeah, I knew it was killing them, and they didn't really fully understand that, but they wanted it, so I gave it to them.
Would you accept that excuse?
No, you say that guy should be charged with capital crimes.
So why would we not have the same approach to drug dealers on the street corner?
That's the question.
Have you held out on joining Jeremy's Razors?
Well, now's your chance to enter the woke free economy with the Precision 5 trial set.
One weighted handle, one Precision 5 razor with flip back trimmer, one low price.
There's never been a better time to stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you.
Go to Jeremy'sRazors.com and make the switch today.
Now let's get to our daily cancellation.
[MUSIC]
In recent years, but especially over the past year, we've seen the rise in what some have called the body count
discourse.
And this is a discussion about body counts, specifically the body counts of women.
More specifically, whether a man should care if the woman he's dating has a high body count.
And of course, when we say body count, we don't mean that a man is dating a woman who's a former Marine Corps sniper with 87 confirmed kills.
If you're below the age of 40, you probably already know that body count in this context means the number of people you've slept with.
A woman with a high body count is a woman who has had sex with lots of men.
Accompanying these conversations are usually videos where random YouTubers go out into the street or out to some college campus and they ask people about their body counts.
In many videos you can see young women proudly declare body counts in the dozens or even hundreds.
Some men, including a number of influential men, have been pointing out that these sky-high numbers, these Ted Bundy-level body counts, are pretty disgusting.
And speaking of Ted Bundy, I could probably do an hour-long segment simply on the fact that the phrase body count has come to refer to sexual conquest.
There is immense psychological significance to be found in the fact that a term that once referred to killing people now, in modern society, applies to sex.
That's a different conversation, though.
Suffice it to say for now that it's not a positive development.
It doesn't say anything good about modern culture.
In any case, all of this discussion about body count has led to a backlash from the other side, where feminists and other assorted ne'er-do-wells have admonished men for having this conversation at all and insisted that we shouldn't care about body counts in the first place.
That was the case made this week in The Atlantic by feminist writer Helen Lewis in her article titled, Nobody Should Care About a Woman's Body Count.
And she begins by setting the stage with a story of rising misogyny.
Quote, Ever since Elon Musk's lackeys began fiddling with the algorithms of ex-formerly Twitter, I've noticed a distinct shift in the content that is pushed onto users.
My For You tab is now a nest of trad wives, shoplifting videos, and that guy who has strong opinions on trouser creases.
It's also home to the kind of old-fashioned misogyny that I once thought was on the decline.
Now let me step to the side here to say that I can translate this paragraph from feminist into English.
Prior to Musk taking over Twitter, every social media company in the world had worked hard to set up a bubble for people like Helen Lewis by suppressing and censoring the very normal, common-sense perspectives of normal, common-sense people.
But in the Musk era, Twitter no longer does that, which means that she has to encounter those perspectives again.
She thought they were on the decline because that's the fantasy world that big tech had created for her.
And she was never smart enough or skeptical enough to question it.
So that's really what's going on here.
Continuing, one of the obsessions of the worst parts of this group, call them the influential jerk web, is body count discourse, in which women, always women, are shamed for the number of sexual partners they've had.
The phrase has gained popularity so quickly that Jason Derulo has just released a new song about it.
Now, Derulo is okay with a high body count.
Quote, all that ass must be good at math, he observes, but others are not.
Quote, a lot of the world's problems could be fixed if women walked around with their body count on their foreheads, the professional kickboxer turned sexist influencer Andrew Tate said in one viral clip.
These men provide Gen Z and younger millennials with a very old template for masculinity filtered through the new visual grammar and vocabulary of YouTube, Twitch, and TikTok.
Now she goes on for a while longer talking about all the dastardly men who have made an issue out of the fact that a certain significant preponderance of modern single women have had sex with entire stadiums full of men.
But she does find a bright spot, a glimmer of hope towards the end.
Two other things are worth noting about the Body Count discourse.
The first is that some people on the edges of the influential jerk web have consciously rejected its exhausting sexual monitoring of women.
The left-wing streamer Destiny, for example, was raised Catholic but is now in an open relationship.
Yes, if only more men could be pathetic, disgraced cuckolds like left-wing streamer Destiny.
If only we could actually live in the world that Helen thought we lived in before Elon Musk destroyed the illusion by lifting all the shadow bans.
If only.
Now if you're the perceptive type, at least more perceptive than Helen Lewis, you might notice that although we've read chunks of this article, we haven't gotten to the part where Helen explains why men shouldn't care about body counts.
That's because she never does explain it.
She makes not one single argument to support her assertion that nobody should care about a woman's body count.
She simply asserts it, she declares it, and expects that assertion to somehow carry weight.
And this is always the strategy of left-wing feminists.
They act as though their viewpoints, no matter how deranged or stupid, are self-evident, and therefore don't need explaining or defending.
They just rappel down into the middle of the conversation and declare, no, you're all wrong, here's what you really should think, and then they leave, and they expect us to respond by saying, oh, that's what we should think?
Well, okay then!
We'll change our viewpoints immediately.
If that's what Helen says, then it must be true.
Helen would never lie to us.
But unfortunately for Helen, it doesn't work that way.
And this is the first point.
Before we talk about why men care about body count, the most important thing to understand is that they do.
They simply do.
This is something that men care about.
You might think that they, we, shouldn't care about it.
You might demand that we not care about it, but people can't be hectored into not caring about something.
It's hard enough to convince someone to not care about something, but the feminists, as established, aren't even trying to do that.
They're just issuing demands.
And those demands can't be met, even if we wanted to meet them, which we don't.
You can't just tell someone, don't care about that anymore.
Oh, okay, I'll just stop caring about it.
We care about what we care about.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you don't have to care about the same sorts of things, but it is what it is.
And in some ways, this is maybe the best response to the other side of this discussion, especially because they're not making any kind of actual argument.
When a feminist starts screeching that men shouldn't care about this, perhaps all we should say in response is, Okay, but we do.
Deal with it.
Like, we just do.
That's it.
But this is a podcast, so I can't just leave it there.
Especially because there are many valid reasons why so many men do care about this, and why the ones who don't, or claim they don't, should.
And first of all, it should be understood that the issue is oftentimes not just a woman's body count, but also her current attitude about her body count.
So what is most revolting to a man is a woman who has slept with many men, and rather than repenting of those ways, instead has this attitude about it.
Watch.
Why do you think men care about a woman's body count?
Do you?
People actually care about that s***?
Men in general.
If a man is f***ing asking me a body count, he can get f***ed.
Who gives a f**k?
Oh my god, that's so stupid.
People actually ask that s**t?
Yes.
Okay, well then you're talking to the wrong man.
If a man is ever asking you about your body count, you're talking to the wrong man.
And he can get f**ked.
Like, that's so f**king stupid.
Get f**ked!
So, can I ask you this then?
Yeah, sure.
What do you think about the analogy, if one key can open many locks, it's known as a master key.
As opposed to if you have a lock that can be opened by any key, it's a sh***y lock.
I think that if a woman is an analogy to you, then you're not f***ing ready to be talking to a woman.
And you should probably get f***ed, so.
If a woman is a key to you, talk to your mom.
Talk to your sister.
Talk to your cousin.
I don't know.
Get a real f***ing life.
The man can get effed, she says repeatedly, and it's true that if the man's talking to her, he probably can, because it sounds like she's probably doing a lot of that.
Now, that right there is the absolute worst combination for a man.
You have a woman who, we can assume, based on her defensiveness, has had sex with a significant number of men, and who, far from repenting of it, instead flaunts it proudly, defending it in that screeching, vulgar tone that men find utterly disgusting, really.
Everything about the video is repulsive to most men.
It's, in a literal sense, disgusting.
It triggers our disgust reflex.
And once again, that's simply not something you can scold us into changing.
Why is it disgusting?
Why do men care about body count?
Well, let's go through a brief list of a few key reasons.
Number one is the most practical concern, probably.
If a woman has been with lots of men, The chance that she has some kind of disease is much higher.
The association with promiscuity and dirtiness, uncleanliness, is not arbitrary.
It's not socially constructed.
Neither is the association with virginity and purity.
There's a spiritual connotation to these things, of course, but there's also the physical sense as well.
So when a man hears that a woman has been with 25 guys or whatever, one of the very first things he will think is that the woman probably has herpes or something.
And this is not an unreasonable assumption.
Now, beyond these practical and medical concerns, when a man hears that a woman is promiscuous, this will lead him to rightly question her loyalty.
You know, if she has a habit, or maybe I should say her capacity for loyalty, if she has a habit of jumping into bed with every other guy she meets, then he's going to worry that this low impulse control, this habit of following her carnal desires above all, will increase the likelihood that she'll continue in that behavior even after making a commitment to him.
So, a man wants to be able to say, About his woman.
That is, it is unimaginable that she would jump into bed with some random guy she meets at the gym or whatever.
Like, even if she was single, she wouldn't do that.
That's what a man wants to be able to say, that even if she was single, she wouldn't do that.
That's just, you're not that kind of person.
But if the man knows that if she was single, she would do that, then the man will worry, justifiably so, that she will do that even when she's not single.
Even if she refrains from hooking up with random men while in a relationship with him, her propensity towards that behavior calls into question her morals and her values.
A man wants a woman who is chaste, self-controlled, dignified, classy.
And not just because that makes it less likely that she's diseased, and not just because that makes it less likely that she'll cheat on him, even though those are two big factors, but also even more fundamentally because that's simply the right way to be.
A licentious woman is a disordered woman.
It's a woman who does not have the value system that men admire and find attractive.
Now, it's a cliche perhaps, but a man really does want a woman that he can bring home and introduce to his mom.
When I first introduced my now wife to my parents years ago, my mom pulled me aside within about an hour of meeting her and said, we really like her.
She's great.
And that's when I knew I wanted to marry her because I'd only known her for a few weeks at that point.
But when you get that kind of endorsement from the people in your life that you look to for advice, and they see this woman and they say, this is a very good woman, that means a lot to a man.
Now, the other thing to keep in mind is that men are competitive by nature, so we want to pursue a woman, and if we win her affection, we want to feel as though we've won a great prize.
This kind of works out because women, on the other end, want to be treated as a great prize.
You know, the term trophy wife has a negative connotation, but the truth is that, in a sense, every man wants a trophy wife, and every woman wants to be a trophy.
That is to say a man wants to be proud of his wife, wants to be proud to be seen with her,
and a wife wants her husband to be proud in that way.
But a man will feel that he can't have this kind of pride in a promiscuous woman because for one thing,
her promiscuity has likely damaged her reputation.
The man will feel ashamed to put a ring on the finger of a woman who half the guys in town
have already had a turn with.
It's a very shameful thing, it's embarrassing to him.
And more deeply still, if a woman does not treat herself as a great prize, if she has given herself away
for nothing over and over again, then how can the man see her any differently?
If you treat yourself as cheap, other people are not going to see you as high value.
Women who give away their intimacy, who offer it up to anyone who comes along, are sending a message about how they perceive their own value.
And men hear that message, and they respond accordingly.
Now, we've spent all this time talking about the body counts of women, but, you know, you might ask, what about the body counts of men?
Should women care if a man has a high body count?
And, yes, they should.
Most of these same arguments apply in the reverse.
But here, we're specifically talking about what men value, and should value, in a woman.
That's the conversation.
And I'm here to tell you that men value loyalty.
They value good morals.
They value virtue.
They value dignity.
They value class.
They value grace.
They value beauty.
They want a high-value woman who treats herself that way and projects that to the world.
They want a woman they can show off.
They want a woman they can bring home to mom.
And if you're a single woman and you want to be all those things to a man, then don't go around sleeping with random guys.
Pretty simple.
So this is all why the people who deny that quote-unquote body count matters are today cancelled.
