All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:48:17
MALE vs FEMALE MORALITY!?!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I believe we're ready to go. All right.
What is it? Pinch punch last day of the month?
Yes. End of June.
Now recording. 2020.
I'm losing track of time, people.
You're going to have to help me here.
But yeah, good evening.
Friday night call-in show.
Thanks for everyone who dropped by Wednesday for a surprise call-in show.
It was really pleasant to chat with everyone.
And let's get cooking with gas tonight.
Alright, so up first, I'm going to bring in someone who hasn't asked a question before.
He asks, there are a few people in my wife's circle of friends that have been trying to sabotage my marriage because they can't stand that my wife is living the life they always wanted.
I tried talking to my wife about how toxic these people are, but when she tried to confront them about some of the statements they've made, they accused me of trying to separate my wife from them more than I already have as she moved out of state to be with me and tried to spin it that I am the toxic one.
How do I talk with my wife about cutting these people out of her life when they've been such huge parts of her life leading up to meeting me?
Wow. Quite a story, quite a challenge.
Hi, do you want to flash out some more details, so to speak?
Yeah. So I married my wife a couple years ago, and ever since we got engaged, honestly, there's been immense toxicity from her extended family and some of her best friends that it seems that ever since I came into her life her life has gotten exponentially better and theirs has just gone downhill from my perspective My wife is disabled,
and she seemed to be the token disabled person that they flaunt around.
Oh, see, I'm such a good person.
I'm hanging out with a disabled girl.
Look at me. I'm wonderful.
They were always the popular ones.
She was always the outcast.
And now...
We got married.
Their relationships all went to crap.
And... She's literally living the life that they were envisioning for themselves before their relationships fell apart for various reasons.
What is your wife disabled?
In what manner? I'm sorry, it broke up.
I didn't hear what you said. In what manner is your wife disabled?
She was born with cerebral palsy.
For some reason you are cutting out for me as well, Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you.
Hold on.
Just make sure you don't have anything else running that might be taking up bandwidth on your computer.
I'm not sure if you're trying to talk now or not.
I just disconnected from my Wi-Fi, so we'll see.
I'm on my phone. Okay.
All right. So you said she has cerebral palsy?
Yes. And what's the prognosis?
How does that play out? In what way?
I'm sorry, man. I'm not able to have this conversation if I can't even hear you.
I can't hear you at all.
Her prognosis is just physical.
She essentially just walks with a limp, but she can't drive.
Right, okay. And in what way would you say her friends have been trying to bust up the marriage?
Like, what have they been saying? And I guess they're calling you the toxic one, right?
Yeah, so the big ones that stuck out were that...
I've been critical of how they speak to her and their comments about how we choose to spend our money and how we planned our wedding and how quickly we moved from dating to engaged to married.
I mean, so those are categories, but what are they saying specifically?
Specifically, they were criticizing our difference in religion, and saying that I belong to a cult and I'm just going to drive her away from her family and completely isolate her so that I'm the only one that she can rely on.
And what evidence would they put forward for that if they were asked?
The fact that I'm Mormon or LDS. That's it?
Just Mormon is the magic word and all that?
Pretty much. Okay, so I'm not asking you to agree with them, but do try and get into the mindset of the people who are criticizing you, because if you can't map your opponent, you can't win, right?
So you have to be able to put yourself into their shoes, so to speak.
So give me the case that you think your wife has been hearing.
Can't hear you.
So, the case that I believe my wife has been hearing has been mainly exacerbated by one of her extended family members that is also Mormon that is a bit eccentric and has voiced some very incorrect things about our religion that the wife needs to completely Be subservient to her husband and has to drop out of school,
has to prioritize child care.
And unfortunately, given that I couldn't find a job out where she lived, she moved out to be with me.
So that just reinforced the, oh, he's isolating you.
That was the first step.
And then we got pregnant, so she dropped out of college so she could I take care of the baby and worry about her health because she was high risk given her disability.
Right. Okay. Okay.
Okay. So in the marriage vows that you and your wife took, was it basically to love, honor, and obey or something like that?
And there is something in there about forsaking all others.
For the sake of the marital relationship, was there anything like that in your vows?
Yeah, the pastor read the pretty standard vows, and then we wrote our own to input afterwards, and that was part of it.
Okay, so the marriage vows are sacred, right?
To love, honor, support, in sickness and in health until death do you part, forsaking all others and so on.
Now, forsaking all others, of course, has a lot to do with don't date other people, don't have affairs.
But the primary marital bond is between the husband and the wife, the father and the mother of the children.
And no other relationships can come between that relationship.
Is that something that you think your wife would agree with?
For the most part, she does have very strong ties to a sense of her own family and friends that they're also always going to be a part of her life.
Well, no, no, no, hang on, hang on.
So, how do you know, or under what circumstances, would they always be a part of her life?
I mean, obviously, if there was someone who was unjustly trying to break up your marriage, and almost all attempts to break up a marriage would be unjust fundamentally, I mean, unless there's outright abuse and so on.
So, you can certainly think of a situation wherein a friend who was trying to bust up the marriage would not be someone who would remain in your life, right?
I would agree with that. And would she?
And would she have to because those were the vows?
Like the vows are very serious. You know, like in law, you have the Constitution, you have the Bill of Rights, depending on where you are.
And that's what you refer to when it comes to adjudicating disputes.
And when it comes to disputes within a marriage, you go back to the vows.
And if the vows say forsaking all others, in other words, if the vows say, look, if you ever have to choose between an honorable husband and a friend or a family of origin member and so on, that you choose the decent husband over that person.
Like that's the foundation.
The vows are not just there for decoration.
They're not just there to spray paint on a cake.
The vows are there where if you have some kind of disagreement or some kind of confusion about how the values are going to play out in the marriage, you refer to the vows and that should be your answer.
Like, you know, you said in sickness and in health, of course, you knew that your wife was disabled and that that may, you know, who knows what's going to happen down the road.
You could get disabled. I could get disabled.
Any number of things could happen, you know.
But when I got sick, my wife didn't say, oh, well, you know, you're sick, right?
You have cancer, so I'm out of here.
Because it was like, no, no, we made the vows, right?
In sickness and in health. If, heaven forbid, she would get sick, then that would be my vow as well.
So... You know, it's the most important contract you're going to sign as an adult, is the vows that you put forward in your marriage.
And so if there's anybody threatening the bond between you and your wife, you just, I mean, it's not even a debate, really, assuming that you haven't done anything that would give, you know, legitimate alarm like abusiveness or drunkenness or, you know, I'm assuming LDS, you're not particularly aligned that way.
So, it shouldn't be like a big, long discussion.
It's like, no, no, no, we made these vows that we are committed to each other first and foremost, and nobody else should come between us.
And so, if people are disrespecting the marriage, they either need to change or go, because that's the vows, right?
I completely agree with that.
I have no qualms with what you just said.
And originally, I don't think my wife did either, because she did confront her...from you guys, but I don't know what they specifically said in referring to me as being the toxic one and trying to isolate her.
That's just what she told me.
Well, look, I mean, it doesn't matter.
Like, I mean, I'm sorry to say, like, it matters, obviously, like, in terms of the effects that it has on your wife, but it doesn't matter, because as long as you're fulfilling your vows of marriage...
That's what matters, right?
So it should be a kind of open and shut case with regards to referencing the constitution called the marriage, the marriage vows, right?
Now, I mean, the marriage vows are the formal things that you say when you get married, but they're also just the general values that you have, right?
So she knew your values as a Mormon when she married you.
You knew her values, I assume.
We had those conversations. And as long as you are fulfilling to a large degree the values that were the foundation of your relationship, the foundation of your dating and your engagement and your marriage, then, you know, it's not like, it's not a willful thing.
It's not a, oh, well, I got to talk my wife into this, right?
It's like, no, that's... If you sign up for a job and they say we're going to pay you $15 an hour, then they pay you $15 an hour.
It's not like, gosh, I hope they do.
I really have to talk them into paying me $15 an hour.
That's the contract. That's the deal.
That's what you agree on, right?
So it's the same thing with the marriage vows, right?
I mean, which is that's how you adjudicate disputes with regards to the marriage.
Sorry, I'm just having a little problem with my earpiece here.
But yeah, that's how you adjudicate the problems with regards to the marriage.
It's not something that should be willed afterwards.
Like, you don't agree to $15 an hour in a job and then say, well, boy, I've really got to work hard to negotiate those $15 an hour.
It's the same thing with, you know, your cell phone contract.
Like, say you get, I don't know, 10 gigs of data a month.
Well, it shouldn't be the case that you sit there and say, well, you know, but I've really got to work on making sure I get these 15 gigs a month every single month and they're going to come with lower and I'm going to try and negotiate.
It's like, no, that's... That's the deal.
That's done and dusted with regards to the marriage.
So if there's someone, a friend, who is calling you toxic and not...
See, and that's unfair as well.
If you want to get involved, and I don't strongly recommend it, but there are times where I suppose it can be a decent thing.
But if you want to get involved in someone else's relationship, you never, ever, ever, ever, ever talk to only one party.
That is a completely...
Horrible thing to do.
If you have an issue with the husband of a friend of yours or the wife of a friend of yours, you sit down with them together.
You do not, do not, do not talk to just one party at the exclusion of the other.
That is an inherently ugly, vicious, and destructive thing to do.
And by definition, since it is so destructive to talk to one party and not the other, to have an ex parte communication with your wife without involving you in the discussion, without you even knowing what the accusations are, that person should be hit with the eject button as quickly as humanly possible.
Because that's just such a terrible thing to do to a marriage.
If she has particular issues, she needs to sit down with you and your wife and And say, here's the things that I see that are bad, to give you a chance to defend yourself, to understand the accusations against you.
And if she's not willing to do that, your wife needs to ditch her, in my humble opinion.
Because it doesn't matter what her criticisms are.
The fact that she's only addressing criticisms of you with your wife and not giving you a chance to address and redress the criticisms, that's just incredibly destructive and should not be allowed in any marriage or dating relationship.
I completely agree.
When I talk to my wife about it, that's not okay for her to be saying those things.
I get that you moved out of state for me.
No, no, she didn't move out of state for you.
No, no, no, no, no.
She did not move out of state for you.
She moved out of state for the marriage.
She moved out of state for her vows.
She moved out of state for her.
Okay. You understand?
Yeah. I hope it wasn't some terrible sacrifice that she gave up everything to be with her husband.
It's like, that's the deal. Your husband has to move somewhere.
You move to where your husband is.
Your wife has to move somewhere.
You move to where your wife is.
You know, if my wife suddenly decides to become an Arctic explorer, I guess I'll be transmitting with a wider background.
It's a pretty wide foreground, but even a wider background.
That's just the deal. It's just not the way that things work.
Because if it is viewed to be some kind of sacrifice for her to move to where her husband is, Then that gives her leverage in the relationship that's entirely unfair and unjust.
I'm sure that if she had to move somewhere for whatever reason and you had the capacity, you would move to where she is.
So the fact that she moved to be with you, again, that's part of the deal.
That's the vow. I don't think she views it as a sacrifice.
I think it's more just a culture shock for her since she lived there her entire life.
She grew up there and then all of a sudden she's newly married and newly pregnant and doesn't have her family support structure that she's used to being five minutes down the road.
They're now 2,000 miles away.
Yep. So I think that's part of what's exacerbating not necessarily wanting to outright cut these people out of her life because they've been there since day one.
They're what ties her back to where she was from and I don't know.
Well, no, no. See, it's not a matter of whether they should be in her life or not.
But her loyalty is to you.
The father of her child, the husband of her wifeliness, right?
So her loyalty is to you.
So what happens is if somebody decides to criticize you...
Then what she does is she says, whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me just patch my husband here so you guys can talk directly.
If she's out for lunch, she picks up the cell phone, she calls you, she puts you on speakerphone, and she says, my friend has something that she wants to say to you, right?
That's what she does. I don't think people would have the balls to say any of these things they've been saying to my face over the phone or in person.
Well, but that's what your wife does.
And your wife says, if you want to criticize my husband, we will get him in on the conversation.
If you're too much of a chicken to talk to him directly, don't talk to me.
My husband and I are one.
He is the father of my child.
He is the love of my life.
My husband and I are one.
And you will not drive a wedge between us by criticizing my husband without involving him in the conversation.
If you're too chicken to involve him in the conversation, then you're a manipulative, destructive human being, and I do not want to have that part of our relationship.
So criticize Barack Obama, criticize Donald Trump, criticize the ozone layer, criticize environmentalists, criticize whatever.
But if you criticize my husband, I love him, I respect him, I admire him.
If you criticize my husband, He has the right to confront his accuser and defend himself directly.
And if you are too chicken, too cowardly to talk to my husband directly, I'm going to assume that every single one of your accusations is utterly unfounded and destructive.
And I would say, listen, you would not like to have people spread negative rumors about you without having the chance to confront them, right?
And of course, any sane human would say, well, of course I don't want people to be spreading rumors about me without the chance to confront.
It is foundational to any system of justice, whether it is personal or professional or legal.
The capacity to confront and cross-examine your accuser is foundational to every system of ethics in the world.
And the whisper campaigns are simply not going to be part of our relationship.
If you have something to say about my husband, say it to my husband, or shut up.
It's simple. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's simple.
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
There's a...
Excuse me. There seems...
That's not just...
There's also been statements made of, oh well, you've only been with your husband.
How do you know if he's even good in bed and keeping you happy if you haven't gone out and experimented with other people?
Okay, look, I don't know how to say this.
Other than being perfectly blunt?
If anyone, hang on, I don't know how to say this without being perfectly blunt.
You do not discuss your sex life with strangers?
Like, what is the matter?
If somebody starts to bring up the quality of your husband in bed, or the quality of your wife in bed, it's like, good lord, what is the matter with people?
That's not a subject for discussion among friends.
I mean, that's like, where is people's sense of just basic propriety and privacy, for God's sakes?
That is intensely personal between a husband and wife, and so this idea that people would be trying to portray the man who is the Father, I mean, obviously, you had sex, right?
So, you know, you had enough sex to make a baby.
But the idea that you would sit there and try and create sexual dissatisfaction on the imagination of the wife with regards to the father of her child, anybody who would try to do that to a marriage, to me, would just be, that is so weird and so bizarre, right? To start talking about sexual dissatisfaction, third party, with no evidence, that's like...
That is seriously creepy.
That is seriously, seriously creepy.
And you're not going to discuss your sex life with other people.
Maybe a doctor if you have to, but you're not going to discuss your sex life with other people.
Your wife shouldn't be discussing your sex life.
And if people start talking about...
You know, your sex life, it'd be like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Not appropriate. This is between my husband and myself.
This is absolutely not appropriate to talk about, and you better not bring this subject up again, and you better change it right now, or I'm going to get up and leave.
Yeah, and that's what ties into the part of my question of my life.
My wife is living the life that they wanted because she's bringing that up in the context of This particular girl cheated on her boyfriend of nine years with another man and is now using that as justification for why she cheated.
And her boyfriend was apparently planning to propose, had all these plans, put a down payment on a condo for him.
And when he found out, he scrapped the whole thing.
Well, good. And why would you want somebody who's a cheater in your life?
Why would your wife want someone who's a cheater in her life?
That's a very good question and I don't know.
Now listen, people can make terrible mistakes and they can say, oh my gosh, I cheated on my boyfriend.
That's the worst thing ever.
I need to get therapy.
I need to get help. I need to journal.
I need to figure out how I ended up doing this absolutely destructive, horrible and disastrous thing.
So, you know, people sin, as you know, right?
People sin and they should be given the opportunity to make amends, to be better, right?
But if instead of that process of self-reclamation and self-improvement, if instead what happens is the woman starts driving wedges between the relationships of those around her, then she is...
An entirely destructive and toxic individual.
And why you would want someone like that or why your wife would want someone like that anywhere in the vicinity is completely beyond me.
Because infidelity is...
This is something your wife maybe understands, maybe she doesn't, but if she doesn't, she needs to, and everybody needs to understand this.
Morality is highly contagious, and immorality is also highly contagious.
There are study after study after study that shows very clearly that divorce is spread socially within a community.
If I had a friend who was going through a divorce and who was justifying it and did not have the self-knowledge, the discipline, the I'm so sorry for what's happening to you.
Best of luck. I can't help you.
I can't be around you. Sorry.
Because you're going through something that is very toxic, and you're not owning it, which means it's going to spread.
And I'm sorry. Like, I trust my marriage.
I trust my wife. My wife trusts me.
But why would you want to go and knowingly lick the door handle of somebody with COVID, so to speak?
Like, yeah, maybe I'll be fine.
But why would you want to even put yourself through that whole process, right?
A lot of people, when they're drowning and you reach for them, as you know, they don't try and get out.
They don't try and stabilize. They just pull you down with them, man.
They will take you down with them and staying away from the sort of Naya Riviera downdrafts or downcurrents of the world is really, really, really important.
You know, we do not expose ourselves to people who are coughing up blood.
We do not eat the furry yogurt.
We do not take a bite out of the worm-ridden fruit.
And we do not hang around people who are emotionally invested in undermining the happiness of others.
And so this kind of unhappiness spreads like a virus.
It is an STD. It's a syntactically transmitted disease.
Or depression, or whatever you want to call it, right?
And so you've got to be really careful with this kind of stuff.
If people are going through some emotionally volatile, self-justified kind of destruction in their environment, they will spread it to you, even if it's unconscious, even if they don't mean to, even if they see it. And you just...
In my opinion, can't have that and shouldn't have that in your life.
And again, it's not about you don't care about.
Of course you care about people. If somebody is like, oh man, my wife wants to divorce me.
I've been a really terrible husband.
I can't believe I've messed up this badly.
I've got to find some way to fix it.
I've got to go to therapy.
Again, we can all make mistakes.
I get that. But if people don't own those mistakes and don't regret their mistakes, then they will reproduce them in you.
There's no self-responsibility, and that's what I brought up with her, that if she was even slightly remorseful than she did, then I might have some sympathy for her just lashing out, trying to help herself rectify the situation, but she's not.
She's completely irremorseful.
She's Blaming everyone under the sun for everything that's gone wrong with her life and it's actually what caused our first argument in our marriage was this situation that I wanted her to cut these people out of her life and she said no.
And what was her reasoning for saying no?
It was that Wait, sorry.
I'm so sorry to interrupt.
Was it the case that the woman who cheated on her boyfriend and he called off the proposal and so on, was it the case that that is a family member?
Yes. What is the family member relationship?
A cousin. A cousin?
Yes. Okay. Is there an asterisk in the marriage vows that says, unless it's a cousin?
Nope. So again, you know, this is how you resolve these kinds of conflicts.
You refer to the vows, forsaking all others.
And also, is your wife religious?
Thank you.
She is.
She's Christian. She's Christian, okay.
Okay, so, you know, breaking marriage vows is a significant sin, and again, I know they weren't married, but breaking vows of fidelity, of monogamy is a great sin.
And... You don't enable sin, right?
It doesn't mean that you hate it.
It doesn't mean that any of this stuff.
But it means that you don't, you know, if somebody's an alcoholic, you don't enable that, right?
Yeah. Right.
So if... This woman is sinning, then you don't participate in justifications for that sin.
You may, of course, provide sympathy and so on, should that be the case that they have regret and they want to fix things and so on.
But if they're justifying it, if they're attempting to spread that sin, then they are a great spiritual danger and you don't participate in that, right?
Because you're certainly not doing any good to the other person by participating in that kind of destructive behavior, right?
Yeah.
So, again, it should not be a willpower situation.
It shouldn't be a, well, I have to convince you of this, like, with reference to the values that is the foundation of your relationship, right?
That should be how it plays.
Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes perfect sense.
Kind of... Checking myself for not thinking of going that route, bringing up our marriage vows and...
And reference to her Christian beliefs, right?
Yeah. I mean, this woman has borne false witness.
She has sinned, right? Oh, yeah.
So that's really important.
And, you know, our relationship to sin, our relationship to wrongdoing, I mean, it's complex.
It's challenging. But there are some basics, which is...
I mean, God does not forgive the sinner who does not repent, right?
Right. So if your wife's cousin is not repenting, then she should not gain forgiveness.
And I agree with that in philosophical terms, right?
Because a refusal to repent is a promise of repetition.
Whatever we justify, we repeat.
Whatever we condemn, we at least have a chance of stopping, right?
So, with reference to her Christian values, they say, okay, well, does God forgive sinners who don't repent?
And the answer is no. It's like, well, why would you?
Do you believe that your morality is somehow superior to Lord God Almighty's morality?
That doesn't make much sense, right?
Do you believe that you can just make up opposite moral rules to divinely inspired foundational moral truths?
Well, no. So, again, the answer is not a matter of personal willpower.
The answer is not a matter of personal convincing or, you know, see it my way or here are the consequences.
It's like, no, this is – she bore false witness.
She cheated. She lied.
She exposed her boyfriend, I assume, to dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and so on.
And now she's justifying it and causing trouble among – so this is an immorality of a very deep level without repentance, without remorse, without asking for forgiveness.
And the Bible is very clear, very clear, blindingly clear, that there cannot be forgiveness without repentance.
And you can pray for the woman and you can hope that she learns better.
You can hope that she learns to take ownership and to repent of her wrongdoing.
And you can talk about that, I suppose, with her.
But if she is relentless in her self-justifications, your wife has no more power, so to speak, to forgive that woman than God himself does.
Yeah, I'd agree with all that.
Good. It's more having a conversation with her again is what I'm going to just have to do because we've kind of gotten to a few different spats over this particular person.
There's a few others that I don't need to mention because it all stems back to the same of what you just said of it doesn't matter who it is.
You're my wife. We made vows.
Well, what I would say is that why don't you call the cousin directly?
There's an idea. Just call her up and say, hey, you got some criticism of me.
let's talk it out is the cousin also Christian?
Thank you.
Thank you.
She is. Yeah, okay.
So, you know, it's not fair to accuse people without them having the right of reply, right?
Yeah.
And so you are helping her to be a better Christian by giving her the right to put her criticisms of you front and center and discuss them openly.
Okay.
I'll definitely give that some serious consideration.
Why wouldn't you do that?
Because you can also have your wife in that conversation as well.
You can say, hey, let's all sit down together, we'll put it on our speakerphone, let's hash this out, right?
Yeah, that would be the route that I'd take instead of calling her up individually, just so that my wife can be there and hear everything that she says.
Sure, absolutely. Now, your wife may, of course, and probably would, freak out because the cousin would kind of panic because it's a lot easier to badmouth people behind their backs than it is to actually talk to them directly, right?
Yeah. Well, in which case, you know, Is it better, if you have a criticism of someone, is it better to whisper behind their back or to confront them directly?
Well, of course it's better to confront them directly.
That's the moral thing to do.
That's the not bearing false witness, so to speak, because gossip is a form of false witness and so on, right?
Yeah. And just get things out into the open.
These whisper campaigns are incredibly toxic and destructive and...
If the cousin simply refuses to have a conversation with you about her criticisms of you, Then you simply have to say to your wife, look, this is an unrepentant gossip monger and destructive person who doesn't even have the courage to confront me directly, but instead whispers about me behind my back, and you just got to say, if you love me, you can't put up with this.
Like, you can't. And the vows are essential, that you forsake all others.
And I'm not saying, hey, you know, maybe this woman's got great criticisms of me, right?
Maybe I can hear and learn, and of course, it's probably not true, of course, right?
But, you know... Always open to hear criticisms.
And if she won't confront you, if she's just going to badmouth you behind your back, well, then can't have it.
Can't have it, right? And you say to your wife, you know, would you like it if I had a friend who was badmouthing you behind your back to me and would not have a conversation with you about it?
Come on. That's pretty clear, right?
That's pretty bad. That's pretty terrible behavior.
Yeah, well, I really appreciate the insight there, and I'll take everything you said to heart and have a conversation with my wife tonight.
Good. Good. All right.
Try as much as you can not to make things personal but to refer to objective vows and promises and values that they already hold.
You don't want to try and control people.
You want to help encourage them to be in conformity with their own values.
All right. So I appreciate that.
Keep me posted, of course, and I suppose we shall move on to the next caller.
Thank you. Alright, so next we have a question, I guess, about your opinions or thoughts about how morality came to be.
In general, did men develop a clearer or straighter moral sense compared to women?
Considering that universally preferable behaviors are needed to maximize the quality of human relations between strangers, and men were the ones who needed to go out and interact with other individuals to bring resources home, while women usually stayed within the family or close community and therefore They did not really need to develop stricter standards for socializing with strangers.
I'm going to paste that question to you.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I mean, it's very interesting because, of course, that does kind of float into what we were just talking about with our friend the Mormon, right?
Just now, right? So let me just get this up so I can look at it without squinty 50-plus vision blurring it all out for me.
Let's see here. So...
The first impulse towards morality comes from two aspects of traditionally male relations.
The first aspect is the need to share labor and share winnings.
So if you want to go hunting, a lot of times you will need, like a pack of wild dogs or a pack of hyenas, you need cooperation in the hunt.
In other words, one person may be driving the deer towards someone else, or one person may be riding the horse on the bison to the left, and someone else needs to ride the horse on the bison to the right, and so on, right?
So you need that kind of cooperation, and some people have more dangerous jobs, being in the path of the buffalo is a little bit more dangerous than riding on either side, and so on.
But when it comes to cooperation in hunting, there has to be some...
Rule, which is those who participate, according to the degree of risk, danger, and skill, get a proportional share of the winning.
So maybe there's a better or more tasty part of the deer or the buffalo or something like that.
And so whoever takes on the most difficult and dangerous task is the one who gets first pick.
But everybody who productively participates in the hunt has to be guaranteed some kind of Sharing, right?
So this reciprocal, if you work and you contribute, then you gain resources from the hunt.
That is one of the first aspects of morality and it's essential because if people who work to get the hunt are suddenly barred from getting the proceeds of the hunt, then they will go off and hunt alone.
They will not participate in future hunts and so on.
And what will happen, of course, is that Things will become much less productive thereby.
So instead of everyone getting a giant buffalo, you know, everyone comes back with a rabbit, which is, you know, far fewer calories, particularly for the kids.
And this, of course, occurs in the realm of farming as well as agriculture, right?
Because it takes a lot of work, particularly pre-machinery, to plow, to irrigate, to plant, to protect, to grow, to harvest, to grind, and all that kind of stuff.
Like, it takes a huge... You know, the Amish thing where everybody helps build the barn kind of thing.
So when it comes to people who contribute get a fair share of that which is produced, that is sort of the basis of reciprocal contracts and a belief...
Or an acceptance that if you work, you gain the rewards thereby.
And so that is one aspect of morality that is necessary.
And it's not just human beings who do that.
Of course, the wild dogs also hunt, but they'll sort of snap and growl at each other to try and get the best.
So at least you can agree ahead of time what the rewards are of hunting.
And that reciprocal contract-based negotiation is what Drives the calorie acquisition that keeps the tribe going, keeps the children and the breastfeeding women in particular fed who need an extra couple hundred calories at least a day and so on.
So you need that aspect of things.
With regards to conflict, the capacity to physically injure each other is one of the things that drives men's sense of morality, which is...
Because men can commit great violence against each other, and women can against each other, and women can against men too, but in general, you know, the extra testosterone, the aggression, the upper body strength, and so on, that if a man is...
If someone is wronged in some fundamental way, and fundamental way like someone sleeps with his wife, someone takes his food, someone harms his child, and so on, then the traditional response of men is violence, Right.
I mean, we're talking sort of Stone Ages and so on.
The traditional response of men to some sort of foundational or interest injury is violence.
Right.
We've all sort of heard these stories of, you know, the dad who catches the kid, catches the pedophile preying upon the child and beats hell out of him and so on.
And there's lots of guys out there and show some women, too, who are like, yeah, you know, like we understand.
Or if somebody's caught who's been attacking children, there, of course, always the people on the Internet.
And it comes from a pretty deep and powerful place who say, you know, we'll just give the dads of the neighborhood that guy for the weekend and see what happens, right?
So there is that capacity to injure other men that has to be dealt with in some manner.
And so prevention being by far the better part of cure, you want to try and figure out situations wherein predation from male to male Is prevented.
Because let's say some guy comes and harms your child and you go and kill him.
Well, he's got children and now you've got a single mom situation and you've got children who are going to be hungry.
Like, now you have a big mess on your hands.
So you do want to try and figure out some way, if possible, to prevent the harming of one man by another man.
Because, again, the blowback is traditionally violence, which is unstable.
And, of course, it can provoke...
These kinds of clan, you know, Hatfield-McCoy clan warfares where, you know, this guy...
I mean, I remember this when I was a kid playing Defender in a bowling alley and some kid unplugged my game because I was doing well and he wanted to play and I called him a jerk and then his brother went to get me and so on.
So you can have these things kind of escalate, right?
One guy... It hurts or injures the interest of some guy, hits on his girlfriend or something, then the guy pushes him, the other guy comes back with his brothers, and then the other clan goes back.
It can really escalate from there to the point where a number of the sort of fighting, hunting prime of life men of the tribe are disabled or dead, right?
Which lends you to be prey to starvation or predation from some other tribe that has figured out how to try and prevent these things.
So if you have a code of honor, a code of morality...
Which involves having clear-cut rules about, you know, don't sleep with another man's wife, don't initiate the use of force, don't steal, don't whatever, right?
then what happens if you could figure out a way to get those rules across, and you will probably try to infuse them with some aspect of divinity or absolutism that comes from religion in order to really pound these rules into the bone marrow of the men of the tribe, then you will have a better chance to prevent the kind of conflicts that result in injury and fatherlessness for a family and so on.
And that's good.
And the other thing too is that if you can figure out ostracism rather than violence as a means of punishment for transgression, then you're way ahead of the game.
And of course, prison is a kind of ostracism, right?
Which is kind of an exiling to a place where you can't interact with general society and you're sort of isolated, of course, from general society.
So it is a form of exile or ostracism to put people in prison.
And so if you can get the rules ground in, if you can infuse them with the divine, you prevent a lot of conflicts.
If when there are conflicts...
Then you ostracize rather than kill.
Ostracism, of course, may drive away one member of your tribe, one male member of your tribe, but it won't get the kind of escalation.
It won't get the kind of injuries or death that can occur that weaken you as a fighting force or a hunting force, which threatens the survival of the tribe as a whole.
So, A, risk and reward, or effort and hunting reward, and B, The goal of trying to minimize violent conflicts between men, these really are the foundations of morality, and it's different with regards to the general and traditional growth of ethics within women.
Because women generally are much more cooperative when it comes to these kinds of things, and women, of course, generally wound with words rather than fists, right?
This is what we just heard about in the last call, right?
That the cousin who's, you know, obviously unhappy with this guy's wife's marriage or him or whatever, and so rather than direct confrontation and so on, she gossips, she negatives, she sows...
Iago-style poison seeds in the brain and all that kind of stuff.
And that's how women generally tend to fight, is through gossip and reputation damage and all that kind of stuff.
And that's really tough.
Direct confrontation doesn't generally tend to work in this kind of way, which is why you know when this guy I was just talking to says, oh, I'll call up this cousin and have a direct conversation with her and with my wife, it'll be like, oh my gosh, the worst possible thing ever.
Whereas for a guy to confront another guy may not be quite as...
And so men are afraid of violence.
Women are generally afraid of reputational damage and sort of poison seeds of unpacking dangerous language into the ear of a susceptible woman and so on.
And so that tends to be the way things work.
Men compete, of course.
Women cooperate.
And so for men, you want equality of opportunity because you want to be able to win as much as possible and therefore get the most fertile, attractive, intelligent woman, so to speak.
Whereas women tend to be more cooperative.
And so while men want equality of opportunity, women generally want equality of outcome.
And that, of course, is the distinction or difference between the left and the right as a whole, between capitalism and socialism as a whole.
Capitalism is equality of opportunity.
Socialism is equality of outcome.
And a lot of that has to do, of course, with the fact that because women are generally historically have been on the receiving end of the food and whatever resources the men go out and win.
For women, redistributionism makes a good deal of sense because there was no storage for most of our resources in the past.
I mean, you could make jams.
You could make pickles and so on.
But it's not like you could, you know, if you've ever seen Into the Wild, you know, the guy gets some meat, but he has no way of keeping it fresh.
You know, the flies land on it, it goes rotten and so on.
And so when the men bring home a boar or whatever it is that they've caught, I mean, in the Bear Grylls episode, The Island, they kill an alligator, which is like 15,000 calories or something like that.
Well, you might as well share it equally among the kids, among the families, because you can't keep it anyway.
So... Men gain status from going out and hunting better, but when you bring it back home, redistribution makes sense.
In other words, equality of opportunity is great for hunters, but equality of outcome tends to be better for females and for families.
And if you say to someone, well, I can't keep this boar leg.
It's going to go bad by tomorrow, but I'm not going to let you eat it.
That would just be such a volatile and hateful and destructive thing to do.
I would rather you starve than me give you some food.
I mean, that would be total fighting words, so to speak, right?
So men like the competition aspect of equality of opportunity because they can maybe go out and win more resources, get more land, maybe herd more cattle, maybe whatever it is.
They like that equality of opportunity, but the resources that are then shared among the wives and children, they generally gravitate more towards equality Of outcome.
And again, we're sort of talking evolution to the tipping point of the 10,000 year explosion of the agricultural aspect.
And then of course, once the market comes along, equality of opportunity becomes really important because you can become fabulously wealthy relative to how the wealth disparities in a sort of more primitive tribe.
And so for women, egalitarianism of outcome generally serves their needs because you might as well – I mean maybe your kids get a little less food but at least they've got something to eat if there's equality of outcome.
So for women, if someone comes home with more and they can't eat it, they can't keep it themselves and therefore they might as well share it with others, that just sort of fundamentally appeals.
Like for women's instincts to not share what you cannot keep would make – It would make no sense at all, right?
You can't keep meat.
Even the next day or the day after, I mean, I guess you can dry it and make beef jerky and stuff like that.
But as a whole, if you can't keep it but you won't share it, that's really directly contrary to any filial feeling in a tribe.
So you might as well share. So for women...
Yeah, you should share, particularly if you have excess, whereas men are like, well, no, I want to have the equality of opportunity to go out and try and get excess so that I can have excess with which to woo the best woman, the most fertile woman, the most even-featured, attractive, hip-to-waist ratio woman, and so on.
And so that, I think, is one of the reasons why we have the concept of justice, right?
Justice being... Thank you, Stefan. I did this question, but I was a bit confused.
I'm more willing to hear you first than I could jump in and try to say something else.
I came out with this question because I was talking with a friend about how we could come to a logical reason for the fact that men are less tolerable, less tolerant about degeneracy and deviant behavior Then women is towards men, right?
Go on. I mean, for example, at least when we are, like, teenagers, it's a pretty, like, common teenager movie play that, like, This young boy is very bad boy and he's tough and he does some kind of deviant behavior and some girls are like,
oh, he's hot and I can help him become a better guy and all this kind of nurturing.
I'm not sure if it's nurturing the word, but it looks like the girls Usually, at least in this particular scenario, it seems that they don't see the immorality, the more deeper immorality of his actions than otherwise.
If a guy and a girl was more deviant and she was doing bad stuff and all those things, the guy usually would be more...
Less proactive towards her.
I'm not sure if I put that in a meaningful sense.
No, no, I think I understand.
So, the big question for women is, why will the man commit to me?
Why will the man commit to me?
And... The two answers as a whole throughout all of human history is one of two things.
Either personal qualities of character or sexual access.
So those are the two things.
Now, it's not that they can't be co-joined or anything, but that's generally the way that these questions have been answered throughout human history.
So if a woman goes for qualities of character, then she displays steadfastness and loyalty and intelligence and good humor and skills and conversation abilities and, you know, well-read or whatever it is, right?
So she has qualities of character, and that is what draws the man to her.
But I don't know.
You've probably seen that famous improvised scene in Indiana Jones, the first one, where, you know, he's in the Middle Eastern marketplace and the guy comes out.
There was supposed to be this big sword fight, but I think Harrison Ford had the flu and he just...
Pulled out his gun and shot the guy and they decided to keep it in the movie.
And so, you know, you can learn all of these big ninja moves, but a guy with a gun is just going to take you down, right?
And that is the difference between quality of character and simply sexual access, right?
So quality of character is all these ninja moves.
Sexual access is, okay, I'm going to win this fight by just shooting a guy, right?
And so if a woman...
Decides to, or is encouraged to, or ends up in a situation where she offers sexual access in return for male loyalty, then the more power her sexual access has, the more secure she can be in keeping the man's interest, keeping the man's loyalty, keeping the man's commitment to her, right?
So it's the old, you know, we all know this thing where Some guys with some girl, we can't figure out why, and sort of the cliche is, well, she must be able to suck a golf ball through a garden hose in order to keep that guy around, right?
So, you know, she developed sexual skills, sexual abilities, sexual athleticism, sexual whatever it is, right?
Maybe deviancy for that matter.
And then the greater power that she has over the man with regards to offering up sexual access, in other words, the more that she can change him, Because of his lust for her, the more secure she's going to feel that she can not only get him but also keep him with regards to sexual access.
Now, that is a very dangerous game for women as a whole.
Qualities of character tend to be slow but steady wins the race.
Qualities of character tend to keep a man around because sexual access, obviously, it's all well and good.
But if the woman offers up sexual access to the man, then, you know, deep down men understand that sexual access generally does not remain constant over the course of a long-term relationship where you have children, sleeplessness, illness. You know, it waxes and wanes, yea, verily, like the moon, so to speak.
And therefore, and of course, you know, when you have...
A whole series of young kids and so on.
It's not like you're in that Madonna song.
Satin sheets are very romantic.
What happens when you're not in bed?
Sexual access becomes a whole lot less important when you have two or three screaming babies and toddlers in the house and you're having precious little time to have A lot of toe-curling sex between satin sheets like the way you had on your honeymoon and so on.
So it's just the way. And of course, people get older, they age and so on.
Libido tends to diminish a little bit as time goes along.
And if you don't have qualities of character, right?
So it's very much an R-selected strategy.
If you remember my presentations on Gene Wars, which again, you can check out on LBRY. You can check out, I think they're on BitChute as well or that.
So the Gene Wars presentations...
Sexual access is R selected.
Qualities of character is K selected.
R being little investment in offspring and you just keep having babies until you run out of food, whereas K is more investment in offspring and fewer babies and management of resources from a more consequential standpoint.
And so for a woman, the fantasy for the woman...
The fantasy for our selected woman is that she holds such powerful capacities of sexual attraction that she can literally change a man's personality.
And so for a woman, if there's a hot guy and she can...
Get him to change because of her sexual hypnotic power over her.
You know, the sort of traditional modern stories around this are Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey, right?
Where these nondescript women have powers of sexual access so great that they can fundamentally transform the men in their lives, right?
The vegetarian vampire and the...
S&M guy, Christian Grey, and so on, right?
So they have such sexual allure that men will fundamentally change their personalities, and that's how they try to translate sexual allure into a lifelong commitment when, you know, it's really like trying to build an inverted pyramid to base a relationship on sexual allure, as I've talked about with many, many people in these shows over the last 15 years.
It's a bad idea.
It's a really, really, really bad idea to try and build a long-term relationship on mere sexual attraction.
It is a disaster waiting to happen and you've got to go for qualities of character.
But, of course, the great fantasy of the woman is that she's so sexy that the man will fundamentally change for her and that way she doesn't have to develop qualities of character because she can spread her legs or her cheeks, I suppose.
But if he finds a guy that can actually, like, fall in her bait, between quotes, but she can change him, make him change, is not that a very bad thing in long term for the girl?
Because if he is not that strong, I mean, in morals and etc, in virtues and all that stuff, That she had banded his virtues and morals to her will.
It means that maybe someone can do that again in the future with him.
Oh yeah, like as I said, it's a bad strategy, for sure.
Because the other thing too is that he could simply pretend to be under her sexual spell, have sex with her, and then leave.
So for a woman to be that desired, right?
So if you know the Fifty Shades of Grey, right?
I mean, this is the story.
Anastasia, I think, is the woman's name, right?
So Anastasia is, you know, a boring, deadbeat, kind of plain Jane woman who works in a hardware store and I think in a publishing house or whatever.
And she's not an entrepreneur.
She's not a brilliant writer.
She's not a very moral person.
She's just some girl who...
Trundles along in life in a pretty low-rent situation and occupation.
And then, lo and behold, Christian Grey just becomes completely obsessed with her.
And he basically stalks her.
And he threatens her.
And, you know, he's scary.
And he beats up a guy he thinks is hitting on her.
And so, for a woman, this is deeply...
Again, not all women, obviously, but in general, right?
There's a reason why this is like brutal, softcore, hardcore pornography in many ways is the most popular book ever written for women and why it makes all the women's protestations about the aggressive sex scenes in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged seem all kinds of ridiculous, right? It turns out that Ayn Rand knew female nature pretty well.
Pretty well. So he becomes obsessed with her and she...
Rules him and owns him because of his desire for her.
Now, his desire for her is fundamentally inexplicable.
But you see, it doesn't need to be explicable because it's appealing to female vanity and narcissism and wanting to gain control over a man without having the self-control of personal virtue, right?
So, like, I could be a really, really great woman.
I could study business.
I could really help him with his business.
I could help him with his trauma.
I could, you know, or I could just let him chain me up.
You know, I mean, for women, it's like, it's a whole lot easier to just let him chain you up.
Rather than develop all the virtues that would make you a very valuable lifelong companion to him in his business life and in his personal life and so on.
I did sort of grip my teeth and get through all three of the movies because it really was quite a phenomenon.
I did reviews, if I remember, at least on a couple.
At the very end of the third movie, she appears to be surrendering to him, but she turns and smiles because she knows that she's in control of him through her seeming surrender to him.
That she controls him.
Because for some reason, she's the woman in the world that he wants to beat up most.
I mean, it's nuts.
It's crazy.
But it's this thirst for the unearned.
So men have these fantasies of superpowers.
Like there's Superman that they can fly.
They have force fields.
They... They have these superpowers.
They don't really earn them.
Like it just kind of happens to them.
Like you just happen to be launched off Krypton by your dad, Marlon Brando, and there you go onto the land of Earth where you last until you fall off a horse.
But for men, we want these superpowers.
And... Which we don't really earn, but they just allow us to do amazing things and give us the vanity of uniquely powerful characteristics.
For women, they want the superpower of a man losing his mind over sexual attraction to her, which is why, of course, I mean, it explains a good two-thirds of the modern economy, right, which is why the economy crashing is not necessarily the worst thing in the world because when the economy crashes, women will probably stay home with their children more and, you know, I guess the old-timey conservative values might get a kind of resurgence.
But if you look at the economy, the economy, significant portions of it, sometimes it seems the majority, is attempting to give women the superpower of being sexually alluring to the point where a man will sacrifice and commit to her simply in return for sexual access.
it's And... Women want that and the powers that be want women to want that because otherwise women will have to look at qualities of character and stability and maturity and morality and consistency and integrity and all that kind of stuff which would fundamentally shift values in the world to the point where families would be more stable,
they wouldn't lead the state as much and so the more that you can get women to try and roll the grenade of sexual attraction into the man tent of individuality The more that you're going to get these families to crash together and break up, and the more that women are going to feel helpless and insecure, which means they're going to vote for socialism.
Like, there's a whole complicated set of politics and everything around all of this, but...
The superpower of being desired for women is the greatest temptation.
The temptation for men is to sleep with a lot of women without realizing that you are hurting women in a way that you yourself will not be hurt.
Because men can survive promiscuity a lot better.
Than women can, for obvious biological reasons of asymmetrical investment in pregnancy and childbirth and so on.
And so for men, it's like sleeping with a lot of women.
That's their kryptonite.
For women, being sexually attractive is their kryptonite.
And, of course, sexual attraction is only supposed to last for a couple years, from like 18 to 20 or 18 to 21.
And then, historically, you got picked, you got married, you started having babies.
You got stretch marks, your ass began to sag, and your boobs seem to, as I write in The God of Atheists, your boobs seem to want to consummate a love affair with your belly button.
The sort of fire of female beauty and sexual attractiveness is like a match lit and, you know, it flares up and then it burns out and then, you know, you take it off your hands.
But what happens now is that women want to milk, so to speak, the sexual attractiveness that they have year after year, decade after decade, and then when it burns out in their late 30s, early 40s, And they haven't used it to create the foundation of marriage and children and stability and virtue and all that kind of good stuff that coasts you in the second half of your life.
Well, they've used that drug and they've burned themselves out.
They've used that superpower and they end up kind of...
Inhuman in a way because they're not warned that this is supposed to be used to help build the foundation of a family.
It's not supposed to be used to just get free dinners for 20 years and then starve to death for the next 40 so to speak.
Does that make any sense?
Yeah, yeah, exactly. Just to sew up the whole thing, is that I love the way you answered me the first question, because it was more like a basic instinct way to explain this whole situation of morality, like how the man develops the moral standards that we got.
And so when I came in, this is more...
To show that actually there is a difference between morality between men and women.
And men tend to be, because of the situation, need to be more moral than women.
But you, of course, as a father and we as brothers of sisters, etc., we can also try to do our job and bring up these morality standards for all the...
It goes around us, right?
Yeah, look, it's really, really important for fathers to remind their daughters that, like, hey, you didn't earn male hormones.
You didn't earn the fact that men are sexually attracted to women.
And it doesn't mean you, you know, shouldn't enjoy the attention and there's nothing wrong with sex is great and all of that.
But you can't take personal vanity over that which you did not earn.
You know, some people get mad at me for pointing this out with regards to your ancestors.
It's like, okay, well, I guess you can admire people or races or cultures or ethnicities that have done good things in history and every culture has added something to human history that's well worth appreciating and perhaps even admiring, but you can't take pride in that which you did not do.
And again, you may look at your ancestors and say, wow, they really inspire me, but you can't take pride because your ancestors did stuff because that's You know, it's a form of theft.
You didn't earn it, but you want to take pride in it.
That's not fair, right? And it's the same thing with female attractiveness.
Yeah, you know, if you're a hot girl and you're, you know, 19 years old, a lot of guys are going to want to go out with you, but that's not because you did something to earn that.
That's just that, you know, maybe you do your sit-ups or your exercise or whatever, but to a large degree, you will only tone yourself because you want men to ask you out and so on.
And it's really... It's tempting to take the fact that men want to ask you out and think that that means that you yourself have value in some existential way.
And it doesn't.
And that's really...
Tough. And we don't have a lot of pushback on this.
There used to be a lot of pushback on this.
You know, the warning of the old maids and the warning of, you know, if you keep waiting too long to fall in love, your chance will pass you by and you're just left with the dregs and so on.
We keep this knowledge from women and when they're in the full flush of their youthful sexual power, we just encourage them to pursue that.
You know, all of this Instagram stuff and...
Women posing in bikinis and so on.
And again, you know, female form is beautiful and women are sexy and it's wonderful and it's lovely and it's a great part of life and so on.
But you didn't earn it. You didn't earn the fact that men have a built-in desire to throw resources at attractive females.
You know, it's funny. So, many years ago, before I was married, I would go to Yoga class on Sunday afternoons.
I did like an hour and a half of Ashtanga yoga, which was great.
And then I went and got another hour and a half massage.
It was like aromatherapy massage, essential oils.
Really, really nice. It was a nice way to spend a Sunday afternoon.
It was my sort of treat for the week because I was working really hard on books and IT and all of that.
So that was nice.
Now, I mean, I enjoyed yoga.
Don't get me wrong. I think it was good for me.
But the fact that there were a lot of attractive women in the yoga class was not the worst thing in the world.
And, you know, I would chat with them.
I went out with a couple and it was, you know, no one who really clicked, but it was kind of nice.
Anyway, and then there was this one woman in the yoga class who was, I mean, probably as close to a 10 as you can get without some creepy Japanese cyborg beaming into your brain.
And I chatted with her a couple of times and so on.
But of course, you know, she had the weariness of the very attractive woman and so on.
She was talking about wanting to start a business, right?
And it was the usual, you know, if you're an attractive woman, it's the model, actress, real estate, life coach, you know, just stuff that you don't, you know, that you're going to use your looks in some manner or another.
And I don't begrudge it, you know, the looks are important and it's fine.
But I do remember talking to her and her telling me about her desire to start this business and so on.
And I literally had to, like, I felt this urge or this impulse to say, you know, hey, I could invest in your business.
I didn't know her business experience or anything like that.
Oh, I could invest in your business.
Because then, you see, we'd have to have business meetings and she'd realize what a great guy I was.
But I had to slap myself in the face and say, you've got to be kidding.
This is not a sane way to get involved in anybody's business.
That's like ulterior motives and it's not honest and it's not productive.
But that's how...
You know, crazy men are.
I was, you know, many years younger as well.
That's how crazy men are for like really, really attractive women that we will...
We will go nuts, you know?
I'm sure every guy at one time or another has seen a really, really attractive woman in a car, and not that anyone would ever do this, but you have...
I've had the thought, I guess. I have the thought to say, well, you know, gosh, if we were to get into an accident, I would totally get her number.
It's like that makes no sense at all, right?
Obviously, it's a terrible way to get someone's number, but it would be kind of true.
You'd have to exchange numbers and all of that.
It's like, hey, remember me from the ding...
From the ding of your car. So, yeah, we go a little crazy around attractive women and it's important as a father to raise your daughter to say, you know, hey, enjoy it.
You know, enjoy the male attention. It's a wonderful part of life and I hope that it helps you, you know, get your pick and choice of quality men and so on.
But don't imagine that it makes you as a mind, as a personality, it doesn't make you More valuable as a human being.
It just means that men want to make babies, right?
You know, have sex or whatever, right?
And it's tough, right?
Because you don't want to make a prude, like, oh, it's all just negative.
But you also don't want to have someone who is going to be taking personal pride in the unearned.
Because that's a really great way to hollow things out, you know?
I mean, so, as we sort of talked about before, the equivalent for men...
Is would be to inherit, you know, $10 million, right?
That would kind of be the equivalent for men to sort of inherit $10 million, and then think that that makes you a really great businessman.
And of course, you know, there is that temptation for men, if you do have a rich family, you do inherit a lot of money, to think that that somehow makes you a more valuable human being when you didn't earn it.
When you did not earn it.
And I think that trying to keep people away from the unearned is really, really important.
To keep people from investing their sense of personal value into things that they did not create is a really essential part of life and just unfortunately not really happening as much anymore.
Cool, cool.
So you think that the biggest hit for a woman is if she's offering sexual access to a guy and the guy rejects it, is it the biggest hit that she could get?
Well, if...
Okay, so, I mean, most men...
Have a fundamental reproductive strategy called aim at the top and work your way down until you get a woman who will go out with you.
And I mean, that was certainly my approach when I was a teenager was I asked out the queen bee of the high school and did not make it.
So I went to the second tier and that was where I settled in, right?
And I think it was fine and it was good all around.
But, so the general strategy for men is, you know, start at the top and work your way down.
Now that's, to some degree, that's the way that women work, but generally still the vast, I think it's 80-85% of dates are the man asking the woman out or the boy asking the girl out and so on.
So women generally don't pursue, they make themselves attractive and see who will pursue them, right?
So you, I remember my grade six dance when I was only first starting to get interested in In girls, that you would go to the gym and the boys would line up on one side of the darkened gym and the girls would line up on the other.
And you'd have to have this no-man-land trench warfare stroll across to go and ask a girl out.
And you would walk down the row of the girls and you would say, okay, well, I need to ask a girl to dance with me.
And you start fast dancing.
You don't start slow dancing. That's for later when you get all confused because Stairway to Heaven is both slow and fast at various times.
But you walk down the row of the girls and you say, okay, I need to ask a girl out.
She can't be so attractive that she won't go out with me.
Oh, she won't go and dance with me because she's waiting for somebody higher up on the food chain, so to speak.
So she can't be...
I can't ask a girl so attractive she's not going to dance with me, but I can't ask a girl so unattractive that my friends will make fun of me.
It's brutal. I don't get me...
I'm not advocating or think it's a wonderful thing, and it was better, of course, when we had, you know, communities of values like religion, Christianity, and so on, where we could learn qualities of people rather than simply judging them like a bald pound of horse flesh or whatever, but...
That's kind of the way that things go, that you kind of got to angle your way in so that you get as high a quality a woman as you can without being...
Or laughed at, you know, which is like, oh my god, can you believe that that guy came up and asked me out, like, who does he think he is?
And, you know, I'm waiting for the stud muffin football player, not the geeky mathlete who has much more of a future fundamentally in a knowledge economy.
And so for a woman, if she stakes her value on sex appeal, then certainly for the man to not...
Want to have sex with her is a huge blow.
I guess you could take that both ways.
But it is a huge blow, but that's usually not what women face.
Because for most men, if a woman offers sexual access, they will say yes, you know, unless, you know, I don't know, she's Very obese or there's some other particular unattractive aspect to her that it's just too much of a dip.
But any sort of reasonably attractive woman, if she offers up sex to a man, the man will generally say yes.
So the problem is not for women, will he have sex with me?
That's usually in the affirmative.
The problem with women is, will he commit to me?
And there, of course, has been this race to the bottom that's just been unbelievably brutal.
With regards to this stuff.
The race at the bottom is that in the past there used to be kind of a cartel monopoly with regards to women, right?
So the cartel monopoly was women don't give sex to men unless they're married, unless they get married, right?
So there was a cartel, a monopoly cartel on sexual access.
Don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself as that old song goes.
I'm not going to have sex with you until I get a wedding ring.
That was the sort of traditional way that things went.
And women could be reasonably assured that women who broke that monopoly would be punished significantly.
So if you've got the reputation as the town slut or the town whore or all this kind of stuff, Then you were considered to be cheating by offering up sex without commitment, thus devaluing the value of commitment to the women who were withholding sex, right? And, you know, like if all of these water bottle vendors are lining up on the edge of a desert and they're all charging, say, oh, we're going to charge 20 bucks for a bottle of water, right?
Then if everybody keeps to their word, then the price of the bottle of water is...
It's 20 bucks. If one guy decides to sell it for 10 bucks, then suddenly the price of the water becomes 10 bucks.
And so if you hold this monopoly cartel that was enforced through religion and through ostracism, then the woman who slept around, the men would sleep with her and the men were generally not blamed because, you know, boys will be boys and men are primed to spray and pray and women are designed to commit and connect.
And so if the woman...
Handed out sexuality.
Then she risked, of course, getting pregnant.
And if she'd had sex with a number of men, she could never in the past prior to DNA, of course, prove who the father of her child was.
And then the family as a whole would end up with this single mom and they'd have to raise the child herself or they'd send her away for an abortion to sometimes some other country.
It used to happen. And of course, remember, abortions are relatively new in this sort of annals of human history, at least safe abortions.
And so there was this cartel and the women who broke it would be ostracized.
It's the line that Mitch says in Streetcar Named Desire to Blanche Dubois.
He finds that she's been sleeping with everyone and she says, so you're not going to marry me?
And he says, no, you're not clean enough to bring into the house with my mother.
This sort of uncleanness.
Like he's willing to sleep with her, but he won't marry her.
And this, of course, was wise because women who have a lot of sexual partners are much more likely to divorce and destroy their marriages and be unfaithful.
And it really is a marker of extraordinarily dangerous dysfunction for this kind of stuff.
So, yeah, so women used to have a cartel.
And now the awful decision that women have to make is say, okay, well, if the man can go and get sex from the woman next to me, what do I do?
What do I do? In other words, can I really charge $20 for a bottle of water if the man next to me is charging $10?
Well, I could say, hey, my bottle of water is more pure and it's of higher quality and you can keep the bottle.
And it's like, but a man who's thirsty, we're just like, cheapest bottle of water, right?
And, you know, I hate to sort of be this reductionist, but frankly, for a man who wants to get his rocks off, a hole is a hole is a hole.
A rose is a rose is a rose, as Gertrude Stein said famously, and a hole is a hole is a hole.
And so because men, particularly teenage and 20s, you know, kind of crazed with hormones and desperate for sex, If women are putting out, if girls are putting out, then what are the other girls supposed to do?
Well, if she says no, no, no, no, no, then she's concerned, and not unjustly so, that the man's going to lose interest, particularly if she says no sex before marriage, then unless the man shares her particular religious convictions, usually that would be the case, then the man's going to be like, well, good luck with that, but...
Sally, down the road, you can have sex with her after three dates or two dates or maybe even one date.
I don't know, right? And so if she doesn't offer sex, then she might...
She faces significant risk of losing the man's attention.
If she does offer sex, then she might get the man's attention, but then the problem is keeping the man's attention because a woman who gives up sex too early, we all know this fundamentally as men, it's fun, but it's not, you know, that's...
Shag material, not wife material, right?
That's the woman who gives up sex too early, does, you know, maybe manipulative, maybe hoping to hook you into that sort of sex mad fever dream of one-itis.
But a woman who gives up sex too early is someone who...
Has done it in the past, so to speak, and may have an STD and may have a pregnancy or an abortion in the past or may have certain emotional instabilities and so on because it's someone who does not have that fundamental self-respect to say, no, no, no, I don't want to give up sex.
I want you to get to know me, who I am and what I'm about, and I want to have that sort of value conversation or that value perspective with you.
So it's really – modernity is brutal, brutal, brutal on women.
It's tough on men and, you know, we hear about the family courts and I'm sympathetic to all of that.
But we also do have to recognize how incredibly brutal things like the welfare state and so on are on women.
You know, I had a tweet back in the days when I had a tweet.
I had a tweet which was, before the welfare state, was there any such thing as a friend zone?
That's a really – I mean it's a very deep – Insight and observation.
I want to sort of unpack it all here other than to say, prior to the welfare state, women couldn't just go date and keep guys in reserve and all that because they kind of had to, in the youthful flair of their beauty and sex appeal, they had to lock down a man for a long-term commitment.
And, you know, there's almost nothing more humiliating than being stuck in the friend zone by a woman who's already married.
It's really sad.
That's beyond pitiful, right?
And so women prior to the welfare state had to have a man to provide for them and had to provide qualities of sexual access or character, hopefully the latter.
But once you got the welfare state, then women were provided for.
They didn't need to get that level of commitment because they could get resources out of the man through the power of the state rather than the qualities of their characters or, I don't know, the opening of their legs, so to speak.
But it's really tough for women. It's really, really unbearable for women right now because women do want to be loved.
They do want to have commitments.
They do want to have a robust sex life as part of that commitment of marriage or at least long-term boyfriend-girlfriend status.
But in order to gain a man's attention, they're competing with women who will offer up sex with very little resistance.
And I remember, you know, this was not the case when I was dating when I was young.
But yeah, it was a friend of mine some years ago who's much younger than me was saying, oh yeah, like if you haven't had sex by the third date, like forget it, right?
And I'm like, third date?
Third date? I mean, good heavens, that's remarkable.
And it's really, really, really tough.
For women. And of course, the media is all playing the, you know, sexually empowered sluttiness is the way to go, that women can be just like men.
And, you know, it just doesn't seem to be the case.
It doesn't really play out that way.
All that happens is that, you know, where are the unhappy, bitter, angry feminist stereotypes coming from?
Well, they're coming from men who...
Use women for sex.
And then when that's the case, then a woman says, well, men are just pigs and they don't care about qualities of character and it's really bad.
I really implore men.
I implore men. Go complain about feminism all you want.
But if you are sleeping around, if you're a player, if you're running a game, if you're just sleeping around with women, if you're just using women for sex, then you're more responsible for I mean, you are creating feminists by using women for sexuality.
It is dehumanizing.
It's brutal. It's horrible.
And I'm the father of a girl.
And don't do it.
Find a woman of quality.
Commit to her.
Raise a family. Don't fall into this stupid blind trap that's been set by cultural...
Indoctrination and programming, largely from the left.
Just don't do it. If you can't find value in a woman outside of her sexuality, don't do it.
Don't do it. You'll have a much better sex life with a woman of quality than with a woman of access.
All right. Thank you very much for your question.
Let's do maybe one more.
All right. So...
We have a question. This listener is unsure about jumping in to have a chat.
So if you maybe have some general thoughts or if you want some more information, you know, throw it at them.
General thoughts is the name of my chief commander in the philosophy army.
Is that right? Yeah.
Did he get promoted over general blah, blah, blah?
Major general. Oh, man.
That's going back a ways.
It sure is. All right.
So his question is, should I defoo early?
Or take a bit of crap and use the family resources to help move me out of the third world and get an education, not college, and then defu.
Okay. Help me to understand this one.
He doesn't want to talk or she doesn't want to talk.
Is that right? He's a bit shy.
No, that's fine. It's fine if he doesn't.
Can you just maybe throw the question into our chatty chat, Phil?
Absolutely. So the context is, he's in the third world.
He apparently is unhappy with his family.
And he's wondering if, you know, how would he make the decision around whether he should stick it out and try to, you know, get some resources together, or if he should just split.
First of all, I have to get a song out of my head.
One world is enough for all of us.
Alright. So, do you take resources from an abusive family to get your life started?
If the family is...
So, you know, for those who don't know DFU, so FU is an acronym.
It's not mine. It stands for family of origin.
And the reason that the word DFU is there is like the word divorce, right?
So if you say, well, I'm going to leave my family, nobody knows if you are talking about your family of origin or if you're married, your current family or whatever it is, right?
Or your extended family. So...
That's what defu is. Now, defu, of course, I suppose it's a controversial thing because people can't think consistently, but defu is if you decide to take a break, whether temporary or permanent, from your family of origin, my message has always been, yeah, you don't have to be in abusive relationships.
You simply don't have to be in abusive relationships, of course.
We recognize that if your girlfriend is abusive, you can break up with her.
If your friend is abusive, you don't have to stay in that friendship.
And if your parents are abusive, you don't have to stay.
Once you're an adult, you don't have to stay in that relationship.
Or I suppose younger. I mean, I don't talk to people under 18, but you can go and get student welfare or whatever it is.
Find some way to support yourself outside of that.
But... So you don't...
Now, my suggestion has always been the same, which is, you know, if you've got issues with your parents, sit down and read, assuming it's safe, you're not violent or something, right?
You know, your dad's not Tony Soprano or something, in which case, I guess, just give him some pasta and wait for nature to take its course, but...
If you do have abusive parents or really difficult, unpleasant, negative relationships, sit down with your parents and try and talk about things, try and work things out.
I mean, I certainly tried it repeatedly and also engaged with a therapist who's got some experience with these kinds of things, not just because it's a difficult thing to do emotionally to separate from an abusive family of origin, but also because there's a huge amount of social prejudice against that particular behavior.
For reasons I can get into another time, I think we all recognize, I think it was Beverly Slopen who wrote a book about this and was one of the books who was like, you know, just, you know, it's like if you're in an abusive relationship with a girlfriend, at least you chose that person, which is not much comfort if you're in that mess, but you don't choose your parents, right?
So you should have even higher standards for unchosen relationships than you do for chosen relationships.
But if you're in an abusive relationship with, let's say you're a woman, you're in an abusive relationship with some guy and you say, oh yeah, no, I dated this guy five times and then, you know, he hit me on the sixth date and I'm like, I never had anything to do with him again.
People are like, hey, wise decision, good job, well done.
Or even if it's like, oh, he just put me down, he called me fat when I wasn't, he, you know, made me feel like crap and I was like, okay, well, why would you want to stay in that kind of situation?
But if it's mommy and daddy, suddenly you're not supposed to have any free will.
You're not supposed to have any choice in the matter and so on.
And unfortunately, I think it speaks to just how negative a lot of parenting is.
Yeah. So that's sort of the defu thing in a nutshell.
Yeah, you don't have to spend time.
I really suggest if it's safe, try and work it out with your parents.
Maybe you can have a breakthrough. Therapy is really, really important if you're going to go through this process.
But yeah, you don't have to stay in abusive relationships.
So with regards to taking resources from your family, if they are abusive and like if you do want to leave it, I don't think that it's a moral question.
I don't think that it's a moral question.
Um... When you are in an abusive relationship with someone, let's say that your parents hit you repeatedly as a child, so you're kind of in a state of nature.
And let me sort of give you a more extreme example just by way of illustration.
So if you're kidnapped and you're locked in the back of a van and the way that you get out is you...
You know, kick open the door, you break the window, and you wait until they're slowing down, and then you jump out and so on, right?
Well, normally, you shouldn't go down the street kicking in the windows and breaking the doors of random cars.
That would be destruction of property.
It would be immoral, right?
But when you're in a situation where morality is kind of already out the window, In other words, you've been kidnapped or something.
Okay, well, then that's sort of a different matter.
And I don't think there's anyone who would say, okay, well, you know, you were being kidnapped, but technically it is a violation of property rights to break someone else's door and window, whatever it is, right?
We would say, okay, well, good for you.
Like, I'm glad that you fought your way out.
It's like an essay that I wrote many, many years ago, The Ethics of Emergency.
So maybe that was an Ayn Rand one.
But anyway, there was a...
Somebody, I've probably long gone from the conversation by now, who wrote this flagpole scenario, right?
Oh, property rights. But if you're hanging from a flagpole outside the window of an apartment and you kick in that window and climb your way into that apartment because you're just hanging there and your grip is slipping and you don't want to fall and die to your death, well then clearly violations of property rights exist.
Are less bad than somebody dying and therefore welfare state.
You know, I'm sort of compressing the argument a little bit, but you hear this all the time, right?
Should a man starve to death or is it better for him to steal a loaf of bread and survive?
Well, steal a loaf of bread and survive, therefore welfare state, right?
Whatever it is, right? And the answer to the flagpole scenario is, look, I mean...
If I just, you know, for those who want to know, if you're ever hanging from a flagpole and you're outside my apartment, I have an apartment, let's say, outside my apartment, I don't want you to fall to your death.
You're welcome to kick in my window.
I'm sure you'll be happy to pay for it to be repaired or whatever.
And if you can't afford that, you know, I'm still happy that you came into my house rather than...
Fall to your death, right?
So I'm not going to press charges against you for kicking in the window.
And even if I did, it would be really hard to imagine that the police or the district attorney would be, you know, hey, this guy was pushed off a building.
He was hanging from a flagpole.
He kicked in a window to save himself.
Come on. You know, that's not a reasonable thing to say, yeah, he should have died because he fell off or was pushed off a rooftop, grabbed a flagpole and kicked in a window.
So these aren't issues where...
People are going to end up either pressing charges or being charged or anything like that.
And of course, you'd be happy to pay for...
It may take you a while if you're really poor, but you'd be happy to pay for the window to be repaired because otherwise you wouldn't be alive at all.
So these aren't really issues at all.
So with regards to when you're in a state of nature now, when people have initiated the use of force against you, let's say that you've been hit by...
Your parents or could be worse, right?
It could be sexual assault, sexual abuse, molestation, whatever it is, right?
But let's just say it's hitting, right? So let's say that you've been hit a lot by your parents.
And, you know, the question of spanking is...
It's complicated, but if you're in the third world, parenting tends to be kind of harsh in that neck of the woods.
So I'm going to go on a limb here and say that probably it was more than just a swat on the butt, so to speak, once every week or two, that it may have been sexual aggression.
It may have been hitting you with implements.
It may have been beatings.
It may have been whatever.
It could be any number of horrible things.
So if you've been in that situation, I assume you're close to College age, right?
So if you're in this situation, then you're an adult, and so you've had, I would assume, you know, close to two decades of being hit, or maybe it's 10 years, maybe 15 years, whatever it is.
So you've got a lot of history of being aggressed against.
Now, to me, to a large degree, that puts you in a state of nature with regards to The relationship.
And I'm not saying, of course, that you then get to hit them back, right?
Because it's no longer self-defense.
You know, if some guy comes at you and is going to hit you and you hit him, to stop him from doing that, that's one thing.
But if you, you know, he misses and then he's walking home and you jump him later, that's, you know, you're no longer an imminent self, right?
So I'm not saying that it gives you the right to hit your parents back.
But for me, it is, if they've taken a lot of your childhood happiness...
And they want to pay for your education?
I don't have any particular issue with that at all.
Now, you could say, oh, yeah, well, what if I plan on defooing them afterwards and I don't tell them this, that, and the other?
You don't know. Like, you don't know what's going to happen if you sit down and talk with your parents.
You don't know if you can get them into family therapy or you get yourself into personal therapy.
There may be ways. You don't know for sure what's going to happen down the road.
But I do think that it's...
It's fine to take resources from people who've harmed you.
I mean, we do that all the time. I mean, I'm talking about a lawsuit, but if there is a lawsuit, you know, somebody has done something that sort of physically harmed you, you can sue them and get their money, right?
And if they've, you know, beaten you or done terrible things to you growing up, to me, it's not really something where I'd sit there and say, well, the ethics of the situation are this, that, and the other.
To me, that's kind of like a state of nature with people who've done you significant harm, particularly when you didn't choose Let's take another sort of extreme example just to illustrate the point.
If you are a slave and you plan on running away, let's see, you're back in some antebellum situation, or I guess one of the 15 million plus slaves that currently exist in America and Qatar, sorry, I guess some in America too, but the sex slaves.
But yeah, in India, there are millions in Qatar and even Israel in some places, right?
So if you are in a situation where you are enslaved, can you grab a pile of cash from I think we all kind of get that that's not really a moral situation.
You can't steal from the slave owner.
You can't, right? So I would say that it's probably something that you would look for Practical consequences rather than morality, because if you've been really harmed by parents, I would view your moral relationship to be closer to a state of nature than something where the relationship is chosen and voluntary.
So if you choose to have a job and you don't like the job, I think I had it for one night, the job as a dishwasher in a restaurant.
God help people who do that.
And for me, it was hell. So if you...
I stayed there one night and I was like, no, there's not...
I'll do something else.
And I ended up being a waiter. It was much better for my personality.
But if you choose a job and then you decide to quit a job, can you grab money on the way out?
Well, no, because you chose to be there.
You You're choosing to leave and that doesn't give you the right to other people's resources or income.
But again, if you're a slave and you're making a getaway, can you grab some of the Slave owner's money, so to speak.
Well, yeah. I mean, I don't have any problem with that.
I mean, a guy's a slave owner. He's an evil guy, right?
And if your parents have abused you terribly, then, again, I would view it more as a practical question of consequences.
And also, to some degree, based upon your moral sensitivity, what you can live with.
And also, sometimes it can be helpful if you're getting out of a relationship to not give people leverage over you.
By, ah, but you took all of this money, you owe us, whatever, you took these resources, we paid for your school, it might give them some excuse to continue to have leverage or power over you.
So, again, these are all sort of practical considerations, but I don't view the victims of abuse to be morally bound in the same way, especially unchosen relationships, of course, to be morally bound in the same way that chosen voluntary relationships are.
So, anyway, I hope that helps.
Thank you everyone so much for listening tonight.
A great pleasure to dip in and chat with Yowl.
Please go to freedomain.com forward slash donate to help out with the show very, very, very, very, very much.
Appreciate it in these comments.
Oh, so fundamentally challenging times.
I really do appreciate it. Sorry for interrupting.
It's my question.
If you ever want to ask a question, we can talk a little.
If not, say goodbye.
Yeah, no, please come by next time.
I unfortunately didn't eat enough before this and I got a...
Got a bit of a brain fog going on towards the end here.
So if you want to call back in, we can talk about it next show.
I don't want to dismiss your question at all, but I'm sorry that we didn't get to it.
I thought it was a silent partner question.
So yeah, freedomain.com forward slash donate.
I'm sorry? It was, but then again, it's kind of an opportunity to talk to you too, which is nice.
No, and I appreciate that. And I do that.
Talk to James and we'll set it up even if it's outside the regular call-in show.
Have a good meal and everything. All right.
Well, thanks, everyone. Freedomain.com forward slash donate.
Lots of love from up here in Canada or I guess down here in Canada if you're in Alaska or Nunavut.
But yeah, have yourselves a great week, everyone.
Stay strong. Stay committed.
Stay happy. Stay productive.
And stay with me.
Freedomain.com. Talk to you guys soon.
Bye.
Take care.
Nice to have.
Thanks a lot.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy.
And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
So thank you so much for your support, my friends.
▲
Export Selection