All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
21:08
Finding Red Flags in Women!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Morning, morning everybody.
Savannah Molyneux from Free Domain.
Hey!
Pinch Punch first day of the month.
It is the first of September.
Not the month that you wake me up, but it ends.
But we have one question and some old questions.
I actually found them.
I don't think I've answered them before and I wanted to make sure that I at least got around to answering them once if not twice.
Somebody writes, if love is our involuntary response to virtue and protecting slash defending is considered virtuous, would that mean that we can love our pets and they can love us if we're of great moral character?
I believe, not prove, that animals understand our intentions, behaviors to feel safe with us and we'll feel safe when they fiercely defend us.
No.
So, if protecting and defending is considered virtuous, then we must fall in rabid passionate love, romantic love perhaps, with our own immune system, or a brick wall, or a roof, or other things that shelter us.
We then must love our airbags and marry them after they deploy in a car accident.
No, protecting and defending is not virtuous.
Animals are following pre-programmed patterns without reference to higher moral ideals.
Don't get me wrong.
I love animals.
I really do.
And I love pets.
I grew up with hamsters and mice and relatives of mine in Ireland had a wonderful Cocker Spaniel named Brandy.
I could never understand why she had no tail.
But, and I remember when I was in Africa as a teenager There were dogs so keen on having their hair brushed that back when I would pick up a brush to brush my hair as a teenager, they would jump on me because they thought I would brush them.
Absolutely delightful creatures, but the dogs are instinctual animals.
They have no language skills, of course.
They cannot compare proposed actions to ideal standards.
They do not have morality.
And sure, yeah, dogs will behave better in general and so on when they're well treated, although not always.
That is a reflection on the quality of the owner.
But they are loving the positive experience.
They do not love the morals of the owner.
They just love the fact that the owner is kind, pets them, and gives the food, and so on, right?
So they do not practice morality.
And if love is our involuntary response to virtue, virtue is our capacity.
Well, free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, and those ideal standards Our virtues, and those who consistently choose virtue, are virtuous.
Since dogs cannot compare proposed actions to ideal standards, they cannot be virtuous, and therefore they cannot be loved.
I mean, you can have affection from them and all of that.
Sure.
All right.
All right.
Excuse me.
Question.
Why is it that in pretty much all famous novels with child characters the children are written as orphans?
Well, that's interesting.
So, one of the reasons why writers like to write about children as orphans is that most suffering for children in life, if they are abused, most suffering is going to come from their family.
Writers do not like to write about that too much.
Or, if they do write about it, the people who abuse the children have to have lots of excuses, and so on, right?
Like, well, the man left and the mom is stressed, or she has some debilitating drug addiction or something.
Writing genuinely evil characters is very, very hard for most writers.
So they want to put a child in peril, and, of course, For a child to be in peril, if the child is an orphan, the child is automatically in more peril because most people would get some kind of security from their families, right?
I mean, I understand I just said that families are dangerous, but...
You wouldn't get Oliver Twist if Oliver Twist had a family.
Even if the family was bad, Oliver Twist would still not be out wandering the streets and so on, right?
So that's a... One is that they don't want to deal... They want to put children in danger, and orphans are easier to put in danger.
A second is they don't want to write about the dangers that come from within the family.
And the third is it's just easier.
I mean, I remember when I was writing my novel The Present, there's a scene with like 20
characters.
That's brutally tough to write.
Brutally tough to write, to keep all the characters straight, they all have a distinct voice,
they all have their own perspectives and approaches.
You have to know who's speaking, it has to be clear, and it's a brutally difficult scene
to write.
I probably failed to write that for like a week before screwing my courage to the sticking
place and getting it down.
So when you write an orphan you have child in danger and other characters who are both good and bad who aren't direct family so it's less emotionally charged and you have less complexities.
You know it's one of the things that I look at when I'm trying to figure out good art or bad art is you look at the characters and you say do they have a family?
I mean, we all have families, right?
We all have families of origin for sure.
So when you look at these characters, do they have families?
Can you imagine that they have difficulties with their mother?
Can you imagine that they have a favorite uncle?
Can you imagine that at some point in their life they are going to have to go to some family gathering they don't want to or some other family gathering they do want to?
Does their cousin ever call?
Do they have a relationship with siblings?
Are they embedded in some kind of family structure?
Which most people are.
And when characters in shows have no family, then I put them in the general level of character development of a pornography actress.
All right.
Dear Steph, please elaborate on the duty of close friends in regards to your personal happiness.
My consideration of the subject is derived from your narrative describing the dissolution of your first engagement from a relationship of seven years.
My circumstance was similar in duration to what was and is an amazing person, yet nevertheless amicably divorced a few years later, totaling 13.
The inquiry surrounds a friend of 20 plus years whose marriage I was thanked for helping preserve after potential infidelity by his wife only a few years earlier.
and was later dubbed godparent of their subsequent child who nevertheless in reference to my divorce
didn't have a single question regarding it until over a year and a half later
after distancing herself. Okay I got lost sorry. All right a friend of 20 plus years
I was thankful it preserved the marriage of their subsequent child
who nevertheless oh so it's the friend not the wife or the child this is confusing right
who nevertheless in reference to my divorce didn't have a single question regarding it until over a
year and a half later after distancing myself nor mentioned her name and was the same friend
I consulted as to whether I should marry after expressing doubts regarding compatibility despite
our genuine affection.
While I don't know if we should have married or divorced, and, to be fair, believe him to be an otherwise decent person who wouldn't know either, what concerns me, however, is having people in my life who appear to lack equal or any concern about important decisions in my life and their outcomes.
Wherefore?
It's an unusual word, but I appreciate it.
It would be helpful if you could describe what philosophical standards underpinned your decision to eventually dissociate with those you described as indifferent to your happiness.
Okay, so let me make sure I understand this correctly.
So you helped preserve your friend's marriage and he didn't ask you anything about your divorce.
So that's a hierarchy.
So the hierarchy is the slave cares about the moods of his boss, of the slave owner, and the slave owner does not care about the moods of the slave.
The boss The employee cares less about the happiness of the employee than the employee cares about the happiness of the boss.
Because if the employee is unhappy but productive, the boss is fine.
If the boss is unhappy, then he might fire based on bad temper or something like that.
So this is a hierarchical relationship.
And when you pour effort into other people and they don't pour effort back into you, those people are exercising a hierarchy.
They are exercising dominance.
Now we can say it's unconscious, we can say it's instinctive, we can say they don't mean it.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because resource transfers occur or don't occur whether or not there's some deep hidden incentive or motive.
And if you've been in a relationship with someone for 20 years, First of all, have you fought the hierarchy?
Have you said, I deserve as much consideration as you?
Have you said to this person, it bothers me that I help with your relationship and you don't help with my relationship?
I mean, I remember when a friend of mine had a baby, I spent all weekend At his place, cleaning, making sure the place was spotless.
And I just, at the end of it, I just remember biking home and it was like, that's never gonna happen the other way.
I'll be lucky to get a card.
So that's just hierarchy.
People get a great deal of pleasure exploiting others.
And now, again, is it exploitation if it's voluntary?
That's a gray area for sure, right?
Let's just say people get a great deal of pleasure out of having other people do things for them, right?
They really do.
And I understand why.
Because it shows that you're higher on the hierarchy.
To have other people labor for you when you don't have to labor for them is greatly, greatly pleasurable.
Now people with a conscience, they feel bad about this after a while and they don't like it and They feel like things have become kind of unbalanced and all of that.
And they make sure that they reciprocate.
But there's a lot of people who get a great deal of pleasure out of you investing into them when they don't have to invest into you.
It's just a base of the brain dopamine thing.
It's, you know, the bonobo monkeys going higher on the hierarchy, getting more dopamine and so on.
It's just, it's an addiction.
And they don't get the dopamine if they help you.
They get the dopamine if you help them, and they don't have to help you, but they don't get the dopamine if they help you, and they want their dopamine, so they don't help you.
Indifferent to your happiness?
Well... Oh, gosh.
I mean, yeah, there have been a couple of instances where I got this when I was about 20.
Uh, I got really heavily invested in an ex-girlfriend and was thinking about her night and day and all of that.
And yeah, my friends were just, uh, on the A tape player, they would play that old song that used to, that Jeannie Becker had some show about fashion.
You're my obsession.
You're my obsession.
And they would play that and sort of make jokes about it.
And no particular care.
When I was going through a significant period of insomnia, there's no particular care or thought or anything like that.
And indifferent to my happiness?
Yeah.
Do people care how you're doing?
Do people care whether you're happy or not?
If you're unhappy, do they sit down with you and take... You know, people have a lot of leisure time these days.
They really do.
I mean, look at video games, look at Netflix, look at...
movies, people have a lot of free time these days and do they apply any of that free time
to finding out how you're doing, to helping you out if you're unhappy?
And if you've helped out other people and they don't help you out back, it's exploitive
and you're participating in that exploitation but it just means that you grew up in a household
where your resources, time, attention and emotional support was demanded and never reciprocated.
So you're just trained to do that, you're trained to serve, you're trained to be a slave.
Like parents who demand their children serve them are raising slaves.
And at some point you have to break out of that, I think, if you want to be happy.
All right.
Any advice for an employee who's transitioning to entrepreneurship while supporting a wife and two kids?
Well, entrepreneurship is, I mean, there's a certain amount of you can work smarter, but entrepreneurship, you win just by working harder.
You just win by working harder.
You know, when I was an entrepreneur in the software field, I did kind of half create the category of software that we were selling in.
But as it became more and more popular, other big companies like Microsoft and IBM came in with their own offerings in the space.
So how could I possibly compete against them?
Well, I just worked harder and I was more innovative and I poured on the charisma and It was great fun to work with and our prices were reasonable and we were just willing to go the extra distance and so you just have to work harder.
It's tough to do when you're supporting a wife and two kids but and have a conversation with your family.
Make sure they're on board.
Make sure that they agree with you that you're gonna have to spend more time working and less time around the family.
Do you have a favorite character from Lord of the Rings books films?
If so, what do you find particularly compelling about this individual?
Yeah, I think, I mean, I think like a lot of people my favorite character is Samwise.
That level of loyalty and dedication is something that I aspire to in my relationships and is something that I hugely respect where you can just really really focus on that which is good for the other person.
And, of course, there was a selfish motive as well, in that Samwise was preserving his capacity to have 19,000 kids with Rosie, because, of course, if the ring hadn't been destroyed, if Sorrent had gotten the ring, then it would have been tragic for the entire Middle Earth.
But so he was serving his own needs as well.
But just that level of loyalty to just be there for someone, it's just so incredibly powerful and deeply moving to me.
And I, you know, I mean, of course, I'm not at all close to my only brother.
And I think that level of loyalty that they had was very moving to me.
When I read it, I read it half in tears.
The first and second and third time that I read it because life is just so much simpler when you find A value and a virtue and dedicate yourself to it.
I mean I'm 42 years into philosophy and I have more thirst and desire for it than ever.
And I'm 22 years into my relationship with my wife and I love her more than ever.
And I didn't start with the ungrinchiest heart in the known planet and feeling my heart swell over the decades has been really one of the greatest joys of my life.
Alright, hi Steph, I've fallen for a woman who's incapable of loving and or feels herself to be unlovable.
We have a history of three years of friendship, closeness and memories and even casual sexual intimacy during the first year that we starved because the sex was making the relationship too toxic.
After this, the friendship and closeness gradually developed into a very close relationship.
Anyway, I'm hurting a lot and I feel like a victim of a broken person as I open my heart to her and it's met with coldness and no communication, of course.
This is a lesson I still need to learn from the neglect of my toxic mother in my early teens and I'm also dealing with this in therapy.
But moving on, I've already found a new circle of friends whom I care about and I'm planning an event where there will be awesome quality women with high potential for a life partner.
So my question is, how do you recognize women who do not have this issue of being unable to love, who feel that they're not worth loving?
I suppose it's about them embracing reason, at least to some extent, trying to do something good in the world, and about me being connected to my feelings to recoil from bad women.
Do you have some additional advice?
Well, so I mean you're asking for red flags.
So red flags in women are being single, Uh, into their mid to late twenties.
Red flags in women are tattoos.
Red flags in women are strangely, um, strange oddities in appearance.
You know, nose rings, tongue rings, uh, those weird circle things in the ears, uh, excessive makeup.
Uh, it is also a red flag in women.
To have a highly sexualized presentation and to be overly flirtatious and drop hints of sexual access very early on.
That's a way of drugging you, in a sense.
I mean, you can get roofied by cleavage as much as by any other drug.
And it is, if she's surrounded by dysfunctional people, and one of the problems with being a woman, and a man to that degree as well, but women have a shorter runway, if you're Single in your late twenties, mid late twenties, early thirties.
If you're single, then you are likely surrounded by other women who are also single because married women and married men don't have that much in common with single men and single women.
And of course, if the married men and women are having children, then the life of the singleton is just so different that there really is very little to say between them.
So if she's going to be surrounded by other Single friends, if they are single male friends, then she's friendzoned them.
And if they are single female friends, they will likely undermine any budding relationship because single women keep other single women single.
As a whole, misery loves company, so...
If she has a caustic relationship or toxic relationship with any primary family members such as parents and siblings, that's another massive red flag.
And of course if she has an extensive sexual history, that's another red flag.
If she's heavily in debt, that's another red flag.
If she pursued a useless degree and works not in that field and has no sense of guilt about taking social resources while providing nothing back in return, you know, if she took a degree in I don't know.
Geography.
And she doesn't work in the field of archaeology and she's no sense of like, yeah, I feel pretty bad because I took the space from someone who could have pursued something in this field and I don't even pursue something in this field and it costs society a lot of money and I feel kind of bad about that.
If she is working at a job far below her intellectual capacities and with no particular plan for moving forward.
And if she, and that's fine.
I mean, I was unemployed when I met my wife, but I was working on two novels and taking a writing course at Canada's most prestigious writing center.
So If she has no job prospects and no intellectually stimulating hobbies, if she's like, you know, hiking and concerts and so on, right?
But she's not like, yeah, I've just been rereading The Brothers Karamazov and so on, right?
So if they have a huge degree of sentimentality, Then, you know, if they're overly affectionate to pets and sentimentalize things, if they have knowledge in a field which is paper thin and they can't admit it, right?
So if they talk about politics and you ask them some questions and they just get kind of blank and hostile, a huge red flag.
It means that they're faking their way through life.
And there's no, there's no accessibility to heart when it's ringed by pretend knowledge that is actually a fiery motive, bottomless ignorance.
So all of these things I would suggest.
Alright, limerence.
Yeah, you know what?
I think... I think we've done some of this, right?
Yes, I think.
Okay, so I think some of these we've done.
Alright, so I really do appreciate your time, care and attention this morning.
And... Yeah, is Gary happy?
Is his wife still missing?
Fascinating.
So yes, I think I did limerence.
I remember looking it up in the past.
So I've probably done a few of these before, but what the heck?
I'm sure there's a few more flavors and bits here and there that are of value.
So thanks everyone so much.
Have yourself a wonderful morning.
I'm going to go get ready for my 11 o'clock show.
Lots of love.
Take care.
Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
▲
Export Selection