March 27, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
25:21
You Need Love!
|
Time
Text
Hey everybody, Stefan Mollini from Free Domain.
Just a couple of miscellaneous thoughts that have come out of recent conversations with the good folks on the planet.
And the first is I was having a conversation with somebody not super long ago about, it was interesting, the question of the philosophy of nudism came up.
And I wanted to cough out a couple of thoughts about that.
Because, you know, there's certainly the one perspective that, you know, the reason we have to wear clothes is control and shame and bullying and conformity and so on.
And, I mean, those things may have elements of truth in them, of course, but my perspective was a little different.
I'd love to hear what you think.
My argument was something along the lines of this.
If we look at why most cultures, almost all cultures, have caused at least the genitals to be covered up,
all the way from sort of pygmies in South America or other places, and all the way through the Bushmen, Kalahari, and, of course, European cultures that we cover up genitals.
And most cultures, at least not third world cultures, will cover up breasts, but not all, right?
I mean, particularly very tropical climates will may leave breasts open and exposed, as I remember vividly from the National Geographics of my youth.
And so the question is, well, why would there be evolutionary pressures towards the covering up of genitalia in a tribe?
So as usual, I did my little mental sorting thing.
You've got tribe A and you've got tribe B.
Tribe A is fully naked.
Tribe B covers up erogenous zones, right?
Not Dr. Wayne Dyer's erroneous zones, erogenous zones.
Breasts, but and genitalia.
And we've got tribe A covers them up.
Tribe B does not cover them up.
Who is going to have an evolutionary advantage?
Well, one of the challenges of leaving genitals exposed is that it is impossible to cover up or hard to cover up.
No, it's really impossible to cover up sexual desire.
So if we can think of some married couple in tribe B, where the genitals are exposed, and some babysitter comes over and the man finds the babysitter sexually attractive and gets an erection, then the wife is upset,
the pair bond is harmed, you get lots of conflicts, and there may be separations and so on.
And so you can't play coy in particular as a male if you find a woman sexually attractive and you're flying free, the beast is uncaged, the lion is out,
then it's going to be pretty hard to hide that and so on.
And you may deny, say, no, no, no, I don't find it that attractive.
But if your boner is four sheets to the wind, that's going to be a little less believable.
So it could harm the pair bond and so on.
It is hard for a man to woo if he's talking about the stars in her eyes and so on.
And in fact, it is the hard on that is pointing to her like a compass to magnetic north.
So it's a little harder to be believable in focusing on the qualities of the woman if your hormones are clearly pointing you in that direction.
I remember once I cast a guy in a play who did not date and he had to play some, not sexual, but some romantic scenes with a woman and he was wearing, unfortunately,
track pants when he was doing this scene and it was evident that as far as sexual attraction went, he was not acting.
I think that's probably the best way to put it.
Certainly not, or very method acting, I guess you could say.
So there's that.
With regards to female desire, of course, if one of the reasons women wear makeup is to cover up their sexual desire, the sort of flushed faces and so on.
And if the woman, if she experiences nipple hardening as a result of sexual desire, then having the breasts free would indicate that.
Sometimes fashionable lips can swell if a woman is sexually excited or there could be lubrication and so on.
So it's not obviously as obvious as a man's erection, but it certainly is there for those who have the eyes to see and it would be of great advantage for men to read the signs of sexual arousal if women were naked or at least topless and so on.
So it's a little harder to be coy.
It's a little harder to hold out.
It's a little harder to bargain.
It's a little harder to be poetic.
It's a little harder to pair bond or a lot harder to pair bond if you are continually seeing that your partner is aroused by other people if such is the case, which is going to be, and it could just be a purely physiological response, right?
But nonetheless, it's not good for pair bonding where there's less pair bonding and less coyness and less romance and less dedication and less playing hard to get to try to get a higher quality person.
Then, I mean, we see this online where there are these endless stories, apocryphal, probably, I don't know, generated in India, who knows, right?
But there are in general these stories about a woman saying, you are not friends with benefits material.
You are husband material.
And therefore, I'm going to go and sleep with these other guys, but that's only because they're not husband material.
I remember this line, it's a chilling killer line, which is like, all the girls keep the good ones around until the time is right.
And she's finished exploring herself and finding herself because she often finds herself, I don't know, tied spread eagle to a bedpost or something like that.
So that's finding yourself, apparently.
So that's one major issue.
The other major issue, of course, is that if a man is in a state of sexual excitement, then he's less thinky, right?
You know, the old joke that the blood can only go to one head at a time, right?
And as, and this is a fairly well-documented phenomenon, that when men are sexually excited, they are less able to reason.
And they are, it's harder for them to concentrate as a whole.
So again, you've got tribe A, they cover up, tribe B, for boob, they don't cover up.
So then the men who are working in tribe A are constantly distracted by the naked female form.
I mean, imagine, I suppose, the equivalent would be trying to write a very tough exam with pornography right in your face.
Obviously, a little tougher to concentrate, a little tougher to get the blood going up rather than down, north rather than south.
But to the girdle to the gods inherit below is all the fiends.
So in tribe A, the men can concentrate and work hard.
In tribe B, the men concentrate less and work less hard.
And so if you look at things like creating weapons, forging swords, battle axes, shields, and so on, then the battle weaponry will be of much higher quality in tribe A as opposed to tribe B,
and therefore they will tend to win those battles, which means that being clothed or covered up will tend to spread, whereas being naked will tend to contract, right?
There will tend to be less of those and more of that.
So even just concentrating on food production, concentrating on repair and maintenance, concentrating on whatever, right?
It's just not going to, it's not going to work as well.
So those were just a couple of thoughts I had about that.
Another thought I had was I've sort of noticed that there's been a number of people lately in call-ins who are enjoying philosophy as an interesting or entertaining gig,
but being progressively or entertaining or enjoyable show.
It's a show, right?
So I used to say, how long have you been listening to my show?
I don't like the idea.
And I sort of fundamentally rebel against the idea that what I do is a show.
So you'll hear me say, I mean, repeatedly, you'll hear me say, how long have you been listening to what I do, to what I do, as opposed to my show?
Because I don't like referring to what I do as a show.
The calling is much more serious than that.
So I've noticed that there are a number of people who are still kind of do the hedonist thing, still kind of do the avoidance thing, still kind of doing the dishonesty thing.
And again, like I just, I need to keep reiterating this.
I know it may sound repetitive, but it is really important.
I say this while myself being subject to all of these temptations and right down there in the trenches with you.
So I'm not like, oh, well, I've risen above all of these, never any issues, blah, But not noticing that they're still subjected to these temptations, nor noticing that they are consistently failing to resist these temptations.
What's the old Oscar Wilde line?
Oh, I can resist anything except temptation.
So it seems that there are a number of people who are listening, of course, some number of people who are listening to what I do as a show and something that they're like, wow, you know,
these calling shows are really interesting or Steph's got some good insights or that's very interesting analysis or whatever it is.
And not, you know, this is stuff that you kind of really have to do.
And the reason, I mean, there's a number of problems with that, from least important to more important.
Number one is that it discredits philosophy and what I do.
If you are only listening to what it is that I do as a form of entertainment, I mean, I guess it's okay.
I mean, do what you want, right?
I'm not going to do some purity test or action test to have people listen to the show if that were even possible.
I wouldn't do it if it was.
But if you are listening to what it is that I do as interesting and engaging entertainment, then I'm going to make a request that you don't tell people that you're interested in philosophy and in particular,
that you are interested or consume what I do.
In the same way that if I was a nutritionist and I had put out a diet book and you only read my diet book or listened to my diet program,
but you didn't actually implement any of the things that I suggest or encourage, I wouldn't want you to be talking about my diet book or my diet show because that would be to discredit.
Like if you're 300 pounds and gaining, you know, 10 pounds a month or whatever, then I don't want you talking about my diet book.
Because then people will say, you know, well, so-and-so really is into Steph's diet book.
And boy, you know, they're just doing terribly.
Like, then they're going to think that my diet book has something to do with it.
So if you don't take someone's advice and act in a practical manner to achieve good suggestions, please don't talk about that person's good advice.
Or if you are going to talk about that person's good advice, like if you're really, if I was a dietitian and I was selling a book in a show and you had spent years consuming my dietary advice and you do want to talk about what I do,
please tell people that you don't follow the diet.
I'm really into Steph's show.
I'm really into the way that he does philosophy, but I don't actually take any of his suggestions.
I don't act on them.
That's important.
And because you want to be somebody who, even if you don't spread the virtues of philosophy through sort of direct empirical action and choices, at least you're harming the cause of philosophy or what it is that I do, if that makes sense.
So that's important.
You know, I'm not going to nag you if you just view what I do as interesting, insightful entertainment, but not something to be actually acted on in your life.
I'm not going to, you know, whatever, listen away.
I think it's better to put it into practice, but I'm not going to be overly fussy about that.
But I will make a request that if you're not doing philosophy and you're not doing the things that I've made a pretty damn strong case for over the last 21 years of public philosophy, if you're not doing any of those things, please don't talk about me.
It's a minor request.
I think it's an important request and you're not helping, right?
If you're not doing philosophy, don't tell people that you're really into philosophy because then they will assume that if you're into philosophy, you're doing it.
And if the outcomes in your life are negative, they'll assume that philosophy, or at least what I do in terms of philosophy, has negative outcomes.
If you're talking about how much you love Dr. So-and-so's diet and you've been studying it assiduously for the last five years and you are obese and gaining weight,
you are actually harming Dr. So-and-so's diet and its acceptors.
So I would request, if you don't mind, either do it or view it as entertainment, but don't talk about it with people.
Oh, man, you got to really follow Dr. So-and-so's diet if you're gaining weight and you're obese, then that's pretty negative, right?
So, or at least tell people, hey, man, I'm really into Dr. So-and-so's diet, man.
I've read all the books.
I've watched all the shows.
I just love that guy, but I don't follow his diet.
Just, I mean, because I know like I'm like 300 pounds, right?
So I just, just be aware.
I love his style.
I love his insights.
I think his stuff about diet is fantastic.
I don't follow his diet, just so you're not confused, right?
So just say that, right?
Just say, I'm really into the Steph guy, great philosophy show.
I don't follow it.
Like I don't do any of it, but I really do.
I really do enjoy the insights and he's funny or thoughtful or whatever it is.
He's got great arguments, but I don't, you know, just be aware that I don't, I don't follow any of it, right?
And that's important because I'm desperate to not discredit philosophy.
And anyway, you sort of get the idea.
Now, of course, the second consequence is that, I mean, love is our involuntary response to virtue.
If we're virtuous, can't be faked.
And love requires integrity, honesty, and moral courage.
You have to be noble.
You have to be admirable.
You have to fight the good fight.
You have to be the enemy of evildoers and the friend of the virtuous.
You have to spread good.
Love is the reward we get for spreading virtue in the world.
Love is the reward we get for spreading virtue in the world.
And there's no other way to get it.
And in particular, romantic love.
Romantic love is the reward we get for spreading virtue in the world.
And of course, it is there in part to compensate for the danger and harm that evildoers will inflict upon us when we spread virtue in the world, because spreading virtue in the world means directly and actively interfering with the goals of evildoers.
The more that you spread, say, personal safety, like you, let's say the more you spread alarm systems and cameras and that you keep people safe, the more you harm the interests of thieves, right?
So if you do good in the world, evildoers get mad at you and they make your life difficult.
And so, I mean, you have to have an incentive, right?
I mean, lust and our desire for sexual completion is one of the driving forces behind love, pair bonding, romance, family, blah, blah, blah, right?
That's the reward, right?
And so we face rejection, we face humiliation, we face danger, we get attached and we lose people.
Someone's probably going to die before someone else.
So everyone who loves loves and loses, or almost everyone.
And so we fear the rejection and so on, but the prize is sexuality, the orgasm, and all the good stuff that comes with that.
So love is what we gain as the prize for thwarting the goals and desires of evildoers and thus drawing their ire and attack.
And there's no other way to get love.
And self-respect comes out of that as well.
Especially if, as we all do, we consume all of these movies and stories about these heroes who take on evil and march into Mordor and take on Dr. Matinetto and things like that and Ellsworth Toohey.
And we have all of these stories.
And we love the heroes who fight the good fight and the saving private Ryans and all of that sort of stuff.
So we love all the heroes.
And if we love the heroes who fight the good fight and show moral courage and integrity, but then we ourselves cuck out and flake out all the time, then we will have contempt for ourselves.
Admiring the virtuous means having contempt for our own cowardice.
And this is not a curse I'm inflicting upon you.
I'm just telling you the consequences.
If you love the idea of knights and heroes and Aragorn and whatever, right?
Then if you act in the opposite manner to that which you admire, you will have contempt for yourself.
And if you have contempt for yourself, then you will not be capable of receiving love, right?
You understand.
So that is the price.
That is the price.
Love is a form of admiration of moral qualities.
Moral qualities are to be achieved in the face of adversity.
Wanting to have moral qualities, wanting to be moral without facing adversity, is like wanting to develop muscles without any strength resistance training.
It's like wanting to have abs without any diet or sit-ups.
It's not going to happen.
Not going to happen at all.
So we admire those who overcome fear and shame and cowardice and all the things that keep us from virtue.
And if we have those things as ideals, we will have contempt for ourselves where we fail those ideals.
And we will have the most contempt if we're not even aware of it.
If we praise all these things and you watch my show, and I think I demonstrate some reasonable levels of moral courage and clarity and so on.
And so if you admire that and you don't do that, you are setting yourself up for failure, self-contempt, and the discrediting of philosophy, which was bad, makes the world the worst place.
And the last thing that I'll say, based upon sort of a couple of convos I've had recently, is that, of course, love is our involuntary response to virtue.
So I tell people to filter for virtue when it comes to dating, right?
Filter for honesty, integrity, directness, moral courage, and so on.
So filter for virtue.
And that's great.
I think, obviously, I think it's good advice.
But you have to remember that it's a universal, quote, commandment or exhortation or encouragement to filter for virtue, which means if you're a guy and you're filtering for a woman who's virtuous, well, of course, as you know, no surprise here, UPB,
that she is also filtering for virtue.
So you want a virtuous woman, she wants a virtuous man.
So you're filtering for virtue, and so is she.
So it is always very easy to think about what we want.
It's a little tougher, but absolutely essential to think about what the other person wants, right?
What does the other person want?
So if you want a virtuous woman, well, guess what?
She wants a virtuous man and vice versa.
And what that means is that you have to look at yourself from the outside in and say, what virtues would cause someone to admire me?
What virtues am I manifesting?
Not talking about, but manifesting.
What virtues am I manifesting that would have a good woman fall deeply in love with me and maintain that admiration and respect for my nobility and quality of character and so on.
So it's great to be filtering for virtue, but you have to remember, if you want to succeed in these areas, you must, must, must remember that she's filtering for virtue as well.
And if you cannot give her a clear argument as to why she should choose you, then she's not going to choose you.
If you don't know why you should be chosen as far as morals go, as far as virtue goes, as far as integrity and honor and nobility and all these things, if you don't know, if you can't explain, if you don't have empirical evidence, if you can't look in the mirror and say,
I am committed to maximum reasonable morality and virtue, right?
Not say all the truths in the world and get yourself thrown off a cliff in four minutes, right?
If you are not able to answer that question, why would a moral woman choose me?
Why would a moral man choose me?
What will she see when she looks across the table at me?
Will she see someone whose nobility and heroism and common sense moderation and courage, honesty and integrity, will she look across the table and melt in the presence of my virtues?
Because we can only pair bond with virtue.
Otherwise, just biochemical nonsense, right?
Which is fine for ducklings, but not people.
So think about what it's like sitting across the table from you.
Will you be or are you someone that a moral woman will melt in the face of?
Are you a woman that a moral man will melt on the face of?
Do you manifest the virtues that you are looking for?
Are you able to have an exchange of values, right?
If you want someone to buy you, can you buy them?
If you want someone to afford you, can you afford them?
If you want someone to pay for you, can you pay for them?
If you want to be inspired by someone's virtues, will they be inspired by your virtues?
That's a question you're answering whether I raise it or not.
Whether I bring that question up or not, you are answering it.
Like, I don't go for jobs, obviously.
I don't go for jobs where you have to be a surgeon because I'm not a surgeon.
And if I were to somehow be crazy enough to go for a job as a surgeon, I'd be pretty anxious because I would be defrauding because I know I'm not a surgeon, right?
Some Frank Abnigale scenario, right?
And of course, in the same way, if you are going for a virtuous woman, but you don't know, not even just believe, you don't know deep down that you're virtuous, then you will feel like a fraud and you will be unable to do the relationship.
You will be unable, I don't need to consummate like sexually, but you will be unable to maintain it.
You need to have a foundational acceptance or belief in your own virtues in order to be able to attract and keep a virtuous partner.
I think it's worth it.
I get, you know, that it can be alarming or nerve-wracking at times to be good, but it's nerve-wracking to ask a girl out, but it's worth it.
And it's nerve-wracking at times to ask to be virtuous, to ask yourself to be virtuous in the world, but it's absolutely worth it because the fear of being virtuous passes,
but the love that you get from being virtuous maintains and sustains and grows over time.
The fear passes and you say, gee, what was I so scared of?
I mean, I got obviously horribly deplatformed and so on.
Eh, whatever.
Totally worth it.
All the negatives pass and all the positives retain.