All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2025 - Whatever Podcast
07:34:29
1v1 DEBATE: Andrew Wilson vs. Marxist Anti-Trump Feminist | Whatever Debates #11

Whatever Debates are LIVE on ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/whatever

|

Time Text
Welcome to the special debate edition of the Whatever podcast coming to you live from Santa Barbara, California.
I am your host and moderator, Brian Atlas.
A few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer-supported, heavy YouTube demonetization.
So please consider donating through Streamlabs instead of soup chatting as YouTube takes a brutal 30% cut.
That's streamlabs.com slash whatever link is in the description.
Can I have you pull up the Streamlabs?
Sorry, guys, we had a rough start there.
Yeah, so guys, it's streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
We do prioritize messages that are made via Streamlabs.
To read a message is $99 and up, and we're going to read those in batches at various breaks throughout the debate.
There will be no instant TTS.
Now, if you want to just tip and have 100% of your contribution go towards us, no platform fees, no cut, you can via Venmo or Cash App.
That's whatever pod on both.
Link for that is in the description.
We're also live on Twitch right now, so pull up another tab.
Go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow in the Prime sub if you have one.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
And we got merch, that's shop.whatever.com.
And what we've added, when you make a purchase through shop.whatever.com, it will now pop up via Streamlabs.
And really quick, I'll just, since a couple came through, I'll do a quick little shout out.
Caesar here, he bought a t-shirt.
Thank you, Caesar.
We're still working out on how to show, like how to show what you actually purchased.
And then Christopher, thank you for the two purchases there also.
And then Metro Matt.
Thank you.
Postcard.
Sorry, Mark.
Metro Matt, thank you for the gifted 20 memberships.
Very much appreciate it.
All right, guys.
So without further ado, I'm going to introduce our two debaters.
I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson.
He's the host of The Crucible.
He's a political commentator.
Also joining us today is Miss Kenzie.
As she goes online, she is a Marxist feminist debater.
We have a few topics and prompts for today, but first, you will each have a five-minute opening statement, and then the rest of the show will just be open conversation with there are going to be some prompt changes and breaks for messages from the audience.
Now, we're going to do a coin flip to determine who gets to pick whether they go first or second for the opener.
If you can pull that up.
So Kenzie, you get to call it heads or tails.
Heads.
Okay, Tails.
So Andrew, do you want to go first or second for the opener?
I'll go second.
Second.
Okay.
Kenzie, why don't you go ahead and go first with your opening statement?
So are we still doing like the statement in terms of like what our worldview is?
Generalized opening statement, and then I think we can incorporate the worldview into the opening statement.
Okay.
My name is Miss Kenzie.
I'm a TikTok feminist Marxist debater.
My opening statement is essentially a feminist and Marxist critique on certain oppressive systems that we see not only globally, but specifically in the United States, how they negatively affect women, relationships, society as a whole, and the philosophy into which how we should organize as a society into what our ultimate goal is.
Okay.
Andrew, what about you?
Yeah, so that was a really quick opening statement.
Do you want more time or anything else?
I'm ready to discuss stuff.
All right.
Well, my name is Andrew Wilson, and you could call me a Christian populist.
You might refer to that as like Christian nationalist, maybe, though I do prefer the term populist.
My overall viewpoint is based around objective morality, things like this, things that were not really on topic, I guess, for the purpose of this debate.
I'm against Marxism, definitely against feminism, against all waves of feminism.
So I'm not one of these people who thought second wave, third wave, fourth wave, or perhaps we're in fifth wave now, it's not decided.
I don't think any of them are good.
And the reason that I don't, I'll incorporate in my arguments a mixture of force doctrine, the understanding of the dynamics between men and women, the historical perspective.
I have a criticism against yours because you're basing your worldview on standpoint theory, essentially.
And I'm going to critique that as well.
So overall, that's kind of what my worldview is.
If you wanted to dive in a little deeper into that, I would say right-wing conservative, from your perspective, likely bordering on authoritarianism.
So I am definitely here to oppress your views.
Definitely here to oppress your views.
Cruel and unfair treatment, huh?
That's right.
Definitely here to oppress your views.
So that's kind of my worldview.
So with that, I'm actually happy to just kind of dive right into the debate.
I think one thing we were going to do first before we get into the open portion of the conversation was just defining a few terms and clearing those up.
So because we are discussing feminism, I think just let's jumping off point here.
I guess define what that is.
Kenzie, do you have a definition for what feminism is?
Yeah, the movement to end sexist oppression and sexism.
Okay.
All right.
And how would you define sexism?
Biases towards one specific gender or sex.
Okay, gotcha.
And then you also mentioned the term oppression.
How do you define oppression?
Cruel and unfair treatment.
Okay, got it.
Andrew, do you agree with these definitions or would you like to give your own?
Yeah, so to me, when I say feminism, I mean a movement towards egalitarianism, which is trying to dismantle patriarchal systems.
Okay.
So that's what I'm referencing when I say that.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Sure.
Okay.
So we can kind of agree then to that definition of feminism.
And then oppression, would you just consider that basic power dynamics?
Yeah, I mean, obviously, like cruel or unfair treatment can be through laws, can be through certain means of production.
What view are you viewing for the accounting of things like cruelty, like utilitarian or something like that?
I mean, I don't like to subscribe necessarily to one position.
It depends, but utilitarian and deontological positions.
You have a mixture of them?
Yeah.
Okay.
So like maybe threshold.
Sure.
Okay, like threshold deontology, something like that.
Okay.
I mean, it would depend on the topic.
Gotcha.
Okay.
So cruel and unusual punishment.
All right.
I think we got a lot of the semantic.
If you don't mind if we have to stop from time to time to clear up semantics, one thing I really hate is equivocation, the idea that we speak past each other because we're talking about two different things.
Sure.
No, I think it's important to communicate the concept you're trying to convey.
Yeah, yeah.
So kind of to start with, I guess I can kind of open up to get this thing moving.
So I want to start with the idea of how feminism and Marxism aren't contrary to each other.
I've read a lot of Marxist feminist literature, especially from Dubas.
And they do actually seem to be a contradiction.
So through first wave feminism to modernity, you have single-handedly, feminism has single-handedly put more women in the hands of rich industrialists than any other single movement which has ever existed.
Rich capitalist industrialists are now basically in charge of women.
Women are part of the market workforce now.
They never were.
As part of the market workforce, they have now accrued almost as much debt in 100 years as men, which is incredible.
I mean, it's absolutely incredible.
There's only a few.
I mean, one of the big ones is student loans, but I mean, they're almost on point with everything else.
There's very, very few market indicators where they hold significantly less debt than men do.
From my understanding, the only place where women do hold more debt is student loans.
Men hold more in credit cards.
It's true.
Well, credit cards, it could be that we don't know because we get it from the credit card reporting agency, but it's like, it's like a 2% margin.
So maybe, maybe they hold less.
Maybe they hold, I'm not sure, but it's not significant.
Like, none of these thresholds I look at look very significant to me.
So what I'm trying to figure out is Marxism, and maybe we can clear up the semantic here too, but Marxism is looking for a stateless society where capitalism.
Yeah, where capitalism is gone, right?
So if capitalism is gone, how is feeding millions upon millions of women to the capitalist machine via feminism a good idea for Marxism?
That's just, it makes no sense to me.
Well, I mean, if we're talking about first wave feminism, I don't like to necessarily define feminism based on its wave because I think it ignores certain sects within feminism that are outside of that as well as kind of puts it in a Western purview.
But I will say, obviously, there are different modes of feminism that we've seen in place throughout history.
And I would just say this was liberal feminism, which obviously is towards the movement of upward mobility within capitalism.
Yeah, but why would you support that?
I wouldn't.
I would be against liberalism.
Then how are you a feminist?
Well, what kind of feminist are you?
Marxist intersectional feminist.
Okay, yeah, Marxist intersectional, but you did rely on first wave, second wave, third wave, fourth wave feminism.
Yeah, so there is progression, obviously, over time.
I'm sure you have, I know I've heard you say that with your Christian populism, your plan is 300 years.
So obviously there's going to be different steps that you take over time.
I think when it comes to, if we're going to talk about liberal feminism and women entering the market when it comes to economic work, is that one of the ways we see that women have faced oppression or marginalization or subjugation, whatever term you want to use, is obviously patriarchy's construction of dependency on men.
But they were more liberated.
So men held the debt, not women.
So I would argue immediately.
Yeah, no problem.
I would argue immediately that because women now hold so much debt, they're less liberated than they ever have been, at least in this nation.
So I would point you to things like before they had the right to vote the 19th Amendment, they were able to pass the 18th Amendment.
That was literally due to the women's temperance movement.
And they did not have the right to vote at that time, but they had so much moral political power that they were able to pass that.
So they definitely had political power and they had no debt.
I don't see how this is.
Well, I don't think a lot of people had debt during that time.
Yeah, men had a lot of debt.
I mean, they had all the debt.
They had all individual debt?
They had all the debt.
All of it.
Like 1 to 2% maybe for women.
Sure.
So I mean, if we're talking about like, do I think debt is a good thing?
No.
That would be a critique against capitalism.
The critique that with feminism in that specific instance that you've given is that the only way to get access to the material goods of life is obviously through money.
And so when women are able to participate in the market, then they are dependent on men in order to get housing, to get food, to get shelter, so on and so forth.
Or, you know, they're paid very low wages.
And so I think expanding that market then creates more individual opportunities to where you don't have to get married, to where you can have more autonomy in your choice.
Yeah, but this is really a weird, this is a very odd position that I don't think stacks up very well.
So if the idea is women need to be able to gain more materialism, that is in conflict with Marxism, which is saying that's under capitalism.
Yeah, but we live in capitalism.
Sure.
And we did then.
I understand that.
So the thing is, it seems very contradictory to me to say, well, okay, access to materialism.
Hold on, sorry, sorry.
What's going on?
I was trying to turn off the bait.
That's why I.
Okay, I apologize.
Yeah, no problem.
We have a new problem.
Okay, sorry.
Go ahead.
Go ahead.
So it's just really bizarre to me when you say women need to be able to access materialism in order to be less oppressed when now women are, they have, by the way, I mean, their student loan debt alone is insane.
They're now under the yoke of capitalism more significantly than they ever have been because of this accruement of debt.
So it seems like you're just feeding them into the system while calling it liberation when rich industrialists owned them then and owned them now.
So, I mean, it's a more intersectional look at that.
Like, I do agree with you that capitalism in itself and like the concept of debt is oppressive.
So, yes, you are correct when you say that assessment.
But if we're looking at the intersection, what's the alternative under capitalism for women to be dependent on access to the basic materials?
That seems far and away to me to be a way better system if you wanted to actually institute Marxism.
So I'll explain why.
If he were to use the accelerationist argument, which it sounds like you're trying to do, move into accelerationism, we would just have fascism.
Like, that's what we usually end up with is right-wing authoritarianism.
Well, I know what you mean by fascism.
Can you repeat your point, though?
Yeah, so if the idea is women need to be moved into the rich industrialist market for some reason because it's more liberating for them to have more materialism, which it seems to be completely the opposite because more opportunity for what, though, to ingratiate more materialism?
No, I would even just say like the standard means of living.
Materialism.
I don't know, like, we need housing, right?
Is that materialism?
Yeah, well, yeah, it is.
Like, depending on the size of the house.
And I mean, so when you say housing, what does that encompass?
Like a commie block?
Like a stone commie block where you're going to be able to do that.
I mean, I think we can agree on what basic necessities humans need in order to function within society.
And I would say housing would be definitely.
Sure, but how big?
I think it would depend, obviously, based on need.
Right.
So if it's moving off of need, I would say that people need very little space.
Okay.
Right?
Sure.
So if this is the case, though, introducing women into the capitalist market, right?
Where now rich industrialists own their labor, which they do, in order to give them the right to vote about stuff that's kind of meaningless ultimately towards themselves.
What was the point of that for Marxism?
That's it's totally counter-committee.
I'm not saying it's a movement towards Marxism.
I'm saying that that's obviously like a liberal feminist movement, which is upward mobility within capitalism so that you can have access to so you don't support feminism?
I don't support liberal feminism.
But that's the only type of feminism we've had here.
In terms of certain movements, sure.
I guess it would depend on how you classify certain movements.
But when we're talking about like capitalist critique, those who think that women would find liberation having the same access to capitalist opportunities as men is a liberal feminist idea.
But which, well, I don't understand then.
So do you support Western feminism or not?
I don't, if you want to label it as that Western feminism.
Like, well, okay, so the only feminism that I can point to is either the feminism here or we can talk about communist feminism, but that was liberalized as well.
I disagree.
I think we can see like when the Black Panthers in the 60s and 70s, that's where womanism was born out of, which is also Marx's theory.
Yeah, sure, but it was also part of a feminist movement.
Right.
The sexual liberation was a big part of what was going on in the 60s with Black Panther and female liberation, too.
So I'm just curious, though, first wave feminism, you agree, essentially fed all women into this massive capitalist machine, whereas they did not have to participate in it before.
Again, like, I think that's a really exclusionary idea of first-wave feminism because there were also like feminists who were abolitionists.
There were also feminists who were poor who wanted more rights for the working class, and those were kind of ignored.
So I think if you want to label first wave feminism as essentially the suffragette movement and the means to enter capitalist, I don't think that's all encompassing of feminism.
First wave feminism is definitely responsible for millions upon millions upon millions of women entering into the workforce under rich capitalist industrialists, single-handedly responsible for that.
Okay.
What else would it be that would be responsible for that?
Well, I think that's obviously what's at the forefront, but there are other sects of feminism that we're dealing with abolition.
We're dealing with.
They never had any political power.
Okay.
I mean, we had the 1912 Lawrence textile strike, which was about working conditions.
Yeah, but feminists have always moved towards working, but this is the problem, again, working conditions for what?
To capitalism?
To the working capitalist plan?
I guess I'm not sure what your overarching question is.
Well, my overarching point is, why would you support first, if you don't support first-wave feminism?
Because it fed millions upon millions of women into the pocket of rich industrialists, which it did, and you agree it did, and the second wave did, and the third wave, and now even the fourth wave.
None of these feminist waves are anti-capitalist.
No, I agree.
So you don't support any of that, though, right?
If we're going to have a critique of capitalism, I think we can have ways that we can see how women can be more liberated.
I'm not critiquing capitalism.
I'm critiquing the view of feminism.
Right, but obviously, if we're going to talk about capitalism, that those are intertwined.
So if we're not going to abolish the system, how can women participate within capitalism that would give them opportunity or more liberation?
I agree with you.
Liberation is not possible under capitalism.
Well, I would argue then that if this is the case, you're looking for more liberation.
I would say that they're more liberated when they can't accrue debt.
And they couldn't accrue debt.
Only the man could accrue debt.
And only the man who was married.
And if you're not with that philosophy, then are men oppressed?
Yes.
Okay.
Yes.
Men are very oppressed.
Then I guess we don't disagree.
I got to ask, I wouldn't say for the same reasons you would, but the question becomes: is it the case that you think that women are more or less oppressed by capitalism now than they were when they were dependent on their husbands?
Well, obviously, capitalism has taken different form.
So it would depend on essentially what metric we're evaluating.
They have more access to education, which I would see would be less oppressive.
Obviously, the stressors.
It's more oppressive.
Education's oppressive.
Yeah, it's way more oppressive to women.
Be educated?
What's the only type of debt women have that outnumbers men?
Again, that's just because just to answer the question, what's the only type of debt?
So the idea of the education, right?
Which is mostly, it's not like it's most of these are STEM degrees.
They're not.
If education were free, would you say that they're being oppressed?
Education is free up until college age.
I know.
I'm just asking, are we talking about the idea of education itself or the fact that it's so expensive?
No, we're talking about liberation from oppression.
And so what I'm arguing to you is.
Correct.
So when you say education is oppressive, is that because under capitalism of the cost that obviously debt is burdensome or just a woman being educated is oppressive?
No, I would say that the accruement of student debt, mostly being in the hands of women, has done more to oppress them than if they had not gone to college in the first place.
Then if that had been barred.
But that's not my question.
Okay, but what's your question then?
My question is: you're not saying education is oppressive.
You're saying either going into debt or the society making a profit off education obviously puts burdens on the person who's taking loans out.
We don't disagree with that.
I don't disagree with that.
But why are we selecting for that then?
What do you mean?
Well, I mean, you say that women need to be educated.
Institutions are going to require capital in order to educate.
Right.
So if, again, we're going to education has definitely benefited women in terms of having the equal access to certain aspects of society that would give them more opportunity and more identity.
It has literally led them to being pawns in capitalism.
Yep.
Just like men.
Yeah.
So the thing is, I mean, if you think, but how is that less or more or less oppressive?
It's way more oppressive.
So this is what I would say.
I would say choice and individuality.
So if we're talking about certain social ideas.
Yeah, let's walk through it logically, right?
So we start with women can accrue no debt.
Only their husbands can accrue debt.
That's it.
Only the husbands were able to accrue debt.
But then they're uneducated, correct?
No, they could still be educated.
How?
They would go to school.
Where?
Well, they had public school was available.
By the way, women have always done better in public school.
And then college was also available to them.
Most of your feminist, first-wave feminist leaders went to school.
They went to college.
Right, but college was also free then.
No, it wasn't free.
Yeah, it was.
Where?
In the United States.
Where?
Like what specific college?
I think Berkeley was free up until the 60s.
Until, okay.
So when you're talking about college fees, it's important to understand that if it is the case that you want everybody to do a thing, you're going to have to have a lot of that thing for them to be able to do it.
So when you're talking about education specifically, it used to be about rewarding the best and brightest.
It is not about rewarding the best and brightest now.
There's lots and lots and lots of people who go and get a college degree and it's the equivalent of like a 10th grade education, ninth grade education.
Okay.
So if that's the case, right, all we're doing really is just lowering the standard anyway, right?
Lowering the standard and then telling women that they need to go and use their birthing years in college, which makes no sense to me.
It's very silly.
You take the reproductive years, you say go spend the reproductive years in school so that you can be part of this capitalist machine.
That's very strange to me that that's your advocations of Marxist feminists.
I mean, obviously, if we're talking about the ideal situation, then women would have access to education without having to go into debt.
That's not, well, okay.
How?
What do you mean, how?
Yeah, how, so we should pay for everybody's college.
Well, obviously, if we're going to live under a capitalist society, like this at the center of that is going to be profit.
So I just think that's an ineffective way to organize society because then it's obviously putting profit over people.
So now this is circular now.
So we start with capitalism's bad.
Liberate women so they can participate in capitalism.
Capitalism's bad.
Liberate women so that they can become part of the capitalist machine.
No, so if we're going to talk about how women can have more opportunity and individuality over cap in capitalism, that's one argument.
And then talking about how women can be fully liberated from the constraints of capitalism is a different argument.
Well, okay, let's talk.
If you want to dice them up, I'm willing to dice arguments up as small as you want to make them or as large as you want to make them so we can go as granular as we can.
Well, I'm just saying it's two different lanes can be combining it as one.
Okay, but what's the goal of Marxism, stateless society, right?
Yeah.
How is I still don't understand how throwing women into the big capitalist machine as a form of liberation helps get us to that?
It doesn't.
Then why would you say I still then I still am confused why you support those things?
I mean, I don't support necessarily like what you're specifically saying.
If I had my, like, how do we transition from capitalism to communism is a different argument than how can women suffer less oppression under capitalism.
Yeah, but if you don't agree with those things and first wave feminism was about liberation to participate in capitalism, then you don't support first wave feminism.
Again, I don't like classifying feminism in terms of those waves because it just reduces it down to the singular idea where there are multiple sects of ideas.
So yes, if you want me to say I don't agree, I don't want to.
What are the prominent ideas then?
Sure.
Yeah.
The prominent ideas were capitalized.
I don't agree.
Yeah.
That's what you want me to say.
So then I don't know that you're a feminist at all, just a Marxist.
Well, I mean, have you heard of TERFs?
Yeah.
Would you say that's a form of feminism?
It's a very traditional form of feminism.
Yeah, I'm not a TERF, so does that mean I'm not a feminist?
I feel this is like no true Scotsman fallacy.
No, well, I have to say, there are prominent sects of feminism, right?
Yeah, you have radical feminism, liberal feminism, intersectional Marxist.
Yeah.
So I'm saying that all of them.
All of them are basing it around the liberation of women.
Just the different ideas around liberation of women.
There's capitalism, which I'm sure we could define and say there's different capitalism.
Yeah, so first wave feminism definitely wanted to liberate women so that they could have their own assets and go to work.
Correct.
There's no if, ands, or buts about that.
I mean, go to work, like women have always worked, especially poor and women of color.
So I think like going to work is kind of maybe like a white-centered notion.
I will acknowledge that I think in the early 1900s, we had about 20% of women in the workforce.
And then by like 1950, I think it was close to 50.
Especially you had the post-World War II people who were staying in the workforce.
Sure, exactly.
But the thing is, it depends on who you're counting as well.
Definitely first-wave feminism was responsible for this.
So the thing is, I guess when you're talking about Marxist feminism specifically, you would have to kind of hate first-wave feminism because of the majority of the people.
In a lot of notions, I do, because I do think it ignored the material conditions of poor women, women of color.
So, yeah, I don't disagree.
Okay.
Just I'm sure you support capitalism, right?
Do you like social democracy?
Well, I'm not sure that that's contingent on capitalism.
That is a capitalist mode, just like a laissez-faire free market would be.
There's different ways that capitalism can be structured, and you can agree with one.
Yeah, but capitalism is an economic system.
It's not as important.
Sure, I'm just showing how an idea is an idea can have different theory behind it.
Yeah, but I'm not disputing that.
I'm talking about the prominence of the ideas that we're doing.
Sure, I guess if I must not have understood.
No, I don't agree with some of the modes that liberal feminism or first-wave feminism, as you've called it, have used.
So then wouldn't you agree with me then that it actually would have been more liberating for women to not have participated in first-wave feminism, but instead relied on their husbands?
Wouldn't that have actually been more liberating than sacrificing them to the sacrificial lamb of capitalism?
Which is worse.
I don't know.
There's just so many metrics that you can evaluate.
Well, this is the metric we're evaluating.
So the metric we're evaluating is my argument is if women are dependent on their husbands and accrue no debt, only the husband can accrue debt.
But women can still own assets, which they could.
And they can still own property, which they could, even if they were married.
Right, but you're forcing a woman to link arms with a man.
So if she's single, does she have access to her?
As opposed to forcing her to win, does she have these things?
Yeah, they still.
Yes, of course.
How would you have these things?
How would they not have them?
They were able to own property even unmarried.
That's always been the history of the United States.
Right, but obviously then you would need to be in the workforce, correct?
Because you need to purchase it.
No.
You wouldn't need to purchase it.
Oftentimes, your father would give it to you.
Oh, so just through, again, like generational wealth.
Which, by the way, first-wave feminism destroyed a lot of that too.
A lot of cross-generational wealth.
But women could own property.
Sure.
I mean, I would say, like, why would I have to pick one?
Because your choice is either you go to work, right?
You either want equality or you don't want equality.
So if the idea is I want equality, and that's what you're doing.
I think it would be more beneficial for women not to be dependent on men and to have.
Then to work within the capitalist system?
Yes.
Why?
Because they would have more control, autonomy, and identity.
They don't seem to have more control over either of any of those things.
Example, the identity of women now in modernity is in question, period.
What do you mean?
What is a woman?
Oh, we're going there now.
Well, you just said women would have more identity.
Yeah, identity in terms of if you're going to be dependent on a husband, then your labor is predetermined for you.
Your identity in terms of being a wife and mother is predetermined for you.
Yeah, but the beneficiaries of that is that your crewmen of debt is also non-existent, and so you can never be.
It's not really non-existent because your husband has it as well.
So, I mean, there is still capitalistic suffering.
You were not ever responsible for your husband's debt.
But you still suffer the outcomes if it doesn't work out, right?
Yeah, but you suffer the outcomes of that now.
Right, but you would have more control and autonomy, right?
You know, like you're the captain of your own sneaking ship or you're just kind of a passenger on the Titanic.
Like you use these words, these kind of buzzwords, right?
You say they have more autonomy.
How do women have more autonomy?
Self-determination through choice.
What choices?
Which ones?
Essentially, how they want to experience their life.
Do they want to get married?
Do they want to have children?
They had the option to do that before.
They didn't have to get married.
Most of the time, women who didn't get married stayed at home with their parents.
By the way, right now, most women who don't get married, they often stay at home with their parents.
Not a lot has changed in that department.
I mean, I haven't read any statistics that women who don't get married just stay home with their parents.
Yes, it's often the case that women who don't get home.
That's true who get married stay at home with their parents.
Yeah, I think single women.
And it was often true with men.
I think single women home purchases are starting to outpace men.
It's true.
Yeah.
But it is often that.
It seems like they're getting their own house.
Sometimes.
Sometimes.
But you've got to remember now: children are staying at home with their parents longer than obviously the conditions that come to capitalism now is different than it was in the 1900s.
Yeah, so I mean, the thing is, is that I don't see how women actually have any more of these things.
I don't see how they have any more autonomy.
I don't see how they have any more actual choice.
It just seems like an illusion of choice.
I would agree with you.
There is some oppression within that choice, but I do think the choice is more.
Okay, and it's worth it to have this limited amount of autonomy in order to grind yourself in the capitalist system.
Like if you were to ask the average woman, if you were to go back in time, hypothetically, and you were to sit down with first-wave feminists, okay, who couldn't seem to get first-wave feminism passed any other way than an amendment because women were voting it down all over the place.
The question becomes: if you ask them, if we fast-forwarded this to 100 years, I just want to let you know that your children will be living at home with you until they're 25.
You will have access to college, but you'll have crushing debt.
And chances are your marriage is going to fail.
Chances are really good that your marriage is going to fail.
Over 50%, perhaps, that your marriage is going to fail.
But you'll have a little tiny bit more autonomy, but I won't even be able to exactly tell you how you have more of it.
Do you think that they would go for that deal?
Or if you said, hang on, or if you said to them, if you don't do this, your husbands will accrue all debt.
You'll never have to worry about it again.
And you can still make moral claims and they'll be super effective just like the temperance movement was.
Because now you're not political pawns.
I mean, I think you're kind of constructing the options in a way that would be beneficial to a specific narrative.
I think I have cleared how you have autonomy.
Like, would you want men to be dependent on women and have women be the predominant mode of production under capitalism?
I don't think it's possible.
But would you want that?
Well, I couldn't want a thing I don't think is possible.
Why?
Because it's not possible.
Well, I mean, why is it not possible?
It's not possible because women are not capable of doing the same types of things that men are capable of doing.
Such as?
Inside of society, enforcement.
Enforcement?
So, like, police and military?
Military, police.
I don't think men really are.
I don't think men really are capable of that.
I mean, men have gone to fought global wars time and time again and won.
Yeah, and what outcomes do they have?
They win the war.
They suffer severe PSD.
They have a hard time integrating into society.
I mean, that doesn't seem like a natural condition for men to be subjected to that.
There can be symptoms of violence, but remember, not everybody gets PTSD, even combat veterans.
A lot of them don't have PTSD.
Some get PTSD.
Right.
But not only that, that's a coping mechanism.
It's going to be individualistic.
Men are definitely capable of being able to do that.
But it is an outcome of being a solution.
Only for some people.
I could say that about women.
You can, but the problem when it comes down to enforcement is that women can't do enforcement.
What do you mean?
So, I'll give you the easy hypothetical.
Okay.
If all men tomorrow decide that women in the United States are slaves, are women in the United States slaves?
No.
Why wouldn't they be?
I think it would be a, I mean, how could women stop it?
I mean, it would just depend essentially on like access to resources.
Yeah, men have the access to all the resources because they made you slaves.
Well, you're like, that's how women could stop it.
Women couldn't stop it.
It would just be a fight over resources.
How come women can't stop it in Islamic nations then when they just go, okay, you're all.
Obviously, in Islamic nations, they don't have access to specific resources.
Nobody has access to resources if men don't allow access to those resources.
Nobody.
Because men have a monopoly on force.
That's feminist theory.
Feminists understand that even Marxist feminists know this, that men have a monopoly on force.
So in other words, if men collect archie, they're going to need to have men as their monopoly on force.
I'll give you an example.
If tomorrow men decided to enslave all women, all women would be enslaved.
However, if tomorrow all women decided to enslave all men, they do not have the force doctrine and requisite necessary to do so.
They could not do it.
They just couldn't do it.
Within any context.
No.
So if women had access to all the drones, if women had access to all the water supply.
Who repairs them?
If women had access, sorry.
We repair them.
Women had access to.
I mean, women can have the capacity to repair.
I don't understand.
Okay, so here's what I would say.
Let's do this experiment this way.
If women had access to all of the firearms on earth that exist, okay, and every weapon which exists, and they have access to all of that, they still don't have the requisite brute force that would be necessary to keep men under control.
They just wouldn't.
It wouldn't be possible to do long-term.
What do you mean?
Even short-term.
What do you mean, like, by brute force?
That they just won't be able to pull the trigger?
No, that men are much, much, much stronger.
And that guns are only an equalizer until men take your guns.
Right.
And obviously they would have to get close enough.
But I mean, I don't care how strong you are if you don't have water and food.
Well, it's really simple then.
Do you think that if you were the head of a prison, would you rather have all male or all-female guards if you were dealing with dangerous prisoners?
Even if both had access to guns?
I mean, I guess it would depend what the goal is.
To keep the prisoners who are dangerous under control.
I mean, I think women can make really great police officers because they are less likely to use excessive force.
They're more likely to de-escalate, where men are more likely to escalate.
More likely to get disarmed, more likely to get beaten up, more likely to accidentally shoot a suspect.
They're more likely to do all sorts of things to the contrary as well.
But there's also way fewer females who are in the police force because they can't meet the minimum requirements, which are necessary to be a cop.
They can't meet the necessary minimum physical requirements.
Same thing in the military.
They can't meet the necessary minimum physical requirements to be in the infantry.
Most women can't do it.
So men have a monopoly on force.
And because of force doctrine, this ends up coming down to this idea.
If it is the case, you say that women can do anything that men can do.
I counter this by saying they cannot.
They cannot do enforcement.
This is uniquely a male thing.
There are some women who can be introduced, who can meet these standards, but on average, they can't.
Well, I think the, you know, if we're like to kind of bring it to an analogy, you know, if the fence is six feet tall and most women are 5'8", then yeah, of course they're not going to be able to meet that standard.
So is the standard just specific to certain male criteria that...
Well, it would be the criteria of you need to handle a male.
So if you're a female police officer, you need to be able to handle a male, right?
Yeah, but obviously, like, you have tools to aid in that.
That's what I'm saying.
Like, just because women aren't meeting these criteria close to a male when you're a police officer is a female in order to put like handcuffs on them, stuff like that.
Yeah, but you have like pepper stray and stun guns.
Yeah, and routinely women get disarmed and they're routinely overpowered by suspects.
Routinely.
Happens often.
Sure, and men often use excessive force and then they're sued.
Yeah, maybe people die.
When you say men use excessive force, you're just demonstrating my point that men have a monopoly on force.
Yes, maybe it's excessive, but they're capable of using it.
They use force, sure.
No, no, no.
They're just better at using force because they're much stronger.
They're much stronger.
They have much denser bones.
So they're much more.
I mean, I don't disagree with that.
The average male is stronger.
Sure.
Well, significantly stronger.
It's not an insignificant amount between the average male and average female.
Now, I want this point to drive home because it's often stated, like, oh, yeah, there's a small marginal difference.
No, it's a significant difference.
60, 70% in many cases.
Okay.
Much, much, much stronger.
This being the case, men have the complete monopoly on force doctrine because they're much, much, much stronger.
Just raw brute force, which if you reduce, or if you reduce rights, you reduce society, reduce everything to its raw principle, it's going to be brute force.
I want to make you do thing.
I always want to.
I mean, I don't agree because with violence, there can definitely come consequences that are not desirable in terms of the outcome.
Like, if men wanted women to be slaves, you know, who determines if the species goes on?
Men.
Women.
No, men, if you were slaves.
How?
The same way they did in Rome.
They impregnated their slaves.
Well, I mean, but women could just commit suicide.
Yeah, why didn't they in Rome?
Well, wouldn't that just be a black swan fallacy just because there's that one example where they did it?
Oh, no, that's a specific degree.
Here, we'll give you every example.
They didn't do it under Genghis Khan.
They didn't.
Well, that would just be, again, a black swan fallacy.
So, but I mean, that's not a black swan fallacy, by the way.
How would it not be?
We just haven't seen it, so therefore it can't happen.
Okay, so first of all, what I'm saying is I'm pointing to a historic standard.
Sure.
I'm saying the historic standard, and I asked you a question.
I didn't make a propositional statement, so that's why it can't be fallacious.
But I would say that ultimately it does come down to women.
If she doesn't want to sustain pregnancy and is a slave, she does obviously have the opportunity to kill herself.
Yes, but you can't have society continue.
I will say that.
So I'll grant this.
It is logically possible that all women who are enslaved can off themselves.
Not disputing that.
However, it's also logically possible they do not, right?
Sure.
Okay, which one do you think is more likely then?
I mean, it would depend on so many different conditions.
Okay, well, then that's fair.
So give me a single condition in which the female slaves of all of history have ever collectively offed themselves in order to prevent their own slavery.
Well, it wouldn't be to prevent their own slavery.
It would be essentially to stop the, you know, the next generation.
And even if you're not.
That would be preventing slavery.
Sure.
And even if you do have women who are enslaved.
Can you give me an example of a slave?
No, I can't.
Because there isn't any.
There's no example.
But I'm sure you wouldn't say that that's moral.
That's what men ought to do.
Well, I believe in objective morality.
I'll make ought claims based on an unchanging standard, but you're a moral relativist.
You can't be like, you can't do that.
It's relative.
It's totally relative.
So is one set of morals of more value than another set of morals?
I think morale, like there are moral facts, if that's what you're asking me.
No, that's not what I'm asking you.
I'm asking you if one set of moral particulars has more value than another set of moral particulars.
I'm not sure how to answer.
Well, I would just need to know if, so, okay, for instance, we have one society over here that murders women and a society over here that does not murder women.
Okay.
Okay.
Can you point to something objective that makes the society murdering women?
There's some like moral claim that you can make, which is objective for why that's wrong.
Well, I mean, murder by definition is wrong.
No.
Why would it say the unjustified?
Yeah, unjustified doesn't mean immoral.
Well, it means wrong.
If it's not just, then it's unjust, which would be wrong.
Okay.
We'll rephrase that.
They set the conditionals for something you would consider to be murder and say it isn't.
It's the justified killing of this group of people here.
You consider it murder.
What makes their moral facts wrong?
I mean, obviously it would depend on reason and context.
So you can, with reason and context, determine which moral facts are correct?
I think you can have certain observations when it comes to the outcomes.
I mean, that would be consequentialism.
I think there can be more moral facts in terms of there are things that are always wrong regardless of context.
Like?
Like rape.
Why would that always be wrong?
Well, rape would always be wrong.
Rape.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Yes, that was right.
Grape would always be wrong because it would, because of the harm that it causes.
Yeah.
Why is harm wrong?
Because harm is, I mean, again, I would say harm by definition is wrong.
Because it is an undesirable outcome within our subjective experience.
Okay, so are all undesirable outcomes immoral?
No.
Okay, well, then you just contradicted your position.
Sure.
So then you can't point to a set of particulars which are.
think then again that would be kind of um you know based on obviously the scale of harm i think if there's a certain degree it wouldn't matter that said if if it is the case that nothing which is against your subjective experience that you consider harmful uh is bad except by your own experience then you just reach back to relativism it's like Sure.
Yeah, you're never going to get past relativism.
So I don't really know how you can make the claim that this is worse than that.
But if you do, right, I'm just willing to grant that you have a principle and will adhere to the principle for the purpose of the debate so we don't bog it down with relativism versus non-relativism.
Okay.
We'll kind of just give you the out there because there's no reason to stay on it.
But back to this idea of, let's see, right before that, when we were diving into force and forced doctrine.
Yeah, so I would say that might makes.
I'm not saying right.
I'm not going to make the claim that it makes right.
But it does make.
And so I think that force doctrine is the necessary requisite for rights.
It's the necessary requisite to have a nation.
It's the necessary requisite to have anything.
It's force.
I disagree because we could obviously agree on rights and have a cooperative.
I agree.
We could agree on rights.
And then if somebody violates the rights, what do we use?
I mean, I would be more towards restorative justice as well as obviously centering the harm that the victim causes.
Both of those require force.
I can agree to some extent, but I don't think necessarily if rights violations happen, that what the punishment or what the outcomes is is what one would deem justice.
I would say the conditions to which society is to prevent harm would be the ultimate goal.
That would require force.
How?
Because if somebody violates any of your principles or any of your rights, how do you get them to not do that?
Well, I think rights violations happen for specific reasons within society.
Like if you were to say that you violated my rights by coming in my house and stealing all my stuff, then if we're in a society of capitalism to where people are subjected to poverty and need access to material goods.
Okay, let's say we have communism.
Communism can't exist without force.
It's impossible.
Well, but that's, again, like an example of how we would prevent rights violations.
Because I would say, like, if the right is violated, did you really have it to begin with?
Yeah, but you're baking into your hypothetical here.
Oh, you violated my right, and now we have done, and you did it based on some conditional of some externality that drove you to this.
Sure.
Right?
Forget that, right?
They just fucking want to.
They just want to.
I think that's just a lazy presupposition.
That people just want to do things?
Yeah, to just want to cause harm.
Psychopaths don't exist.
Sociopaths, narcissists, these people don't exist.
I mean, they do exist, but again, we're talking about what conditions they exist under.
And those are very rare.
Okay, I'll even grant that it's rare.
Yeah.
I'll even grant that it's rare.
Can you?
But I don't think people are born psychopaths or sociopaths.
Again, I would say those are environmental conditions.
Okay, like what?
Nourishment?
Well, no, your brain is a social organ, and so it responds to your environment.
I think they did a study where they analyzed, I forget how many serial killers' brains, or serial and olives, but they all had severe damage to the orbital region.
Well, I'd like take a look at the data there, but was there a meta-analysis done on it?
I can't remember if it was a meta-analysis.
I want to say it was, but I can't remember.
Well, in any case, it doesn't really matter.
Ultimately, all, doesn't matter what society you live in, there's going to be a prerequisite requirement for force, no matter what.
Doesn't matter how.
Could you even give me in a society in which that would not be the case?
I mean, it's hard to conceptualize in terms of, I think, if we had a society based on technology, what do you mean by force?
we just talking about like if you if you have a society in which people have any sort if you have any sort of laws or you have any sort of rights at all then well i agree with you that laws were like laws do yeah the only thing which would create a prevention of the violation of said thing by a person would be the requirement of force you So if I wanted.
I mean, I don't know how force prevents rights violations necessarily.
It's the only thing that prevents rights violations.
Well, if you were saying men have the monopoly on force and that's instilled within patriarchy, then why do rights violations occur?
Well, no, that doesn't even follow.
It would just follow that men are the only ones who could stop rights violations.
I mean, at least in mass.
Okay.
Yeah, that's the only thing that would follow from that.
It's like men are the ones in mass who would stop rights violations, which is which is exactly what happens right now.
They are the ones in mass who stop rights violations.
I think when we talk about that too, like obviously the entity that is in control of forces also can commit rights violations.
Sure.
So don't disagree at all.
Okay.
Totally agree.
So I don't think that the way to society and essentially to establish rights is necessarily through force.
The only way it can be, well, what happens if you violate somebody's right then?
I mean, what do you mean what happens?
Well, how do you stop them from doing that?
Well, they already did it.
What do you mean?
How do you stop them?
Well, okay.
So I want to take over your country, right?
Are you just going to let me walk in and do that?
Well, I mean, why?
And again, like, do you really have the modes of production and the media?
I just don't think people wake up and just say, I feel like doing this.
Do you feel like grapists wake up and feel like graping?
Wake up and feel like graping?
Like they say today is the day?
No.
No?
No.
No?
So again, I'm actually really confused now.
I think there are instances, sure, where grape can be premeditated.
If we didn't enforce our laws, are you saying people would break them more or less?
If we didn't enforce our laws, would people break them more or less?
I think it would depend on the law.
Any law?
I mean, do you not murder?
Or I'm sorry, do you not schmurder because it's illegal?
There's probably a lot of people that I'd like to say.
I'm just asking.
Murder is fine, by the way.
You guys are fine.
Okay.
So, like, you and I would have.
Do you not murder because it's illegal?
You and I would have a distinction in what we would consider murder to be.
Right?
You and I would have a distinction in that.
So, like, well, I thought we agreed it's unjust killing.
Yeah, but what we consider justified to be would be different.
Okay.
So, that would be where we would have a semantic distinction there, right?
So, for instance, if somebody was stealing, hang on, I'll explain.
Sorry.
Someone's stealing property.
Are you entitled to kill them?
I mean, per the law, sure.
No, but do you think morally?
Oh, morally?
Yeah.
Like somebody's taken off with your TV.
Oh, no.
Yeah.
See, I think dead.
Right.
So you see, we have a distinction in justification.
Sure.
So you think that's murder?
I think, ah, no, it's not.
So to answer your question, yeah.
If the law wasn't there to say you can't shoot him if he's stealing your TV.
So you would shoot someone who is stealing your TV.
Yeah.
In the face.
In the face.
Multiple times.
Multiple times.
Yes.
Yes.
That's a new.
That's a crazy place to plant your flag.
Anuzi.
Yeah.
Or, you know, whatever was convenient.
Yeah.
what's wrong with that um i i would say that the loss of their life certainly outweighs your your tv Well, I mean, if the TV didn't outweigh their ability to run, I probably would have missed, right?
But the thing is, you know what else would have prevented this?
Them not stealing my TV.
That's true.
Is the context here this is a home invasion?
Yeah.
Like it's in your house?
Yeah.
Well, no, I think you have the ability to defend your property.
Yeah.
Or that your property, your property, anything that's within the domain of on your physical property, right?
Meaning property you own.
I consider that all to be the French word curtilage.
And anything within the viewpoint of curtilage is a violation of your actual property and therefore a rights violation.
You have every right to put that person down so that you don't encourage additional people to do it.
So in many ways, I think you're defending, you're defending not just yourself, but everybody around you if more people took that stance.
I think we would, I think like the better solution would be to recognize why someone's stealing your TV.
Okay, yeah.
So, but how does that prevent them from doing it?
So like, okay, we're investigating it now.
By the way, we've been investigating why people steal shit for about 100 years.
And you know what?
We haven't really prevented people from stealing shit.
But I'll just grant to you that.
Isn't it just scarcity, though?
I'll just grant to you that we could.
No.
No.
People steal even when there's no scarcity.
Bernie Madoff took off with how many people's pensions.
There was no scarcity.
Well, I think capitalism creates scarcity even when there's abundance.
That, you know, it's never enough.
That sounds like a cope.
So like Bernie Madoff, who had everything, just needed more.
Yeah.
Like, how many rich people have clearly enough money to live the rest of their life, not have to work, but still work?
Yeah.
And how many women, right, who are living middle-class lifestyles steal for fun?
They literally will steal things for fun because it gives them a thrill.
Sure.
You know, and it's like, so there, there could just be the example of greed and the example of, I want to do this thing because I really like doing it.
And it's like, I think there's a specific reason behind certain psychological, uh, habits or, um, impulses, if you will.
Sure.
But you can't cure the human condition.
You can't.
How do you know that's the human condition, though?
Because we've been dealing with greed and we've been dealing with these problems, at least in the 20th, 21st century, even with the marching of science.
We have not been able to just increase people's material positions in life and then crime suddenly goes away.
That element will always be there.
Now, I think you can reduce it.
Yeah.
Not saying you can't reduce it.
Like people in abject poverty do commit crime more.
Not saying that that's not the case.
Sure.
What I am saying, though, is that in the interim time while you're trying to solve it, it doesn't change the fact this guy has my TV.
I never said it did.
Yeah.
And so I see that as completely justified in blowing his face right off.
I disagree.
Yeah, but why, though?
Again, I would say the life has more value than the TV.
Okay.
Let's see if you actually believe that.
Okay.
This would necessarily entail that his life had more value than any of your property.
What do you mean?
Well, I mean, you're not going to put a number on his life, right?
His life's worth more than all the money in the world, isn't it?
It's a man.
Woman.
Oh, then yes.
Yeah.
Fair enough.
So this chick who wants to steal my TV, why can't she steal my house?
How would you steal someone's house?
You squat.
Squatters.
Yeah.
And now you've stolen my house and you've put me and my family on the street.
Can I blow you away then?
Can you or ought to?
Ought you morally be able to then?
I would say that housing, because obviously it affects the outcomes of your family's well-being or their own survival would be justified.
Your position here is inconsistent.
You just said that property itself.
It's not the property itself.
If you had another house to go to, go to that house.
So wait.
So if I had two properties, they could chase me out of one of them because I had someplace else to go.
I don't think you should kill them.
But I can't kill them if they're chasing me out of the one place I have to go.
Well, I would say if that's, is that the only solution?
I mean, or you could call law enforcement and then they potentially kill them, trying to arrest them or whatever.
I'm just asking you if that's, is that the only solution?
Well, I mean, right now, I think that the only, well, it's just in your hypothetical.
I mean, oh, and within the confines of the hypothetical?
No, you can have different solutions, right?
Then obviously I would opt for different solutions.
I mean, why would they want your house?
Who knows?
They squat and people are not going to be able to do that.
Because they don't have houses.
No, I think a lot of people.
They don't have housing.
I think a lot of times people do have access to housing.
They don't want to work and they squat inside of people's houses because it's free.
Again, I just think that's like a capitalist assessment of human behavior as somehow being human nature.
Yeah, but this doesn't really answer my question about why it is that I can't kill them for taking my TV.
It's mine.
I agree.
Yeah.
So if you take my shit, because it's taking away from my kids, right?
Taking what?
Well, if you take my TV, I have to replace it, right?
Sure.
That's going to cost me money.
Sure.
That necessarily takes food and resource away from my children, right?
Yeah, sure.
Yeah.
So then necessarily, what you're actually doing when you steal my TV is you're just depending on the degree.
Yeah, well, you're taking things from my children, right?
And so the thing is, is my return.
I mean, potentially, sure.
Not potentially.
If I have to replace the TV, and I have to replace the TV with my money, that's going to necessarily...
Well, I mean, who knows?
Maybe instead of, you know, buying beer that week, you buy the TV.
Okay, so let's say your budget is set in such a way where you only have X amount of money per week, like most American families.
Sure.
Yeah.
So then you're still taking money away from my kids, right?
I mean, if you decide to replace the TV, I don't know.
If I couldn't, if it were between food for my child and a TV, I would probably do food for my child.
Yeah, sure.
But the thing is, is now you have to allocate funds away from your children.
So any dollar you take from me.
Any dollar you take from me, regardless of what I normally would have spent it on, is taking money away from my kids necessarily.
Possibly, sure.
Yeah.
So the thing is, is like if you take from my kids, I kill you.
Problem is, it seems reasonable to me.
It's within the confines of reason, logically stacks up.
I don't think so.
I think that would just be depending on degree.
Why does it depend on the degree?
If you don't steal shit, you don't get shot.
It's simple.
Like, what's the degree?
I mean, what if they were stealing food?
Would that be an issue for you?
Yeah.
I think a person has a right to defend their food.
I mean, would you find it more justified if someone is like, would you steal food to feed your children?
Possibly.
But do I think a person is not justified in doing something about that?
I think they are.
I'm not saying they're not justified in doing something about that.
I'm saying, like, obviously the reaction to a bad thing on behalf of my children?
Yeah.
Sure.
But that doesn't mean that I, within the confines of reason, don't understand that a person can't do something about that.
It's like you can't stand on that.
I'm not saying that, you know, you can do nothing.
I think you could try and take the TV back, you know, punch them in the face.
Well, that's dangerous.
Sure.
They could punch you back.
Yeah, so it's shooting them.
They could shoot at you back.
Usually if you shoot at somebody, I don't know how you can say my situation is dangerous, but yours is if somebody's running with your TV and you're shooting at them, I don't think they're going to be shooting back.
They're very skilled.
They're going to hold the TV like this and grab it.
I mean, they're thin.
Yeah, you can use one arm and, you know.
You don't think that's like moderately deranged?
I don't think it's moderately deranged.
You don't think so?
You don't think that TVs require two hands for men to carry them?
No.
I mean, I guess it depends how big the TV is.
Like your living room TV?
It's going to, you're going to.
I mean, my living room TV is big, but like my bedroom TV.
Also, by the way, it's just less dangerous in general.
If you fire the first shot, chances are pretty good that that's the end of the confrontation.
I mean, if you hit them, yeah.
No, you don't have to hit them.
Just fire the shot even.
Oh, gotcha.
Yeah.
Even that usually is enough to end the confrontation.
Okay.
Anyway, I guess we've stayed on force doctrine for a while.
Yeah.
Did you want to cross-examine me on this?
I guess it, I am curious in terms of if you see, so you don't make this as a moral claim.
It's just kind of a fairly.
It's a descriptive claim.
So do you think men should do these things?
Like.
Which things?
That they should use force as an authority against women.
Well, sometimes.
In some cases, sure.
Like if a woman's committing a crime, something like that, I think men are totally justified in using force.
I think if a woman attacks a man, he's totally justified in using force.
I'm talking as like a societal.
Yeah, but these are societal prescriptions.
If a woman attacks a man, yeah, he's perfectly, it's perfectly acceptable for him to sure.
But there are instances where you say he, you know, like if, like, would you condone wife beating?
But no, but I wouldn't condone husband beating.
Sure, but you're saying that, you know, men's authority is through force.
This is how, why we should have patriarchy.
Enforcement.
So that's the requisite.
But enforcement is.
Yeah, it is force.
Yes.
Yeah, but that doesn't.
Authority is through force.
Remember, my claim is that might makes.
Not that it makes right.
Okay.
But that it so, so it's not a moral ought.
No, it's just a descriptive.
So do you think that men should work to cooperate with women in society?
No, I think women should cooperate with men in society because they depend on.
Yeah, I'll explain.
I think that women depend on men for the use of force doctrine for their own protection.
So I think.
I mean, I think under patriarchy, sure.
No, I think under matriarchy, they still depend on men for force.
Well, you said protection, right?
Yeah, force.
Yeah.
What are you protecting them from?
Well, you could be protecting them from other men generally.
Right.
So I think under patriarchy, male violence is pervasive.
Under matriarchy, male violence is still pervasive.
Why?
Why is having a female leader going to make male violence no longer pervasive?
That's bizarre.
Like, there's a difference between saying, I have a society that's just filled 100% with women.
That would be a claim, but you're not saying that.
You're talking about a matriarchy versus a patriarchy.
Right.
But I think when it comes to patriarchy, obviously we're talking about male supremacy and domination.
And a form of domination is through violence.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I agree with all of that.
So what?
So obviously, if that's not a tenant of matriarchy, then I don't think male violence would be pervasive because it's not used as a form of authority.
Are there still going to be men there?
Yeah.
What's going to make them less violent?
Well, obviously, because it's not used as a form of authority.
But I just got to be telling you.
Wherever men are and women are, women will depend on men for the use of force, period.
That's my claim, regardless of where they are.
So it doesn't matter if you have a queen.
And it doesn't even matter if you put women.
But I think if you as the CEO of the menu, I mean, are we assuming that just authority in general is force?
No.
Authority in general isn't force, but in order to have rights or laws or governance of any kind requires force.
I mean, I don't disagree with that.
Yeah, so that's going to require men.
So women are dependent upon men for force, period.
Under a system of law, sure?
Under any system of governance.
There's no system of governance in which women are not dependent on men for force.
None.
You don't think that can be replaced with technology?
No.
How?
Men can destroy the technology.
That's what force doctrine is.
Men may be in groups, too, but couldn't I say that about women?
No, because you're still going to have to compete with the male group.
So your only options here are either this.
Like, let's say, let's even say you reduced the male population down to 5%.
You're just like, yay, it's all women now, and it's 5% men or something like this.
You still would have a hard time controlling them.
We know this because there have been war-torn nations where like 80% of the men have died and they're still in charge because that monopoly on force.
It's not because women don't have access to guns.
They have access to guns, but they're less good with them.
Guns require physical strength.
Technology requires physical strength.
Like tanks, it requires physical strength to load one.
Okay.
I mean, but when we're talking about cooperation, like co-means with, so I don't, what's the delineation between you saying women should cooperate with men rather than men should cooperate with women?
Because men have the option that women don't have of utilizing force to make you cooperate.
Well, then that's not cooperating.
Yeah.
Well, it is.
Well, hang on.
Hang on, but it is still cooperation.
So the idea here is just this.
Is it the case that men should cooperate with women?
I guess if they choose to.
Well, that's what cooperation is.
I would just say if they choose to.
I wouldn't say that they should.
I mean, they're going to be the ones who make the rules because they have the force.
But that's not cooperation.
Well, it can be cooperation.
No, co-means with.
Yeah.
So it's doing it together.
Are you saying that if somebody's in a position of authority necessarily, that's not a cooperation?
Like, do you not cooperate with your children?
I mean, I do cooperate with my children.
But that's a good idea.
But aren't you an authority?
I'm not an authority.
You're not an authority?
An authority in what sense?
You're in charge.
In charge of certain things?
Sure.
You're in charge of everything.
What do you mean I'm in charge of everything?
I don't tell them, like, what is it?
Can little Johnny tell you he's not going to the doctor today, mom?
Can you tell you he's not going to school?
I mean, if he's sick.
Can you tell you he's not going to school?
Again, if he's sick, that's a possibility.
Okay, but I don't want to go to school on the side of the school.
You think he's lying.
He's like, Mom, I'm sick.
You think he's lying.
Is Johnny going to school?
Most likely.
Yeah.
But that's not cooperative.
That means.
When he goes and gets in the car and he's quiet, when you take him to school and you drop him off, that is cooperation.
I see what you mean in that sense.
Maybe there's a better word that I'm trying to think of where it's more working together and negotiating, where there is no necessary authority, like a partnership.
Yeah, but why should men have a partnership when they have the monopoly on force?
I don't see why they need to have a partnership with women.
Why would you want to subjugate when it's not subjugation any more than it is with your children?
So I think it's a privileged position that they get because they have the use of force.
If they can be drafted and women can't, they get extra rights.
Women don't get.
Again, I don't think that war and the draft can always be like a necessary condition of the human existence.
Okay.
Give me a single hundred-year span in which there wasn't massive war.
The Iroquois lived in peace for 600 years.
No, the Iroquois fought plenty, especially within the Iroquois.
I mean, there is a period of time, but there was also a period of treaty and peace.
The Iroquois can, well, are you talking about the Iroquois Confederacy?
No, the indigenous tribe, the Iroquois.
Yeah, I know.
They had a Confederacy, though.
Okay.
Yeah, so the Confederacy, meaning like in the United States, but under like a loose, loose doctrine of law, the Iroquois Confederacy.
My understanding is that the Iroquois fought endlessly along with most Native American tribes.
No, there was a period of, I would have to look up the source, a period of 600 years of peace.
No, I don't think war is an continuous state of mankind.
War is just fighting over resources.
You sure?
Yeah.
And mankind's always fighting over resources.
Well, yeah, because of either scarcity or manufactured scarcity.
Well, I mean, scarcity can simply happen naturally, right?
Sure.
I mean, are we talking about like so if you have, yeah, so if you just have natural natural scarcity, which happens all the time, you're going to have conflict.
And the enforcers in that conflict are going to be men.
Men are going to be the defenders of your country.
Right, but when it comes to like natural scarcity, then obviously if you're in like communal groups, then that scarcity can be overcome where there's abundance.
Not always.
Depends on what it is.
Like, how are you going to communally in a group do anything about a food shortage?
There's no other communities.
Yeah, if you have access to them.
Right.
And I would say like in today's society, we absolutely do.
Yeah, that's true.
In today's society, we do have global trade, things like this.
You can assist people with various things.
War hasn't gone away at all.
Not even a little bit.
Well, in the 20th, 21st century.
Right, because of manufactured.
Yeah, because of manufactured scarcity.
I agree.
No, it's not always because of manufactured scarcity.
Yeah, it would be dependence theory.
Okay, so why did we fight, go to war with Germany?
That was over scarcity the second time?
World War II?
Yeah.
I mean, obviously the rise of fascism.
So what was the scarcity?
Well, within that one, I would say obviously it was like authoritarian regimes trying to enact land.
From who?
from germany and germany was trying to uh how did that affect us I mean, it didn't, but obviously we wanted to stop imperialism only.
So it didn't have anything to do with scarcity for us.
I mean, eventually down the line, it was America's concern that Germany or Russia would become a superpower and then start to come take our land.
That's what.
Wait, what?
So there was no scarcity for us, and we still got involved in the war.
It's not always about scarcity of resources.
I mean, I do think it is somewhat of a basis.
Because isn't that where regimes are about or about power or authority over your land and your people?
Yeah, your land and your people.
And acquiring resources.
Yeah, what does that have to do with us?
We didn't have to get involved in that war.
I know, you're absolutely right.
We didn't.
Yeah.
So, but we didn't get involved in it.
It wasn't even packaged as like resource problems.
Nothing.
So what resources were we without?
I'm saying that's like the crux of war.
It wasn't the crux of that war?
I mean, we were intervening in order to stop the imperialism from Germany.
Very strange.
How does that – well, here's the thing.
Even if we had let it go, wouldn't we have benefited from that?
I mean, it's hard to say.
Yeah, but I'm just saying, like, that has nothing to do with scarcity.
I don't think that the propensity for human war and violence is always about scarcity and resources.
I think that that's Marxist nonsense.
What would it be about?
Oh, it could be about all sorts of different things.
It could be about an idea of conquest, right?
What do you mean by conquest?
I want to take over everything because I want to.
isn't land a resource?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that it's, what's the scarcity?
You have plenty of land.
You just want more anyway.
Yes.
But how's that come down to scarcity?
Because you're saying the motivation is a lot of people.
I don't have enough.
It's essentially acquisition of resources.
And if you have more resources, then you're less likely to have scarcity.
Okay, so you agree with me that kings are the ones who send their people to war.
Yeah.
Do kings have a lack of resources?
I mean, not within their own personal experience, but within their kingdom, yeah.
Isn't that what led to the fall of Rome was essentially too much global expansion?
And then because they didn't have the resources in order to sustain their civilization?
No.
Well, I mean, maybe there's a small part there, but it was Christianity basically is what destroyed Rome.
So that's what basically took out Rome.
You know, when it's all said and done, was Christianity, the idea of no more unification of religious paganism.
But I guess that's neither here nor there.
That's another thing you could be fighting over just religion.
What's the scarcity there?
Oh, sure.
I don't like, you know, Christians say I don't like Muslims.
Muslims say I don't like Christians.
Sure, sure.
Where's the scarcity?
I mean, obviously that's not a scarcity of resources.
So sure, I can concede that there could be other motivations.
Yeah.
So, and any I would say that would be the main motivation, though.
Okay, and so then within any motivation, men are going to be the operators of force doctrine.
They're going to be the ones fighting the war, right?
Okay, yeah.
So if that's the case, they're going to necessarily need authority to do that.
It's a necessary condition.
It's a necessary condition with the authority.
This is my argument for why patriarchy is a necessary condition.
I mean, we can agree that the men that are fighting are not the men making decisions, right?
No, they very much are often making decisions, yes.
Really?
You think that presidents are going to war?
Yeah, Grant went to war, Eisenhower went to war.
I mean, the list of presidents that went to war is insane.
And the pipeline between general and president is also insane.
So, yeah, definitely.
A lot of presidents went to war.
Sure, I would, sure.
There are examples, but ultimately, I think there are obviously a class of people making decisions and then enacting that through a proxy of military.
What gives the president the most amount of power, though, is he's commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
That's what gives him his primary proxy of power.
That's what gives all men their primary proxy of power is the authority over force.
So the thing is, I don't disagree with that.
The difference is men can always change the conditionals for leadership and women can't.
So necessary.
I think under patriarchy, absolutely.
How could they do it under matriarchy?
How?
I mean, what's the ultimate goal here?
For society.
To be made.
I mean, are you asking from my view or are you asking from your view?
From your view.
Oh, well, from my view, it's simple, just the spreading and propensity for Christian ethics in society.
Why?
Because I think people live their lives that way.
What do you mean by better lives?
Well, I would say things, we'd probably have some agreement here, right?
Healthy children, healthy families, well-adjusted, lack of general degeneracy in societies, things like that.
Sure.
So can you give me a little bit more specifics?
I mean, that was pretty specific.
Like what?
Would you say like access to medical care?
Yeah, I think you need general access to medical care.
Yeah, access to housing.
Yeah, in order to be healthy.
Yeah.
Access to education.
Sure.
So, I mean, then we agree that the desired outcome of society would be human flourishing.
Yeah, but we have a very, very different idea of what human flourishing is.
Okay.
Well, what is that for you?
So when you just talk about base things, yeah, I can agree with you that human beings, generally speaking, need to be educated, have housing, things like this, right?
But these are basic needs.
Sure.
But what about when you're talking about a hierarchy of needs?
What happens when we get past the basic needs?
What happens to civilization then?
What do you mean?
Well, okay, so let's say we all have houses.
Most of us do.
We have some place to live.
Almost nobody in the United States is starving.
Almost nobody.
Well, I mean, starving and food scarcity, I think, are two different things.
One in seven families rely on food banks.
Are they starving?
In terms of starving to death?
In terms of starving at all?
I guess I just don't know how I would relate starving.
Yeah, so they're relying on a food bank.
It's the difference between that and being relying on the state for food.
The food is basically the alleviation of the ability for you to eat, right?
Or not eat.
Yeah, so obviously, if we're going to talk about then access to food, like it would be nutritious, calorie-dense food.
Well, I mean, yes, but also not prepackaged, processed shit, right?
Yeah.
Maybe calorie-dense wasn't the right word.
I meant nutritious dense.
Yeah, whatever the nutritional standard is, we would agree.
Sure.
Sure.
But people still experience food scarcity.
Like kids go to school hungry.
No, every kid who would possibly be hungry at school has access to the school lunch program.
I mean, depending on where you live.
I know where I live, school lunch is free, but not in the United States.
There's no place I'm aware of where if you are under the poverty line, school lunch isn't served to you for free.
But if you are above the poverty line, then you don't have access to school lunch.
Yeah, probably.
Do you agree with that then?
Yeah, I think that that's fine.
Okay.
Yeah.
I don't think that so that would just be a misallocation of parental resources.
So you're just misallocating resources.
They're your resources.
You can allocate them correctly or incorrectly.
I don't see why the state misallocate them for you.
Well, if we're going to talk about then kind of like the dynamics of capitalism, I do think we need to acknowledge that obviously capitalism needs to create a poor class in order to exploit their labor.
So, I mean, if you're poor and you only have X amount of dollars.
So does communism.
What do you mean?
Well, so do you agree with me when it comes to class that there's a such thing as social class?
I guess it would mean what I guess it would need to know what you define as social class.
Academics versus laborers.
Sure, like prestige?
Sure.
Yeah.
So, I mean, is it going to be still in the communist society laborers who do most of the work?
Yes, but they would have access to the means of production to where essentially they would have access to the materials in order to execute the labor.
Whereas the capitalists have access to that, so they're able to steal the surplus value.
Yeah, but then you would have academics still who would have prestigious positions of being able to determine where the things, which they now own the means of production, need to go.
And so those people necessarily end up with authority.
There's no way around it.
I mean, I don't think authority and class are intertwined.
Let's find out.
Let's find out.
Hang on.
Let me test this real quick before I let you move on.
I just wanted to go back to the original point.
Yeah, we will, but just real quick, this whole table is communism, let's say.
Okay.
And within the confines of this whole table, every little individual industry, the workers own the means of production.
Okay.
Okay.
They're all producing it all.
Who gets to decide where it goes?
Well, that would be the proletariat.
The proletariat decides where it goes?
Yeah.
How?
Through democracy, through voting.
Okay, so government.
Well, again, it would depend on what you mean by government.
It would just be people in a governing body who make decisions on behalf of this democratically, they're democratically elected.
Sure, I just want to make the delineation that it wouldn't be considered a state.
Okay, but it's a government.
Sure.
Yeah.
And so necessarily the people in the government who are making the decision on where these resources go, those people are necessarily going to have to be imbued with authority.
Okay.
Yeah.
So if that is the case, you're always going to end up with a class society because the people who have authority are always going to have prestige.
Well, but it's the working people that have the authority.
No.
Yeah, that's what the proletariat is.
They don't get to determine where their resources get allocated.
Somebody has to determine that.
Whoever determines where the allocation of the resources go, they're the ones who are going to be able to get a better person.
That would be the community.
The community would have the authority.
So what if the community votes then to keep all of the resources for themselves and not share them with anybody?
Okay.
They don't have to share them.
Correct.
I mean, obviously then.
That sounds an awful lot like capitalism.
How would that be capitalism?
Well, I mean, what's the difference right now between a company who has a bunch of employees and they all make a whole bunch of products and they sell all those products and they keep all the money for themselves?
What's the difference between that and a group of people who own the means of production, the company, they own the company, and they sell a bunch of people?
And the workers keeping their own product, not the capitalist.
Workers are, what do you mean?
Workers keep their product now, money.
No, they don't.
They keep a paycheck, right?
No, the product is, so if I'm a worker and my labor makes $1,000 worth of profit, the capitalist pays me my hourly wage, which could be, let's just say, for the day, $100, and then he keeps the $900.
But in, you know, that's like an example within capitalists, but within communists, like the workers own the means of production, which means there's no capitalist who owns the factory, who owns the material.
How do these people who work in these factories allocate the resources amongst each other?
Amongst each other?
Well, you can have democratically elected leaders or you can have votes.
So these democratically elected leaders could democratically say these people over here do more work than me, they get more money?
Well, I mean, under communism, ideally, it would be moneyless, but I think it would just be determined like if you work and produce $1,000, you get $1,000.
So if your production makes $1,000, you get $1,000.
Can you spend that $1,000 on getting a bigger house than somebody else?
Well, again, if we're talking about like true communists, it's moneyless.
So this kind of example isn't really relative.
Yeah, but I'm failing to see a single example you're giving me where I can't be like, well, it sounds like we could have class off of this immediately.
Well, I think class and prestige or kinship are different concepts.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing, but I'm talking right now about class.
So it just sounds to me like if you have more resources, you would be set in a class above other people who don't have as much resources.
That would be class, right?
Well, no, because you would have access to the means of productions of resources.
Well, you'd have access to the means of production, at least where you work for resources.
Right.
I mean, you could go to a like a But you still need fruit and you still need bananas, right?
You still need steak.
You need all of these things.
You need love.
So somebody's going to have to decide where all that shit goes, right?
So that everybody gets it.
So then it would be, yeah, the community or, and I think you can do that through reason, through practicality.
Well, you can't have, like, you couldn't have 300 million people voting on where each individual piece of money is.
Well, it would be like individual sects of community.
So obviously, like, let's just say, for example, like Brazil is exporting coffee and they have a really bad coffee season.
Yeah.
Then, you know, maybe exports don't go to countries that are farther distant, just ones that are closer because there's only so much amount that someone can get.
And then, so, yeah, maybe someone that makes no sense.
What do you mean?
Well, you're still going to have central people in a central authority who would have to determine where, because when you think about resources, like just look around this room, there's cameras and monitors and plates and cups.
And I mean, it's an enormous amount of resources just looking around that all need to be allocated all over the place and equity.
I mean, depending, it doesn't necessarily need to be equity based on someone's need, based on necessity.
Well, everybody needs plates.
Sure.
Yeah, so I mean, you have to.
So I don't necessarily say there would be one factory in Texas that would produce all the plates within the country.
You can have multiple industries based in certain communities.
But somebody is going to have to determine where all the plates in the country go.
How many does Houston?
Well, the community can determine.
How?
How do you determine that?
How would the community?
So then they're going to vote on each individual shipment going to every node of the United States?
Well, again, I don't know why we're just saying that one place makes plates.
Well, that was your example.
No, I said there can be sex of.
Oh, I agree.
There could be.
That's even worse.
That just makes the problem even more complex.
How?
Well, now there's already plates going to Houston.
They don't need them.
What do we do with our plates?
We send them over here to this guy.
Yeah, wherever there's a need.
I mean, I don't know why we produce something that we have.
Nobody's going to make the determination of the need.
Okay.
I don't necessarily think that's a good idea.
So there's going to be what are called middlemen.
Middlemen who are going to make a determination on where we are.
Sure.
Do I think there are going to be people who do administrative duties?
Sure.
Yeah.
Those people are always going to have a higher prestige than the laborers.
I don't think that's class.
That's definitely class.
It's not class.
Then why are absolutely?
Making decisions is not class.
If you have authority.
Authority is not class.
No?
No.
Oh, okay.
So then would you say that you have the same amount of class hierarchy as the president?
No.
Why?
Well, that's not class, though.
Like me and the president, those aren't class determinations.
Those are authority determinations.
They are class determinations.
We're talking about class.
Why did you just say that you don't have the same class hierarchy as him?
I'm sorry if I misspoke.
I just want to make sure that we're understanding the delineation between class.
So, yes, I do think there is a ruling class and then there is a working class.
So in the hierarchy, where is the president to you?
It's a good question.
I mean, I would say the president is essentially a part of the state, which is kind of an authoritative arm of the ruling class.
So he's higher in the hierarchy than you?
Yeah, he's an authoritative arm.
Sure.
Yeah.
So can you give me examples of people who have authority who aren't higher in the hierarchy than you?
Of people who have authority?
What do you mean?
A person who is in a position of authority over, at least as far as a government body goes, who aren't in a higher hierarchy than you.
They're not higher than you are.
I mean, I guess it would depend on what sect we're talking about.
Any.
Like any sect.
If they have authority, necessarily they're going to be higher.
What I'm saying is when it comes to authority, it's not necessarily central to the idea of class.
Like obviously the ruling class, like do you think that people who own property have like what you would call legal authority?
Yeah.
Over people who don't have property?
No, no, no.
So you would have legal authority on your property.
Sure.
Right.
But I would say that having property or having capital gives you a specific type of authority that's different than, say, a structural presidential authority.
It still gives you authority.
My whole point is authority.
So if I have vast, vast amounts of property that people live on, right, you would definitely put me higher in a class hierarchy than the people who lived on my property, likely.
So, and that's because I have authority.
Right, but authority is not just necessarily like decision-making positions.
It can also be access to certain resources or capital.
Yeah, sure.
But my point is that authority itself also seems to be a big position for hierarchy, for being up in the hierarchy.
So what I'm saying, I guess my ultimate argument, just to reduce it very quickly, because I feel like we're circling, is just this, that necessarily because men have the monopoly on force, they will always be appealed to for force doctrine by women.
Since that's the case, you're going to have to have necessary authority imbued in them.
And because of that, you're never going to actually have a classless society because whoever's imbued with the doctrine of force is going to be the one who's essentially in charge of people.
And that's just the way it is, descriptively.
I mean, do you think that men within this society who hold high authority are necessarily the strongest?
No.
No.
So like authority isn't directly derived from force.
Yes, it is.
Here's why.
Because you can change the condition of who holds authority with force.
And men uniquely can do that and women can't.
So while it's true, you could have, let's say, a woman who's in charge of a group of men.
Like let's say you're a second lieutenant in the United States military, you're in charge of a group of guys, right?
Men can literally change the conditionals anytime they want to of their government and women cannot.
So men can always collectively change conditions.
I'm sorry.
So we're talking about a lieutenant in the military and now we're talking about government conditionals.
Well, I was giving you an example of where a woman could have some kind of authority over men, right?
Sure, in terms of ranking, sure.
Yeah, yeah, sure.
But only that it's because men are not challenging that authority that she's able to keep it.
Men uniquely can do that and women cannot.
That's why.
So I'm sorry.
Are you saying that the army can challenge her authority?
No, the president can remove her in a second, right?
Okay.
Yeah.
So I'm sorry.
What's your point?
Well, I'm just saying that if men don't like the conditionals that they have, they can overthrow the nation they're in.
Well, if men are in that position, though, correct?
Men are always in that position to be in the position of overthrow.
Are you talking like the president?
No, I'm talking about just general.
Okay, maybe we're talking past each other.
Let's back up.
Inside of any nation, institution, okay, in this case, would you say a country?
Okay.
I don't know.
I guess it would depend on what you would consider a country, but I think you and I wouldn't disagree the United States is a country, right?
Okay.
If the men in the United States wanted to overthrow the rightfully elected government of the United States, they could.
Women could not.
Like citizens?
And the only thing that would defend...
I don't know about that.
The only thing that could defend the United States from that would be men again.
So it would be men on the defense and men on the offense, but women have never historically overthrown any government with violence ever once.
Again, like, do you think that, I don't think men, citizens could overthrow the United States government.
Maybe not.
That's because men would be there with guns to stop them.
Well, I think that's because of, again, like tools.
Yeah, sure.
But what I'm saying is that you're not going to be able to do that.
I mean, do you think if women had all the nukes that we wouldn't win?
No, you wouldn't win.
Why?
Well, who would you nuke?
Yourself?
No, the men.
In your hypothetical.
Yeah, where you're going to nuke the men at, that you don't have to go, right?
So men are everywhere.
So the thing is, is that women are everywhere to everywhere.
I agree.
But men have the ability to enslave women and women don't have the ability to enslave men.
Men have the ability to take themselves out of any governmental situation they want via force and women don't have that and never have had that.
They've never been able to do it once.
There's never been a violent government overthrow done by women ever.
Not even once.
Because there's men.
That's the problem, right?
They'd have to face off with men.
Only men can uniquely do that.
So men are always in a position of patriarchy because you have to appeal to them for authority.
I don't think that that is necessarily the case.
Because then, too, when you are going to enact violence against a group, like you do have to expect that violence will be enacted against you.
Agreed.
And so I think there does need to be some kind of evaluation on why you're enacting the violence.
Sure.
But that's the problem is, is like, let's say we come to an agreement of why men are enacting violence, right?
The Chinese are enacting violence against their women because of, I don't know, some cultural taboo from a thousand years ago.
I'm just wondering why men, like, what is your philosophy around men enslaving women?
Well, I think I've already covered this.
I think they ought not enslave anybody, but not just women.
They also ought not enslave men.
Sure.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the condition of women.
However, that is a good idea.
So would men not have a duty to abuse that authority.
Well, how is it abusive?
How are they abusing that authority?
By simply, well, like, when you're talking about abuse, if men voted and women couldn't, but men fought the wars and women didn't, how's that abuse?
Well, I, again, I think we're going back to like a system that is in current place for like unnecessary reasons.
Like essentially, we're talking about how societies interact today under non-cooperative or non-cohesive goals.
Okay.
What's the argument, though?
For.
Well, for why it is that if men are fighting the wars, they're necessarily in a position of privilege where they can make the determination.
I mean, I don't, like, women can fight against alongside men.
I don't think this is.
They can't.
They literally cannot fight alongside men.
They have.
Like, in the Civil War, women were sneaking in to the military.
Women were not fighting.
Would you like to get a death count on how many women died in combat in the Civil War versus men?
Well, they weren't allowed to enlist in the Civil War.
They're allowed right now.
So they snuck in.
They're allowed right now with next to their husbands.
And they're not.
I would like to listen to how many women right now are in the combat infantry capable of going to the front lines in comparison to men.
Do you want to know how many that is?
Sure.
Okay, well, let's start with this.
Special forces.
How many female Navy SEALs do you think there are?
None.
How many?
None.
That's really weird.
I'm sorry.
Are they barred from being Navy SEALs?
No.
Oh, that's.
And they are trying to become Navy SEALs.
I think there have been women who...
A lot of them.
I mean, how many Navy SEALs are there?
I don't know, but how many, I mean, let's say there's.
I think that's an important delineation to make, too, because I'm sure you would argue a majority of men don't meet that requirement.
Sure.
So how many men are meeting that requirement?
Again, it's saying.
But all the ones who are are men.
You know, again, but again, it's saying the fence is six feet tall.
You have to be able to see over the fence.
And you know.
So you want them to lower the standard of physical strength for Navy SEALs?
Well, again, like if we're talking about the certain systems that are in place, I don't think like there are countries that exist without Navy SEALs.
There are countries that exist without.
What country exists without special forces?
There's no country that exists without special forces, not one.
Not to the degree that we have here.
I mean, are you saying all countries have a Navy, a military, and an Air Force?
There's no country I'm aware of that doesn't have a military.
None.
Well, again, I delineated between Air Force.
That's just branches of military.
Right.
Yeah.
So what?
Like, no, I think if you live in the middle of the desert, you don't have a navy.
But obviously.
Yeah, if you live in the desert, you don't have a navy.
Sure.
But then you still have a military.
That's sure.
But again, like, to what degree do you, like, how large does this need to be?
I don't think it necessarily needs to be always a necessary condition of a society.
Yeah, it does need to be a necessary condition of a society because you have to have force in order to run a society.
You have to.
There's no way around it.
But back to this, you kind of obfuscated, almost got away with it.
But how many females, Navy SEALs are there?
There's zero.
They're not barred from doing it.
So what's the barrier for them?
I mean, obviously, physical capacity.
They can't meet the physical capacity.
And so the thing we can break this down going beyond that, beyond the Navy SEALs.
You just start with the special forces.
Let's move over into other types of special forces.
How many female Green Berets?
Oh, I have no idea.
How many do you think?
I don't know.
Okay, well, Green Berets, Special Forces.
I don't think there's any of those either.
Okay.
Okay.
But if you get into combat infantry, right?
Women who are capable of being in combat in the infantry, would you say that that is on par with men or less than?
Probably less than.
Significantly less?
Yeah.
I don't think women are steered towards armed forces.
Now, let me ask you a question.
Sure.
Let's pretend for a second that you were a general.
And you should be able to think like a general, right?
Because women aren't incapable of that or anything.
So the enemy, right?
The enemy really likes to grape women.
Like that.
They really like that.
Right.
And you have men and women who can fight in the front line, right?
So you draft men and you draft women.
Do you think that the enemy would try to demoralize you by graping your women?
Yes.
Yeah.
Would it work?
Demoralize women?
No, to demoralize men and women.
Wouldn't it demoralize the men if the enemy was graping female soldiers and they could like hear them?
I think that would demoralize anyone, sure.
Yeah, but it would really demoralize the men, right?
What's because they can't do anything to stop it.
Okay.
And they want to stop it, right?
I would think anyone would want to stop grape.
Yeah, sure.
But when you're talking about your fighting force, right?
Do you think that the enemy is going to grape the men?
I mean, if there's no women, sure.
They don't.
That's what happens in prison.
Yeah, sure.
It happens in prison, not usually in infantry combat.
Well, I mean, because there's no, like, we're just giving an example, like, when there's no women, men grape men.
Yeah, but that's, first of all, that does happen in prison.
It's not common.
But let me ask you this.
Would it be more common in prisons?
Would it be more common in prison for there to be grape if they were co-ed?
I mean, grape happens a lot in prison, being sex segregated.
Yeah.
Would it happen more if it wasn't sex segregated?
Like, if there was a lot of women around very violent inmates, do you think that they would get graped?
There would be more grape or less grape?
I think the women, yeah, they would grape women.
There would be a lot more grape, right?
I mean, there's opportunity.
They're smaller, easier to do.
Sure.
But the same thing is going to happen in combat.
Grape isn't necessarily like just an act of physical strength.
Yeah, maybe not.
There needs to be motivation.
Like, I'm commanding you to grape the enemy because it demoralizes them.
Sure.
Yeah.
So, I mean, don't you think that that takes away from the effectiveness of women in combat in general?
I mean, not necessarily.
What?
So you're saying because women are present and there's an opportunity for women and women are present.
People get captured in combat all the time.
Right, so let's just, I'm sorry.
Let me just understand this hypothetical here.
So there's hypothetical one where the entire infantry is men.
Yeah.
And there's hypothetical two where it's mixed.
It's mixed.
And what's there are different outcomes?
Yes.
Very different outcomes.
Why are the ones with men having a different because they're not getting graped by the enemy.
They're getting captured by the enemy, but they're not.
But wouldn't that be demoralizing?
Not as demoralizing as sending your own soldiers back pregnant with the enemy's enemy or enemy's baby inside of their womb.
That seems way more demoralizing to me.
Okay.
Wouldn't that doesn't that seem way more demoralizing to you?
I mean, definitely.
For one thing, finding soldiers who would just like have gay sodomizing sex with men would not be easy to do.
But finding soldiers who would be willing to grape the enemy's women doesn't seem like that would be very difficult to find.
Okay.
Would you agree with that?
Sure.
Yeah.
So, yeah, it would be very demoralizing, wouldn't it?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So it's probably not a good idea to have women on the frontline combat because of that reason, right?
I mean, I guess that's just kind of assuming that that is like essentially what's always going to happen.
Do you think that our enemies are not going to grape our women?
I guess it would depend.
I mean, if we're talking on front lines, like hand-to-hand combat.
They haven't seen women.
They're fighting a war.
They haven't seen women in like two years.
What do you think they're going to do when they capture that?
That happens with civilians.
Yeah.
What does?
That they haven't seen women in two years?
No, that's, you know, they grape civilians as well.
Sure.
Yeah.
I agree.
Yeah.
That's why usually when armies pull back, they pull their civilian population back with them.
So what?
Because they don't want to get their female population graped by the enemy.
Okay.
That's why they do that.
Like, okay.
So yes, I do recognize that obviously there's going to be a different outcome in war for women than there is for men because of gender.
Yeah, they're going to get graped and then they're going to get pregnant.
That's going to be really demoralizing.
right i i don't disagree but i i don't know if that's like a we'll just ask you this You're in charge of your nation's security and the enemy is brutal and they're horrible and you need to win this war by any means necessary.
Would you order your men to grape the enemy's women?
No.
Even if you needed to win?
What if they were going to grape your women?
And you needed to demoralize them?
Would you do it?
No.
See, not even equipped to make these decisions.
Not even equipped to make these decisions.
To justify grape?
No.
So just to make sure that I got this right, the enemy will justify that, though, right?
Yes.
I don't know if they'll justify that.
But they'll do it.
I mean, depending on what it is.
And you just won't do it.
No.
So then it seems to me like having women in the military under your command probably wouldn't be a very good idea because they're going to get graped.
I don't know how commanding my soldiers to grape their women would prevent the women in my military.
Well, I'm just explaining to you.
I'm not telling you that you're making an immoral decision.
You're not.
Right?
What I'm telling you is that under your view, even if you're in command, you still would acknowledge that the enemy is going to grape your soldiers.
Yes.
You know, just like I would acknowledge that the enemy could kill my soldiers.
They're going to kill your soldiers for sure.
Yeah.
But they're also going to grape your female soldiers.
So do you think they have an advantage if their military is mostly men and yours is co-ed in infantry combat?
Again, I think it would depend on other factors, you know, like access to resources, strategy.
Yeah, the access to the same resources, roughly.
That's not, that's just an equalizer.
Like, that's not actual real combat or like the real structure of it.
What do you mean?
I mean, like I've said before, what good is brute force strength if you don't have water and food?
No, I mean, you have access to roughly the same amount of resources, you and the enemy.
Right.
You're just equalizing it.
That's my whole point.
Yeah, I'm talking about water and food.
It's not real life.
Yeah, it's real life that most of the time when professional militaries are fighting with each other, they have water and food.
What do you mean?
It's not.
That can be a real hurdle for a lot of military is making sure that they still have access to water and food.
But it is the case that most of the time professional militaries have access to water and food.
Most of the time.
It would depend on the conditions.
Yeah, sure.
It depends on the conditions, but you have significant advantages to having all male soldiers.
That is an important tenant.
Sure.
It's not just brute force strength.
It is strategy.
It's mostly brute force strength.
It's access to resources.
And who do you think has the ability to have longevity in conditions which are extremely hot, extremely cold, that fluctuate all the time, that require a sense of physical readiness?
Which sex do you think?
Yeah, men.
So wouldn't you be advantaged if you didn't waste resources on training females for physical combat when you could instead train males for that?
Yeah, in some sense.
So then, again, why the hell do you want women in combat in the military?
It's silly.
I mean, if they have the capacity to perform, I mean, obviously we're already looking at there is going to be kind of a filter for men in general.
But I mean, you're right in terms of if we're looking for the elite within this specific one area, then that is going to be men.
Yeah, so then if you have access to men, you're going to be spending X amount of money on soldiers.
Why would you sink the same amount of money into a female for combat if you could sink that money into a man for combat?
Well, I mean, we've already established that within this kind of level of infantry that.
It should be men.
It's going to be men.
just because of the...
Yes, it's going to be men and it should be men because they're going to be better at it, right?
Sure.
Okay.
Then what privilege do they get?
What privilege does who get?
Do these men get because women aren't able to do these jobs?
What privileges should these men get?
In terms of like right-sized.
These specific men?
Well, just men in general.
All men can be drafted.
Wait, why would all men?
Because all men can be drafted and sent into combat.
Well, again, going from special infantry to draft is very different.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is.
Okay, well, then let's take a look at the Ukraine.
The Ukraine right now, men can be drafted up until age 65.
They're not being drafted.
They are being drafted up until age 65.
They're not.
They are.
The last draft that happened was in the 70s.
In the Ukraine?
Yes.
A man has not been drafted since the 70s.
Oh, we're talking about the Ukraine government.
Yes.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I thought we were talking about the United States.
Yes.
I said in the Ukraine.
Okay.
The Ukraine, men can be drafted up to 65.
I disagree with the draft.
Okay, got it.
That's great.
You disagree with it.
But the only people right now who can be drafted are who?
Men.
And the reasons that we just went over previously determines that the reason that we want to draft men is for these exact reasons.
Because they're stronger, they're better in combat.
These are the positions we would need them in.
And because these are the positions we need them in, women are excluded from those roles.
Well, again, going from special infantry to just military bodies, obviously more is just going to be better.
Why?
More takes way more resources.
More is not.
Yeah, but numbers is also Another strategy that wins war if you have more soldiers than the other team.
Yeah, sure, that can be helpful, but it's more helpful to have a very well-trained, very combat-ready military.
If you're drafting, you're not, they're not going to be well-trained.
We've won wars with draftees.
They were plenty well-trained.
So the thing is, is like being trained and being well-trained are two different things.
I guess you had specialists too, but the point is they were very much trained and they very much kicked the shit out of half the world.
So that was with draftees.
Okay.
So the thing is, is we've already established that men are far better in these roles than women.
Men ought to be in these roles and not women.
This is by your own logic.
So what privileges should men get considering they can be drafted into these roles and women cannot be?
I mean, if we're going on a society based on like this is always going to be the outcome and this is a necessity, I don't think necessarily there would I'm not against sending men to go to war against their will.
You are against it or not?
I'm against sending men to go to war against their will.
Oh, I thought you said not.
Oh, maybe I misspoke.
I'm sorry.
But just to clarify for the audience, you mean you are against it?
Yes.
I would want them to elect to go.
And so what happens if nobody goes like they didn't want to in the Ukraine?
Does Russia take the Ukraine over?
Does Russia take over Ukraine?
I mean, I think it would, again, depend on other resources available.
If there are other militaries, if there are other militaries aren't going to step in.
Then, yeah, that would happen.
But I mean, again, forcing men to go, I mean, you can't force them to fight.
Yes, you can force men to fight.
How?
The same way they did under communism.
They say you run at that machine gun nest, and if you turn around, we will kill you.
And that's exactly what they did.
Oh, I mean, then what they did was they lined up thousands of Soviet soldiers and they handed them a rifle.
They said, if you die, the guy behind you, pick up the rifle, reload, and continue to go.
Sure, sure.
And if they turned around and came back, if they ran away, men with machine guns were waiting for them and mowed them all down.
Okay.
So yeah, you could definitely force men to fight.
I mean, that's been done time and time again.
If you ran away in World War II, you were a traitor and you were shot.
That's forcing you to fight.
If you run away from combat, you get shot.
Right.
I'm saying, obviously, if they don't fight, they die.
Like, that's clear.
But if they think they're going to die already, I'm confused.
You know, going to war, they're like, I'm pretty much going to die already.
So I'm just going to try and escape so I can avoid that.
And if they kill me, oh, then the outcome's the same.
Well, that's not what happens.
I guess my issue is.
If you're compelled and pressed into service, like you can't do anything.
If you sign up, if you don't sign up for the draft as a man in the United States, you're not supposed to be able to vote.
I know.
So then how come if women don't sign up for the draft, they get to vote?
That's bullshit.
Well, again, I'm against the draft.
Yeah, I got it.
So then just nobody defends the nation.
Well, I think obviously within America, we have a huge society that's very big on militarism, which is why no one has been drafted.
Nobody's been drafted because we haven't fought a professional war where we had hundreds of thousands of body bags being sent home.
That's why nobody's been drafted.
Well, sure, but also there, I would say people are joining more than they were back then.
No, I think that the rates per population remember at the time, I think there was only 150 million people.
It was like half the people at the time than there is now.
So, no, I think proportionally, plenty of people were joining the military.
I don't know if it's at the same rates because you had different benefits for it, but plenty of people were joining the military.
Okay.
The thing is, though, is that we just haven't had a war where hundreds of thousands of people die.
You have to replace your soldiers, right?
Sure.
Do you think people are going to be more or less likely to join if people are dying in mass?
They'll be less likely to join.
Yeah, they'd be less likely.
So then what do you do?
You compel service.
Like, what else can you do other than compel service?
I mean, not go to war.
Yeah, but like you can't.
Why do you think you can decide those things?
Like, you can't make the decision.
Because, like, I think there is motivation, obviously, between countries who are engaging in war and the reasons behind those.
Yeah, but you can't solve those reasons.
Like, I'm not disagreeing with you that under the idea of patriarchy, that there is going to be some dependence on men, because obviously I would think that still.
Under the idea of matriarchy, too.
No, I don't think that male violence would be pervasive.
I mean, when do you think patriarchy?
One second.
When do you think patriarchy originated?
I think it's always been the case.
Yeah, I would say patriarchy originated, depending again on what aspect, you know, what country we're looking at or what region would be between like 8,000 BC and 5,000 BC.
What do you think our oldest written record is?
I believe it's, uh, Egyptian scribes, which I think is 5,000.
Um, yeah.
Isn't that when, uh, the Sumerian.
Yes.
And isn't that when they worship female gods?
No.
Anu was a male god?
No, was a female god.
No, Anu was a male god.
Promise.
No.
She was the good male.
That's not a shoe, a she, Anu.
I'm pretty confident Anu was a male god.
I-N-A-N-N-A?
Yeah, like Anunaki.
It comes from the god, the male god Anu.
Like the exaltation of Inanu?
No, it's just Anu, I think.
Anu.
Yeah, the exaltation.
God, it just means God.
Well, the exaltation of Inanu is thought to be the first poem, and that's a female god.
El.
What do you mean, El?
El is another god.
In fact, I mean, if you're talking.
In fact, I actually have a list here of Egyptian gods.
I'm sorry, pre-3,500-year gods.
Let me give you the list real quick.
Sure.
Just because I brought it with me.
We hang on real quick, Brian, before you get into the super chats.
Oh, no, while he's looking that up, you brought up the term patriarchy.
Can you just define the term for male supremacy, domination, and dependency?
Okay, male supremacy, domination.
And what was the last one, sorry?
Dependency.
Yeah, that's right.
Anu, Mesopotamia, Sumeria, 5,000 BC, king of the gods.
Enil, Mesopotamia, Sumerian, Enki, Mesopotamia.
Petah, pre-dynastic Egyptian, 6,000 BC.
Pre-Shupati, El, I said El, pre-Canaan, pre-17, 3,900 BC.
I mean, the list goes on and on and on and on and on of male gods.
All right, I'm not saying there are male gods, but wasn't that all before?
It's all before your time frame of 3,500 years ago, yeah.
No, I said between patriarch was established between 8,000 BC and 5000 BC, so that would be post-patriarchy.
Okay, and now look up when the epic of Gilgamesh happened.
Okay.
Because what I'm trying to determine is where you're getting your evidence that patriarchy happened 8,000 years ago.
When do you think our oldest written manuscript comes from?
Well, I don't think like, obviously, there's going to be a difference between how we establish culture in prehistoric times versus historic times.
And obviously, historic would be defined as written.
So when we're talking about things which are written, what written accounts are there of non-patriarchal societies?
What?
The Amazons are a myth.
Here one second.
I think it's Egyptian, the...
God, I don't know how to spell it.
You can do your thing now if I can look this up.
And if you need us to look anything up on our end, we'd be happy to.
Are you looking for like a list of languages by the first round?
I'm looking for something really specific, and I can't remember how it's spelled.
Because we have Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian.
She's looking for Egyptian matriarchies.
Oh, okay.
Is that what you're looking for?
Because we can.
There's a specific written scripture that talked about like if you are married to your wife, like adorn her Egyptian text or okay.
Yeah, but that that could that could be based around mutual submission as well, which still wouldn't be matriarchy.
Um, I mean, are you if you want me to read the whole thing, I can are you referencing?
Are you referencing the narm Narmer palette?
No.
Apologies if I'm saying that wrong.
Narmer palette.
Um, if you want to do your thing, Brian, just yeah, sure.
Um, guys, if just a reminder here, if you want, uh, we have $100 reads.
If you want to get ask a question to either of the panelists, also, if you want 100% of your contribution, and we can do reads via Venmo and Cash App too.
That's whatever pod Venmo Cash app.
Also, if you're enjoying the stream, like the video, please.
Also, guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
And Blake, if you can get that pulled up, it's twitch.tv slash whatever.
If you're watching over there, drop us a follow in the Prime Sub.
If you are enjoying the stream, if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
Also, we have, let's see here, we have a goal on the YouTube side.
I changed it.
It's so you have, we have about another two hours left for the goal if you want to reach it.
Pineapple pizza party, which is Andrew Wilson's favorite pizza flavor.
And we'll also do a roast session, a roast segment at the end of the show if we hit that goal.
Send it in, guys.
Send it in.
Andrew's dying to have some pineapple pizza, guys.
You know, it's his, you know, you got to have at least one slice.
Not eating pineapple pizza.
Andrew, I will use force doctrine.
I'll use force doctrine.
I will use, I'm going to force it.
Just kidding.
Joke, joking, joking.
So yeah, we got the Egyptian.
It's Maxims of Hatahutab.
Do you want us to pull it up, or do you just want to reference what it is?
I don't think we need to pull it up.
I mean, it's thought to be...
One second.
Sure.
Really quick, while you're still working on that, we have Ogle with gifted 50 memberships.
Hey, Ogle, thank you so much, man.
Really appreciate your get 50 gifted, whatever memberships.
Thank you so much, man.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Sorry, go ahead.
It's a book more than 5,000 years old and possibly the oldest book in the world.
And essentially talks about worshiping.
If you are wise, stay home, love your wife, don't argue with her, feed her, adorn her, massage her.
Okay.
That doesn't say submit to her.
I mean, I don't have the full section right here.
What is the evidence that this is a matriarchal society?
Well, obviously the written text.
And then, like I said before, the exaltation of Ainana, that's thought to be one of the oldest poems, which is reflecting the Sumerian goddess.
Do you agree that Christianity is patriarchal?
Yes.
Okay.
Is it true in Christianity that we elevate and venerate the Virgin Mary?
I don't know what you mean by venerate.
We venerate.
We say prayers.
I mean, sure.
Yeah, we venerate.
I don't know.
We venerate the Virgin Mary, right?
Okay.
Yeah.
So the thing is, is that even if it is the case that there's female goddesses, just like there were in other pagan traditions, that doesn't mean that that's a matriarchal society.
Well, how would you define a matriarchal society?
Women are in charge.
I would say it would be the father is patriarchy.
Well, so I would say prior to 8,000 BC, we lived a more egalitarian society, leaning more towards matriarchy because of paternity uncertainty, as well as essentially just the relationship within tribes in order to give.
How does paternity uncertainty assist with your point that these are matriarchal societies?
Well, I said egalitarians, who essentially were men and women built society together.
I would say they would lead towards matriarchy because obviously at that time, survival of tribes is most important, and obviously having children that survive and the caregiving and nurturing of children would have been fulfilled by the role of women.
Yeah, what makes you think that women had a choice in that?
I'm not saying that they did.
Yeah, so then it's not matriarchal then.
It absolutely.
I said egalitarian.
It's not even egalitarian.
It's essentially women working together.
If women don't have a choice, do you think that that's them working with men?
What do you mean having a choice?
Like, if man goes bonk on head and you get graped, how is that a choice?
How's that equality and egalitarianism?
Well, I don't know why.
You're just assuming.
I would say that the idea of rape, or I'm sorry, of grape became into existence with agriculture.
What?
So you think that men weren't graping before then?
No, I don't.
Oh, I knew that.
Because I don't think that's.
What's your evidence for that?
I don't think they understood men's role when it came to how children, how women became pregnant and how children were created.
What did that have to do with them just being horny?
That, well, I don't think men grape because they're horny.
Why not?
What do you mean?
So wait a second.
Because it is an act of humiliation.
So primitive man, right?
You agree with me that Homo sapiens have been around for about 100,000 years?
I think it's 300,000.
At least 100,000.
Yeah.
Okay.
But we didn't come in.
So we actually operated the same way we are right now.
We have the same brains, same physicality, basically the same everything.
Differences in height, differences in smaller things like that.
Sure.
But we have the same capacity.
So do you say within that 100,000 years, this, let's just say, for the sake of argument, but you know what?
We'll do the 300,000.
Within this 300,000 years, only 10,000 years ago, men figured out the technology of grape?
Yeah, I don't think like, if you don't know that sex creates children, then your whole theory is that men are graping so that children can come into existence.
That's not my theory.
That's your theory.
Hold on.
I think hide it in the sources.
Go to the stream yard.
Click the eyeball.
No, no, Stay in LBS.
Look at the sources tab.
Just hide stream yard.
Just hide it.
I apologize.
We had a technical difficulty.
You guys continue that.
Yeah, I think that men grape because they're horny, too.
I disagree.
One second, guys.
Oh, you disagree.
Hold on.
Can you hide it here, too?
Yeah, so let's test that and see if you actually do disagree.
Does every single time you have sex with a woman require consent?
Well, I would say sex implicitly, by definition, would be consensual.
If it's not, then it's grape.
So then every instance of sex would require consent?
Correct.
Okay.
So if a husband wakes up in the morning and he has a boner and he leans over and starts banging his wife while she's asleep, is he graping her?
Yes.
He is.
Why is he doing that?
Because he's horny?
I think because he assumes he has consent.
Yeah, so he's horny.
So therefore, if it is the case that he's still graping her, even if he assumes he has consent and does not, that he's graping her because he's horny, right?
No, I don't think that he thinks he's graping her.
But that has nothing to do with the fact of the matter.
You said that men do not.
The motivation behind grape is not that they're horny.
That's definitely his motivation behind that grape.
No, because he doesn't think he's graping her.
Why would it matter whether he thinks he's grapes?
Because that determines the motivation, right?
You're saying that men have to think that they're doing the act in order for them to be motivated to do the act?
No, not at all.
I'm not saying that men don't commit grape unknowingly.
Okay, so this guy is graping his wife, which, by the way, means that I've graped my wife.
I don't know how many times.
That's a weird thing to admit.
No, I'm fine with it.
You're fine saying that you've graped your wife?
Yeah, if you think that me rolling over in the morning and she's asleep and waking her up with sex is grape.
Well, I mean, she's unconscious.
She's asleep for sure.
That's unconscious, right?
Sure.
Yeah.
If she had too much to drink and passed out.
Yeah, we've done that too when we're both drunk.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, where she passed out.
Yeah.
She's also graped me by this metric, too.
She's woken me up with sex.
I didn't consent.
I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.
Are you saying that you've graped your wife while she's been passed out?
I'm saying, well, my wife has been sleeping.
I've woken her up with sex many times and vice versa.
So did we grape each other?
By definition, yeah.
Yeah, so we're both.
She grapes me sometimes.
I grape her sometimes.
I think forced penetration is still grape.
A little grape here, a little grape there.
She grapes a little.
I grape a little.
That's weird.
We all do a little bit of graping.
Why?
Totally not weird, by the way.
I'm just going to do that.
What's that?
Would you continue if she didn't wake up?
I don't know.
Half the time I'm drunk, right?
So you don't know if you would continue.
No, I don't think I would continue if she didn't wake up.
Why?
I don't know.
It's less fun.
Right.
So obviously you want your partner to be conscious, enthusiastic.
Yeah, but she wasn't conscious when we started.
I understand that.
So we'll grape there.
So if you, then why not just wake her up?
Why do I need?
I am waking her up with my penis.
Why not just waking her up before she is up?
With my penis, yes.
That's crazy.
Why is that crazy?
Do you know how common it is that men and women wake each other up?
Like a man will be woke up by his girlfriend?
How common it is.
Yeah.
What does that have to do with anything?
What makes it crazy?
Because they're unconscious.
So?
Do you know what implied consent is?
I do know what implied consent is.
There's an implied consent when you get married.
It's implied that you're consenting to sex.
I don't think it's necessary.
Then do you have to bite the bullet that my wife has raped me any number of times?
I've told you.
I already agree with you.
And you think that that's rational?
That it's rational to say what?
Do you think that I'm emotionally scarred because my wife rapes me or grapes me?
No.
But is she emotionally scarred by me graping her?
I mean, I don't know, probably not.
So then grape can just be a neutral act where it doesn't harm anybody.
I mean, I definitely do think it can harm in certain capacities if you're not consciously aware of it.
Yeah, but it's not harming anybody, right?
So grape, hang on, grape can be morally neutral.
I just want to make sure we're clear.
What would make it morally bad?
Demonstrate the harm.
Who's being harmed?
Well, I think in some capacity, it would be the same harm that would come of someone engaging with someone who is like dead.
I think the psychological, I think the psychological aspect of wanting to demonstrate it.
Demonstrate that there's one second.
One second.
Okay.
I think the psychological aspect of wanting to engage in intercourse with someone who is unconscious is highly harmful.
Demonstrate it.
Demonstrate what?
How?
How?
So if my wife, you just got done saying, if my wife wakes me up, it's classified as what is like paraphilic.
Help me out with this.
I'm totally asleep.
Okay.
Completely asleep.
And I wake up and my wife is giving me a blowjob.
I wake up to that.
Okay.
What's the harm?
How have I been harmed?
Tell me how this possibly is harmful to me.
I'm not saying it could be harmful to you.
So then grape is morally neutral sometimes.
No, I don't think it's morally neutral.
Like, I don't think like necessarily harm.
I don't think harm necessarily has to come to the victim in order for it to be.
Then what would make this morally bad?
What makes it moral?
I told you the psychology of wanting to engage in intercourse with someone who is unconscious.
Okay, why is it how that's harmful?
One second.
Would you engage with your wife if she were dead?
No, of course not.
Why?
Because her soul has left her body.
She's not a person anymore.
Her soul has left her body.
She's not a human being anymore.
She's like a fucking dirty.
Can you give me like the secular position?
Why do I need to give you any other position?
How is it?
I think it's.
You need to give me from your position instead of obfuscating what actually makes sense.
I'm trying to give it an analogy.
Yeah.
Well, can you just tell me this?
What makes it immoral for my wife to wake me up with a blowjob?
What makes that immoral?
By the way, have you ever woken your ex-husband?
Do you ever wake him up like that?
No.
Never.
Never happened once?
Not that I know.
No.
All right.
But you do realize this is very common, right?
Sure, yes.
And so just people are just commonly graping each other.
Yeah, I mean, I think there are a lot of instances where grape happens where people don't think they are graping someone.
So that's that's a part of like miscommunication theory.
Okay, great.
I just want to make sure I get the correct or the answer to this question correct.
What is the actual harm?
And demonstrate it for me logically, please.
Or the immorality.
Why is it immoral for my wife to do that to me?
Well, I mean, obviously, if we're talking about consent, I think the basis for that is the Fry's model, which is freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, and specific.
And so obviously it doesn't meet certain aspects of those criteria.
Why is that immoral?
I mean, I like it.
I like it when she does that.
What is immoral about her doing that?
I want her to do that.
I'm not conscious at the time.
That's true.
But I'm very fucking enthusiastic that I want to wake up that way.
Very enthusiastic about it.
Again, I think pleasuring someone who is unconscious is psychologically concerning.
I'm sorry about your mind state of concern.
That's very Karen-ish of you, but can you tell me why it's immersed?
It's very Karen-ish.
It's very care.
Your concern is very Karen-ish, but why is it immoral?
I would place it under like a paraphilic sexual behavior.
So all of the men out there whose wives have woken them up with sex, all of those women are paraphilic.
I think the acted.
They want to have sex with dead?
They want to have sex with dead people?
I mean, paraphilic is just defined as like atypical sexual preferences and yeah, to like want to have sex with someone who's...
You were saying it was necrophilic.
Well, necrophilia falls under paraphilic.
Okay.
So does like pedophiles.
Necrophilia.
So you think that there's tons and tons of women?
I mean, there are obviously like pedophiles and like necrophilia are two different things.
Paraphilic just means atypical sexual desires.
Like I would, I would classify kink under that.
Do you agree with me that tons and tons and tons of women likely wake their man up with some sort of sexuality?
I already did.
Yeah, yeah.
So like asked and answered.
So then is that they're kind of necrophiles?
That's not what I'm saying.
Well, I don't understand what you're saying.
It can't be, by the way, that doesn't make any sense.
It can't be uncommon if it's common.
Well, if we're talking about like the experience of like atypical sexual behaviors, then yes, engaging with someone who is unconscious is an atypical.
It's not atypical if you're saying it's common.
That would be typical.
I mean, in terms of like a common occurrence, sure, but in terms of like a common outcome of intercourse, it's not.
Yes, it is.
I think it's very typical.
You commonly start intercourse unconscious.
That's not what I said.
I said it's very typical to do it, though.
So like I don't typically eat gourmet caviar, but you would agree with me that it is typical that people do eat gourmet.
It's like a typical behavior.
You wouldn't say it's atypical to eat gourmet caviar, would you?
Again, just because something is common doesn't mean it's typical.
What does typical mean?
So I think like we could talk about frequency.
Well, let's just make sure we get this right.
What is typical?
I am trying to.
I just want to make sure I know what typical means.
Sure, one second.
I think we can talk about things happening in common frequency, but in terms of how often things happen outside of that frequency is going to make it like, so 1% of 4 million is going to be a large number.
So we could say it's common.
But in terms of looking at it in a percentage, it's only 1%.
So it's atypical.
Okay, so I don't understand how when we're talking about behavior, I would say it's atypical.
What is it?
Okay, what threshold does it need to meet to become atypical for behavior, like percentage-wise?
I don't know.
So then how do you know what's atypical?
I would just say the classification.
Do you think most people, when they have sex, are doing so unconscious?
So like with an unconscious person?
That's what I said.
No.
So that's my threshold.
Okay.
Well, then do you think that most people have sex missionary style or doggy style most of the time?
Well, she had a guess.
Because would that make doggy style atypical?
Well, no, because again, we're talking about percentages.
Right.
So then I would need to know what is the percentage before it becomes atypical.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Yeah, so then you can't really make the claim it's atypical.
Well, then how can we make the claim that anything is atypical?
Good, good question.
I didn't make the claim it's atypical.
You don't think like paraphilic sex desires exist?
Yeah, I think that we can definitely make claims to that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Sure.
Okay.
Sure.
But when I, I guess the delineation here we're talking about is just typical versus not typical.
I think that it's if if you're talking about what is common, I think it's super common that this happens all the time.
In terms of volume or in terms of percentage?
Both.
Yeah.
I think it's very common.
So you think this is like 50% of sexual interactions.
No, but I think that 50% of people have had this sexual interaction.
But I'm asking in terms of if we were to classify all sexual interactions, would this be a common where people start off intercourse with one partner unconscious?
No.
No, no.
It's not going to be something, it's not going to be, but that doesn't make it not common.
You know what I mean?
Like, I feel like we're quibbling now.
Like, we're saying the same thing.
I hope we are.
But maybe we can semantically.
Maybe we can semantically get here.
I mean, why would okay, yeah, we already, we are, you already answered.
Because I'm horny.
That's why I do it.
Well, um.
And I enjoy it.
I enjoy graping her.
I enjoy it.
Having sex with someone unconscious?
My wife, yeah.
Yeah, I like waking her up that way.
But you said if she didn't wake up, you would stop.
You know, she does sometimes.
She's like, I don't.
She's like, ah.
And I'm like, yeah, that's right.
And she's like, okay.
I know.
Yeah.
She's like, like, she can't believe this is happening.
I've really shocked her.
And then she just kind of, she's okay with it.
Is that wild?
Am I graping her?
I think without having some form of like express consent, then yeah.
Yeah.
Damn, I do this all the time.
Like constantly.
Constantly?
Yeah, it happens all the time.
Constantly is crazy.
Yeah.
Like anytime I wake up with a boner, if she's not awake, she's definitely getting woke up that way.
Why?
I'm curious.
Why don't you just wake her up?
I am waking her up.
No, I'm asking before.
I'm asking what is the purpose of waking her up with your penis rather than just like jolting her?
Because I think it's hilarious and it feels great.
You get the same outcome whether you wake her up if you wake her up.
It's like a big surprise for her, you know?
Surprise.
A surprise if it's wanted.
I just assume it's wanted.
So you just assume consent.
From my wife?
Yes.
Absolutely.
And by the way, I'm just going to tell you, right?
I completely stand behind this.
This is not trolling.
I don't think you are.
100%.
I'm never.
I 100% stand behind this, and I think it's not a big deal at all.
Okay.
Like, not even a little bit.
And I actually haven't heard you demonstrate because you said it's not harmful to her and it's not harmful to you.
I actually haven't heard you demonstrate why this is even bad.
They just kind of just think so.
I mean, sure, I definitely think it's really icky that someone wants to have sex with someone who's unconscious.
Like, I think having, would you have sex with her if she were in a coma?
No.
So, so what, what is the delineation here?
Well, I just would get the ick.
Yeah.
I'm just, no.
Like, no, really.
Like, from your.
What if she has asthma?
She does have asthma.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just checking.
What is that?
What does that have to do with that?
That could like stun her into like a, you know, like she can't breathe.
Yeah, I don't know.
Rachel has asthma right now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Never mind.
I'm sorry.
What is, am I missing something?
What does asthma have to do with that?
But here's the thing.
I will say this.
Okay.
I'm actually okay with my wife having sex with me if I was in a coma.
I'd be fine with that.
That's crazy.
What's crazy about it?
Why should she deprive herself because I'm in a coma?
I think when we're talking about like sexual experience, consent is definitely the foundation in terms of you're not only considering your experience, but you're also considering your partner's.
No, I'm just considering mine.
Like I just want to have a good time.
So I wake her up with my penis.
Yeah, I think it's very harmful to not consider your partner's experience when engaging in intercourse because it is a mutual experience.
Why does she think she does that to me then?
Do you think she just doesn't respect me very much that she would wake me up like that?
Like I just wake up and she's literally writing me.
Don't you think that's horrible?
What if she like you woke up with her like using her teeth?
What do you mean?
Oh, Scott's.
What do you mean?
I really don't want to talk about the sex life you have with your wife.
Can we make it maybe less?
Well, this is just, no, this is super easy for us to get down to this I crazy ass idea you have.
What that you should want considering.
Yeah, so like here, I'll give you an example.
I'm drunk and a woman's drunk.
Are we graping each other?
Yes.
I mean, you think that that's crazy?
No.
I mean, do you think like children engaging would be graping each other?
No.
Oh.
Yeah.
See, I think I just have a higher standard for consent when it comes to.
No, no, no.
Wait, you said children?
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
That would be, well, that wouldn't be grape.
That would be something different because it is true that they can't consent, right?
But they both kind of can't consent together.
So I don't think they understand the ramifications of what they're doing.
I think if you're drunk, you do.
I don't think that drunk being conscious.
Wait, but I just put your logic into a different scenario.
It's not the same logic.
How is it not?
Because in one, you don't understand the other one you do.
Like one, you don't have the capacity.
I mean, again, it depends how drunk you are.
You might not have the capacity.
Okay, then if I get drunk and murder somebody, not my fault.
I mean, people have gotten caught off for murdering people in their sleep.
Yeah, so I didn't consent to murder, right?
So therefore, I like no, no big deal.
I mean, you didn't consent.
I don't know what that has to do with anything in your life.
No, I'm just saying the rights violation.
If you grape when you're drunk, are you responsible for that?
Yes.
So I don't understand then.
Now I'm actually really confused.
So you can be held responsible for the actions that you take when you're drunk.
Of course.
Okay.
Yeah, like even if you're blacked out and you get in your car and you drive and you kill someone, yeah.
Okay, so then why can't two people consent when they're drunk?
Consent meaning to agree?
Because obviously it doesn't meet the criteria of being informed.
Okay, so I don't understand.
Then why wouldn't it be attempted murder instead of murder if you killed someone?
Well, you did kill them, right?
I mean, I guess if you tried and you failed, it would be attempted murder.
Okay, so let me ask you this.
Okay.
Even though that makes no sense, I'll just let it go.
That does not make no sense.
Okay.
So let's say two people grape each other.
Why aren't both of them brought up on charges for grape?
Well, most people who grape aren't brought up on charges.
Yeah, I know, but that's not my question.
My question is: if two people get drunk and have sex, they're graping each other, shouldn't both of them be charged with a crime?
I mean, in theory, yes.
So, do you think that we should mobilize law enforcement to enforce that?
I mean, I think, again, it's what do you mean to mobilize law enforcement?
Well, it's not okay for me to grape somebody or them to grape me, right?
Right.
Why would it make it okay for us to grape each other at the same time?
I'm not saying it's okay.
Okay, great.
Then it should fall under the crime of grape.
Do you think if like I go out with my best friend and then I wake up in bed with them naked and you know we assume that we had sex, that that isn't harmful to if it's something that you you didn't want to do?
Sure, I think it's harmful to you.
Okay, yeah.
So then people who get drunk and have sex should go to jail.
Um, I mean, I think if uh yeah, you I in terms of going to jail, uh, I think it's going to be really hard to establish establish what you want grapists to go to jail, right?
Yes or no?
Um, well, I don't think that like prison is necessarily an effective way to solve rights violations.
Where do you want grapists to go?
Uh, well, I'm for reformative justice, so I'm against police and prisons.
Are we talking about like what my ideal would be or within this current society?
Within this current society, where should they go?
Um, within that aspect of two people got drunk and had sex with each other.
So, are is it no, that's not what I asked.
Are they coming from this victim?
Where should grapists go when they grape?
Should they go to prison or not?
Um, I think they should go to some kind of uh mental health facility or um should have some kind of duty to uh essentially address the harm that they've committed within society.
I'm more on focusing well, are you going to isolate them in this mental health facility behind bars?
It depends, it depends, sure if they graped.
Are you going to put them behind bars while they're getting help so that they're not part of society?
Yeah, it depends on what on obviously the context of the crime.
It's grape, that's the context.
You have graped somebody, sure, but are you saying that some grapes are more morally bad than other grapes?
I'm saying that they have different uh treatments, okay.
So, if a man grapes a girl, right, she can't consent, she doesn't consent.
I mean, you say girl, you're talking child, no, a woman, sorry, okay, yeah, so he grapes a woman, he should go to jail, right?
Um, well, I know, I believe in restorative justice, yeah, okay.
Wherever this guy goes, you want to keep him there while he gets this done because he's not going to consent to go to it, right?
Again, it would depend on context, okay.
Um, so he's at a party with a girl, she's drunk, and he's not, he has sex with her.
Did he grape her?
Uh, she's drunk, he's not.
Okay, yes, he graped her.
What should happen to that guy?
Like, what would my sentence be?
Yeah, um, that uh, essentially, if we're talking about restorative justice, that he is educated on the harm that he um committed, um, and that he receives mental professional help in terms of understanding his actions.
So, Does he go someplace for this to happen that he's not allowed to leave until it's all done?
I mean, in that context, yeah, it could be for a short duration of time, sure.
And is that place going to have like bars and guards and things like that in order to keep him there?
Maybe not bars, but maybe, you know, like doors that lock.
Sure.
He gets out and he goes and he does it again.
What happens then?
Where should he go then?
He would go back to the facility.
And then he doesn't have a long-term care facility.
Yeah.
Oh, long-term now.
Yeah.
Okay.
And would that place have bars and guards so he couldn't leave?
I mean, again, not bars and guards, but yeah, doors that lock, attendance.
So what happens if he escapes?
Like he doesn't want to do it and he leaves.
And he leaves.
Then he would be brought back.
And so it's likely that most people would want to leave.
They don't want to be there, right?
Sure.
Yeah.
So then wouldn't you do something to keep them in?
Like bars and guards?
I mean, I'm answering the same.
You're asking the same question and I'm answering.
Well, because I, okay, so it's like this.
They go to a mental health facility.
The reason I'm asking, but now it feels like I have to pry it out, so I'll just spell it out, right?
They escape, they go, they do the same crime.
You're going to take them back to the same facility.
They escape.
They do the same crime.
They're going to take them back to the same facility.
The difficulty with your example is that you're making a lot of presuppositions.
Yeah.
Is that if someone commits this act that they have a high likelihood of recidivism?
They do have a high rate of recidivism.
I don't think so.
Yeah, because they don't even think that they see it as a problem.
Like, I don't think that two people who get drunk and have sex even see it as an issue.
Well, then why are they filing a police report?
They're not.
But here's the thing.
Do they need to file a police report for me to file a police report?
Somebody's been graped?
No.
I can file that report, right?
How would you file that report?
Like, if some chick got graped behind a dumpster and didn't want to come forward, I can still call the police and file a report saying I witnessed a grape.
Sure.
Yeah.
So, I mean, you can do the same thing with two drunk people.
Right.
Hey, officer.
She was drunk and he was drunk and they fought.
See, and this is kind of the issue that I have when we talk about rape and sexual violence is that there seems to be this notion that the judicial system or legislation can solve for these things and solve for these outcomes.
And I just don't think that they can.
So I think it has to be more of a proactive measure rather than a reactive measure.
I don't even think they agree with you on this, that this is grape.
I don't think that, so for instance, I don't think that two people who get drunk and have sex are graping each other.
I think that that defies what we mean by grape.
I mean, I think there's a level of degree.
Like you would say if someone is blacked out drunk and someone else is sober.
Yeah, I think that when we're talking about grape, we're talking about forcing yourself on somebody who doesn't want it.
It's a violation.
Like I could even give you examples.
Bill Burr famously had the bit where he was like, no, it doesn't always mean no.
And the feminist says, yes, it does.
And he's like, no, it doesn't.
Because you can have things like, no, no, stop, no, no.
And they're completely teasing.
Now, you laugh because it's true, right?
It doesn't matter.
I mean, I'm not laughing because I think it's funny.
Yeah, but it doesn't always mean no.
No doesn't actually always mean no.
Do you think that that gives like young men the impression that when they hear no, that it's like a negotiate, a negotiation opportunity?
I think sometimes it is.
It's pretty obvious.
Why?
Like, it's super obvious to me that.
Do you want to talk someone into having sex with you?
Yeah.
No, no, no.
And I'm sorry.
I just want to let you know, like, I need a bathroom break soon.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll have a smoke too while you do that.
Sure.
But just to finish this point.
No, I just wanted to.
So very, very simple.
I think that when I might be playing with my wife or messing around with my wife, for instance, and say something like this.
Like, maybe she goes, stop, don't.
Stop.
Stop.
And then go.
And then she doesn't really want me to stop, though, right?
It's a big, like, there's body language in chemistry that comes from your experience.
Sure.
Obviously, you're in like a committed and established relationship.
Sure.
So no doesn't always mean no.
I think that, sure, context-dependent.
I think it can obviously, like, if we're like obviously consent CNC.
Yeah, I think that's different.
Well, that's another context, though, right?
Yeah, it is.
But I think that no doesn't always mean no, and that it is context-dependent.
And I think that the idea that two drunk people having sex are graping each other, and it's just okay because one of them cancels out the grape.
It seems like if both of them are graping each other, it's a contradiction in terms, like a paradox.
The paradox is grape is, from your view, can't consent.
And yet, if they're if they're both enthusiastically graping each other, they seem to be enthusiastically consenting.
So, like, how do you mutually under the influence?
So, so what that obviously affects aspects of judgment, you know, just like for brain development.
Yeah, but you're both under the same effect, right?
I never said you would.
Like, willingly, like, I don't know about you, but you do agree that it's very common for people married, unmarried, everywhere between them.
People are drunk all the time.
Yeah, and they have sex when they're drunk.
In fact, I mean, I'm sure you yourself would have a line, right?
Yeah, there would be a line, sure.
And where is that line?
You mean of when I wouldn't, like, if a chick was passed out or something crazy?
So, if she were like falling down, slurring her words, couldn't hold like her phone, still fair game.
No, I think that's a little much for me.
But that might be a little much for me, right?
I don't think that I could say that some guy graped her because she was really drunk and she said yes.
Like, I don't know how.
She doesn't even have the motor skills to hold a phone.
Well, now you're changing it to like semi-conscious.
I did.
That's exactly what I described.
That's semi-conscious at that point.
Right.
That's exactly what I described.
You know, she's dropping her phone.
She's slurring.
So that's semi-conscious at that point.
So semi-conscious is not okay.
Yeah.
She's basically half out of the bag.
Yeah.
Like she's gone.
And obviously it's arbitrary.
If you're that faded, sure.
Right.
But if the guy is that drunk and she's that drunk.
I mean, again, like what are we classifying as drunk, I guess?
Whatever you just said, motor skills, gone, whatever.
You're both that smashed, and then you go home and you bang each other from your view.
You're graping each other.
That seems way more absurd to me.
I don't know why.
I don't know why you can't think that you can engage in an infers that there's grape that's morally neutral.
And I think that grape would always necessarily have to be bad for me to classify it as grape.
I don't think that just because two people are not of the capacity to give informed and enthusiastic consent, that that makes it morally neutral.
Well, you have to tell me what makes it morally bad then, because you still have not done that.
You just kind of keep on reverting to descriptors without giving me the actual, this is actually bad, this kind of grape, because of what?
Because of what?
What actually makes it like if both parties wake up in the morning and they look over and go, who are you?
And I don't know.
The other one's like, I don't know either, but we definitely had sex last night.
And neither of them care, right?
Like, what's the problem here?
Who's been, who's actually been violent?
Like, how could that be a morally bad thing?
That you wake up next to a stranger and you can't remember you had sex, but yet you don't care?
No, no, no.
That definitely had to be grape on both parties, right?
Had to be.
I think the harm is, again, the fact that you would engage in intercourse with someone of that capacity.
Both of you are in that capacity.
I know, but again, that this is like an experience that is desired.
Is the male more culpable in this situation?
No.
If they're both equally drunk, is the male more culpable?
I don't know why he would be.
Yeah, okay.
Sure.
That wouldn't even look like that.
But this, but this doesn't still, you just gave me a descriptor.
You still didn't tell me actually why it's bad.
Like, why is it actually bad?
I did.
I think essentially like your psychological understanding of how you engage in sex can be bad and harmful.
Like, sure, maybe in this one instance, you didn't hurt someone, but in another instance, that could very well be the case.
That could be for anything.
Literally anything.
Like what?
Like, just you pick up a chick and you have sex and your dick is too big.
This case didn't hurt anybody.
The next case, it could hurt anybody.
That doesn't have to do with consent, though.
Yeah, but the point is, is like you can put that standard to almost anything.
You can put the standard of like, well, in this case, it didn't do anything, but next time it could possibly do something.
It also could possibly not ever do anything.
So like, that just seems so silly to me.
And not only that, that really still doesn't answer to my question.
So let me, let's try it an easier way.
Okay.
And then can we take drunk?
So drunk guy, right?
He's drunk, but he's not like lost all fine motor skills, but he's drunk.
Okay.
She's drunk, same thing.
Hasn't lost all fine motor skills, but she's definitely drunk.
Okay.
They go home and they have sex.
Now, they both graped each other, still by your standard.
Okay, both of them did.
We agree on that.
Okay.
Okay.
Do we agree on that?
They did grape each other?
Okay.
I mean, I guess it, yeah, sure.
So they wake up in the morning, they remember all of it, okay?
Which drunk people often remember what they did the night before.
That's not uncommon at all.
They remember all of it.
And the guy leans over and says, see you later, honey.
I'm heading off to work and gives her a kiss.
She goes, okay, baby, that was a lot of fun last night.
And away you go.
What is actually the harm that happened there?
What is actually immoral about that?
I'm sorry.
Is this a couple?
Yeah.
I think the harm is that, again, it's kind of like about the experience that you had with your partner when it comes to engaging in sex.
Like, you don't, you don't really know in terms of your partner's capacity to consent.
Yeah, but they both loved it.
They both claimed to you, this was great.
We had a great time.
It was fantastic.
And I would say they weren't drunk.
They were drunk, for sure.
Like, like way going beyond the legal limits.
Yeah, and they just remembered what happened the night before, as drunk people most often do.
What would be the harm?
I mean, again, I think the specific instance of the experience is the harm.
Like, so let me, maybe I can give you another analogy because maybe I'm not understanding what you want.
In terms of like things that are like kinks like BDSM, I think there are people who really do like engaging in that kind of act when the act in itself is like harming or hurting your partner.
And maybe your partner can like that and you can like that.
But I think there's an issue when hurting someone makes you feel good.
Who got hurt?
Well, again, in terms of like, even if your partner likes it, you are physically hurting them in that capacity, correct?
You haven't demonstrated that they're being hurt by it in any capacity.
I'm saying with the example of BDSM.
Well, I'm saying in the this example.
You're inflicting physical pain.
Yeah, the example of BDSM, sure.
Even though they like it.
I'll concede to any of the examples in BDSM that you're harming them, hurting them, whatever, even if they say they like it.
Sure.
Tie that into this, though.
How is it that this would actually be demonstrably harmful or in some way not okay?
Because the experience that you're having with your partner is incapacitated.
But you both wanted to be incapacitated.
That's irrelevant.
It's still by the way, you're not incapacitated.
You are.
Like, can you sign contracts drunk?
Well, legally, no.
Why?
Well, because there could be a threshold there where you're so far beyond it that you're incapable of signing something.
Why?
Well, yeah.
I agree with you on that.
I agree with you on that.
But why are you incapable?
Because your mental cognitive ability is completely impaired.
Right.
So you're having sex with someone who has to where not only you have a mental cognitive impairment and they have a mental cognitive impairment.
Sure.
And the psychology of enjoying that.
So retard shouldn't be able to have sex?
Oh, my God.
No, I mean, honestly, retard shouldn't be allowed to have sex.
Of course.
But again, I don't think comparing people who have.
But they have a limited cognitive ability.
Not to the same, to compare people with like limited mental ability to drunk people is really.
That's what your argument is.
Limited cognitive ability.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Limited cognitive ability, limited cognitive ability.
Those are differentiated.
Like, how?
Someone who has disabilities is not equal to someone who is drunk.
I didn't say disability.
I said they're retarded.
That would be a disability.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm not talking about like in a wheelchair.
I'm saying they have a mental cognitive disability, kind of like they're drunk, but they're not drunk, but they still don't have great motor skills, things like that.
Again, I'm saying that if we're talking about a spectrum, then like drunk is on this side, and like limited mental cognition, again, would be a spectrum in terms of someone, do they have the capacity to consent?
Someone who has a mental disability to where like they have the age of someone who's like nine or ten, then yes, that would absolutely be an issue.
They're not allowed to have sex with other people who have the same mental capacity?
No, I would say that would be an issue.
As adults?
Yeah.
Even if they want to?
Yeah, I mean, if they have the mental cognition of a nine-year-old, would you want nine-year-olds?
Okay, so how about they just have a mental capacity?
Sorry, can we?
Yeah, we'll take a brief, we'll do an intermission.
If you guys want to, you want to take a smoke, you want to use the bathroom.
Yes, I'm sorry.
I was like, I will, no problem.
No problem at all.
Yes.
We've got plenty of debate left.
I'm sorry.
We still got plenty of debate left.
Yeah, go for it.
Well, we got more.
We got more to do.
So take a little bathroom break.
I'll talk to the.
All right.
I'll talk.
You guys have a smoke.
All right, guys, really quick.
If you guys are enjoying the stream, if you can kindly like the video, guys, would very much.
Oh, damn, look, guys, I got sunburned instantly.
That's crazy.
Guys, like the video.
So we're going to, once they're back, you don't have to pull this up.
Once they're back, we are going to do, I was sunburned.
No, I'm not.
We have a couple reads that we need to get through.
Let me do a couple shout-outs really quick.
One sec while I get that pulled up.
Also, if you want your contribution to go 100% to the whatever podcast and not have YouTube and YouTube takes 30%, Streamlabs takes typically 3% to 4%.
You can do it through whatever pod on Venmo and Cash App.
Now, let me get this pulled up here real quick.
I want to thank Cycle Rider for the 10 gifted subs over there on Twitch.
And then we have Josh Brooks who gifted us 20 memberships.
Thank you so much, man.
If you guys are just tuning in, Andrew went for a quick smoke break.
We're doing a bathroom break, but we're going to get into some other topics.
We're going to hit, we're going to finish up on feminism.
We might hit a bit of Trump stuff, maybe some other topics too.
Can you pull up Twitch for me, guys?
Go to twitch.tv slash whatever and drop us a follow and a prime sub if you have one.
If you have Amazon Prime, it's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
And Psycho Rider, thank you again for the 10 gifted subs.
Also, guys, Andrew, you guys know Andrew's favorite flavor of pizza is pineapple.
If you go to YouTube in the chats portion, we have a goal and we're 12 of 50.
So we need what?
38 more super chats that are 10 and up.
And we're going to do a pineapple pizza party and then we're going to do a roast session if we hit the goal threshold.
38 more super chats at the $10 and up or it's $9.99, $9.99 and up.
We'll do the pineapple pizza party and the roast session.
Also, while we do this, just pull up the here, I'll do it really quick.
If you guys are enjoying the stream and you want to become a master debater like Andrew, you can go to debateuniversity.com.
That's debateuniversity.com.
It's a video course that Andrew offers.
And if it'll teach you how to think and speak and debate, master debate, just like Andrew Wilson, that's debateuniversity.com.
I believe they're still, it's on discount right now.
There's a discount for the program, so you can check it out there.
Also, guys, check out our disc.
We've got a Discord, discord.gg slash whatever.
So be sure to check that out.
We post a bunch of behind the scenes and whatnot.
Let me talk to you guys a bit about our schedule for the rest of the week.
So tomorrow we have our dating talk.
Andrew will be here for the dating talk.
And then we have a debate scheduled for Monday, a debate scheduled for Tuesday, and the debate scheduled for Wednesday.
All of those with Andrew Wilson.
One of those is going to be a 2v2.
So it's going to be me and Andrew.
And then it's going to be, well, 2v2.
And then I'm trying to think what else we have on the schedule.
It should be around the same time between typically our start time is anticipated to be probably around 4 p.m. Pacific time for those debates that are scheduled Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
So be sure to tune into those.
We have, I'm going to read a couple chats here.
Josh Brooks.
Okay, Josh, that's an interesting one.
Thank you for that.
Let's see.
We have Josh Brooks here for Andrew's Pineapples.
Thank you, Josh Brooks, for the super chat.
Appreciate it.
We have Fifi.
Thank you for the super chat.
I do appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
And then we have Spyro.
Thank you for that.
Appreciate the super chat there.
I'm going to leave this one up because I don't know if you guys know this.
It's over here.
I don't know if you guys notice the green screen is butchering.
Do you want a, what's it called?
Energy drink?
Yeah, do you want an energy drink?
Okay.
Okay, sure.
John, we have like a green screen issue going on here.
So after the show, Blake, leave this one so I can try to fix it.
Not sure what's going on.
BitRage, Andrew never falters, on point, prepared AF.
Thank you, BitPoint, for that.
Do appreciate your super chat.
Andrew is about to walk up here in just a moment.
He just had a Marlboro Red cigarette.
Welcome back, Kenzie.
So, Kenzie, you do, I'll just you do like Twitch, or not Twitch, TikTok debates.
Yeah.
Correct.
Yes.
Good times.
Good times.
You were going to do like, I think you stopped at two videos on this.
A whatever podcast companion.
Yeah.
Well, that microphone came out of nowhere.
Do you remember what it was?
What happened to the whatever podcast companion?
You stopped at two episodes.
A little disappointed.
Well, sometimes you want to pour it and then we'll just put it off the table.
Sure.
Sometimes my execution isn't great.
I did a reaction to.
Do you know what live action is?
Live action, the anti- Yeah, the anti-abortion.
Yeah.
Yeah, I used to do a series on them, and it felt like I was just kind of reacting to the same things over and over.
You gotta find something more novel for whatever podcast.
I mean, the honest answer to your question is just consistency.
Okay.
Well, now that we have you both back here, we do have some.
I want to very quickly point out, though, that you did contradict yourself when you said that disabled people should be allowed and then they shouldn't be allowed.
I said it depends on like, obviously, the capacity.
Like, yeah, if you have the mental age of a nine-year-old, then no.
But if you have the mental age of an 18-year-old, right, but you just are impaired to the fact that you are always kind of just in the same capacity as a drunk person at 40.
And I don't think that those are, I think that those are false equivalences.
What's the false equivalence?
It's the impairment, right?
The impairment's what matters.
Well, no, because I think being drunk is a different impairment than maybe having like mental limitations.
But it is the impairment itself that's the problem.
Again, it's, you know, when we're talking about people who have mental limitations, it can be in certain aspects of like understanding concepts and cognition, not necessarily like the same that you are when you're drunk.
Yeah.
Can you just do me one solid?
And this is kind of a parody, right?
A little bit.
This is a little.
I just had a little bit.
This is like a tiny bit of trolling.
This is, right?
How exciting.
Can you just look at the camera and tell every woman out there who's ever been woken up by their husband with sex that their husband's a grapist?
If your husband is having sex with you while you're unconscious, your husband is a grapest.
Including if he just wakes you up with his penis, right?
He's having sex with you unconscious.
Yeah.
So they're a grapist, right?
Okay.
I also just, Brian, have you ever, huh?
Have you, have you ever woke a woman up with sex?
I'm a virgin.
Brian?
Have you ever done it?
I'm a virgin.
Hey, over there.
What is a virgin?
I'm a virgin.
What about you, bro?
Have you ever done it even once?
Have you ever woke a chick up with sex, bro?
So a grapist there?
Grapist here?
Grape.
Just graphist.
Well, hold on.
He just said he's a grapest.
Virgin.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And wait, one, was did this also apply like to women too, just as a point of clarification?
Like if his wife Rachel wakes him up with my wife's a grapist.
His wife is a grapist.
If you are having sex with someone who is unconscious, then yes, you do not have expressed consent.
Wait, question though.
If they give you permission before they can't because they're impaired.
They can't retract it, right?
Well, wait, when you're sleeping, you're not impaired.
But I do think there is issues when it comes to reversible.
Let me ask you, do you think that it's immoral to have sex with someone in a coma?
Yes.
Why?
Because it's a violation of Christian ethics.
So that's just it, just because God says so.
Isn't that enough of a standard?
Well, no, because I want to know what's the so if God said, don't wake your wife up with sex, then Triu would be like that would change the nature of God for God to change his mind.
Where does God say in the Bible, wake your wife up with sex?
Well, it's not implicit, doesn't need to be implicit.
So the thing is, though, is that you can find this in Paul where he tells couples not to deprive each other and that couples should not deprive each other.
And so you would say.
So do you think your wife has an obligation to sleep with you?
I think we both have an obligation to sleep with each other.
And if she doesn't want to?
including if I don't want to, yes.
So I'm asking if she doesn't want to, then?
Yes, I think she has an obligation.
I have an obligation the same way.
Do you think you can rape your wife?
I'm sorry, grape your wife.
I think that there is instances where you can, yes.
And what would those instances be?
Generally speaking, violence, holding them down, doing things like this.
I think that things like that would be considered implicit.
But isn't she not upholding her duty?
That's true.
She can violate her duty, but that doesn't give you a right to hold her down and grape her.
Okay, so I'm glad we agree that marital grape is the thing.
That's a relief.
Nobody would ever dispute that who has reason.
I've talked to a lot of Christians who don't think marital grape is real.
Oh, okay.
So we have, thank you, Spyro, for the soup chat.
Really quick, before we get into some of the reads.
Really?
Wait.
Yeah, I think I have one clip posted on my TikTok.
Like, what if they want to do, well, it doesn't matter.
All right.
Anyway, no, please finish your thought.
Well, like, I mean, what if they want to, like, you know, like, I don't know, sodomize her with like an object or something like that?
They would have to concede then that this would be against the or a violation of Christian ethics.
Well, I mean, they just think that if you're married, then you have signed a contract.
I think there is implied consent with marriage, yes.
That you've signed a contract that, you know, your body is your partner's in all instances under all circumstances.
I think there's implied consent there, but not in all circumstances.
I mean, I do agree that there can be implied consent in terms of like some acts, sure.
Yeah.
Okay.
Really quick.
So I just want to shout a couple people out here.
We can.
All right.
So Anna, thank you for the 10 on Venmo.
MC Rocker, thank you for the 12 on Cash App.
AJ, thank you for the one on Cash App.
And George, thank you for the 10 on Cash App.
Guys, if you want 100% of your contribution to go towards us, you can do it through either Venmo, Cash App, that's whatever, pod.
Now we have a message coming through here.
We have about four of them.
We have Lucas.
Lucas, what's up, man?
Did she just claim that Homo sapiens realized having sex results in having children only 10,000 years ago?
So, how did homo sapiens have babies for the 290, 100,000 million preceding years?
290,000 preceding years.
No, it wasn't.
Preceding years.
Did the stories, did the storks bring them?
I'm just saying that men didn't understand their contribution within sex.
I think they did.
Okay.
I think that there's a lot of.
I just thought that women just magically became pregnant, even in like Australian.
I always have a hard time pronouncing it.
I think some tribes did.
And I think that there's good evidence that other people, even up to if you have the evolutionary mindset, there's no reason for us to assume that human beings didn't understand that if I'm not having sex with woman, woman not getting pregnant, I think that that's a very simple correlate to make.
I do need to move it on to the next one, but we have Brooks here.
He says, based squad, moist mafia, crucible crew, W. Andrew and Rachel, W. Coombtunes, W. Host Brandon, whatever, W. Kiki.
The show will live in notoriety forever.
The positive form of notoriety naturally.
Hey, Brooks, Josh, I think that's from Josh Brooks.
Thank you so much for your message there via Streamlabs.
Can you hide this part so it's not blocking?
She definitely being a bedroom Karen, a lot of people, myself included, have experienced both sides of these actions.
Just say you're boring and can't understand having fun in the bedroom and move on.
Do you want to respond to that?
Sure.
Again, I don't know why wanting my partner to be a full cognition and be conscious is me being a Karen.
No, I mean, you don't really care about that too much, though, right?
Like, if he has two beers, he's not fully cognitive at that point.
He's not drunk.
He's not fully cognitive, though.
He's not drunk.
But he's not fully cognitive.
And you just said, I don't know what you're talking about.
I mean, if he has like a buzz.
Not even a buzz.
But that's not fully cognitive.
Or like a standard of cognition, for sure.
I mean, I think you can be buzzed and fully cognitive.
Yeah.
I mean, maybe.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I think that it's going to lower cognition by some degree, no matter what.
Prove it.
Is that what I say?
Yeah, I think we can demonstrate that if you have a buzz, it's going to to some degree lower cognition.
No, I think it can amplify cognition.
Like, have, do you bowl?
Yeah, I bowl.
Yeah.
I bowl so good when I'm a little buzz.
Yeah, but it could be because lowering your cognition is helpful for some external reasons.
Like I think I have higher cognition.
I can just see the pins better.
Maybe, or it's possible that you have just less inhibitions, right?
Or less prohibitations that you give your body when you're bowling.
Or it could be that you trick yourself because your cognition is a little lowered into thinking that you have these skills you don't have.
And so you perform better.
I just tricked myself.
Yeah.
So you perform better.
Yeah.
All right.
We have two more chats here coming in.
We have Lucas.
All right.
Let me venture a guess.
She's got a degree in gender studies or psychology.
I can't think of a more virulent mind virus strand than what spews out of a white chick.
And if you want to read along, they pop up on the screen.
Of a white chick liberal feminist, thank God for MAGA.
Do you want to?
He says she's, or he asks if you have a degree in gender studies or psychology.
I do not.
Okay.
And I'm not a liberal.
Not a liberal?
Huh?
Okay.
How do you describe yourself?
Marxist.
Leftist.
Leftist.
Marxist.
Okay.
We have a message from Spyro.
Is it Spiro or Spiro?
It's Spiro.
Spiro.
Do you know these people?
I know that one.
That guy, the name's familiar.
He says, I will demonstrate dual grapism.
A burrito cannot speak, so it cannot consent to Brian.
A burrito cannot speak, so it cannot ask for Brian's consent.
Don't matter, though.
Brian likes it both ways.
Wow, that is, first off.
They really do, Roast.
I had a burrito bowl today, just to get one thing.
Did it consent?
Is that a...
It wasn't a burrito.
It was a bowl.
It was an inside joke I don't know of.
Yeah.
Yeah, they joke about my burrito consumption, among other things.
Burritos are amazing.
I'm a fan.
Okay, so we have, let's see here.
We got this.
This lady thinks theft, grape are crimes arising from capitalism and controlled scarcity.
Does she realize that these are mentioned in the Ten Commandments long before capitalism ever existed?
That's from Graffito Tagged.
Thank you, Graffito Tagged, for that one.
Do you want to respond to?
I don't know when I ever made the claim that grape is a result of capitalism.
I think that capitalism creates certain conditions.
And so obviously when people don't have access to material possessions, then theft is going to occur.
Okay.
All right.
Now we have, really quick before we just jump back into it, we have a couple of super chats.
Guys, we're 30 super chats.
We're 20 of 50.
30 super chats away from our pineapple pizza party and the roast session.
So if we don't hit that, we don't have to.
I'll probably do that.
No, I'm kidding.
I think we should hit it.
Guys, you got to hit it.
We got an hour and 15 minutes about an hour and 13 minutes if you want to hit the pizza party.
Definitely got to hit the pizza party.
Andrew detests, detests pineapple on his pizza.
So he will, if we hit the threshold, he'll have one slice.
He makes you eat it?
No, I'm not eating.
I'm force doctrine.
I just want to see force doctrine and rain alive.
We have a super chat here from Ichimo.
Thank you for the super chat, Ichimo.
Is she stupid?
Didn't she just concede they agreed to the delineation was holding them down?
So by that logic, Andrew isn't grape in his example with Rachel.
Do you want to respond to this?
I don't think a tenant of grape is that you need to be holding someone down.
Is that what they're saying?
Yeah, she was just saying that she was happy that at least I had a delineation that there could be marital rape.
Right.
Okay.
All right.
That's it for the supers.
Why don't we jump into our next topic?
Now, we kind of veered off to a couple different paths.
Do you guys feel as if we have thoroughly covered feminism?
I'm fine moving on to the next topic.
Because we could talk more about feminism.
Are you sure?
Is there anything on feminism you want to talk about?
I mean, what else is on your mind?
I could give some prompts.
I mean, one of the prompts that you had included was the wage gap, for example.
Perhaps we can do a short segment on wage gap and then get into some of the, I guess, the more different.
Well, maybe we can save that because that's just there's just going to be a disagreement on the empirics.
So maybe we can save that one.
Can I, what, okay.
Yeah.
Did we, okay.
So while we do, we have your prompt, abortion free and legal all nine months.
Yeah, legal with legal, sorry, you don't want to?
I do.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
So abortion free and legal all nine months.
Legal without restriction.
So does this mean up until is there any point where yeah, so I think it's important to define the term abortion, which would be deliberate termination of pregnancy.
Okay.
I think in some cases there can obviously be terminations of pregnancy that don't result in the death of the fetus.
And I would opt for that post-24 weeks.
Oh, so it's a bait question.
What a disingenuous feeling.
I don't think it's disingenuous.
So let me make sure that I steel man this properly.
I just want to steel man it.
I guess it's your turn.
Go ahead.
I just want to steel man.
Sure.
So it is the case that you're against all abortions after 24 weeks if they end the life of the child.
No.
I think in the case, obviously, to preserve the life of the pregnant person as well as in severe fetal abnormality would be my exceptions.
Okay, so you have exceptions to it, but generally.
So the vast, vast majority of abortions would be immoral after 24 weeks.
Again, I don't think abortion just means lethal outcome.
If we are talking about lethal outcome, I just don't see the practicality in it.
Yeah, I get it.
So you're saying that after the 24-week mark, if you're going to have an abortion because whatever arbitrary reason you come up with and you want it to end up in the termination of the child and the child's inside you, you're not allowed to do that.
That would be murder.
I would classify that.
Yeah, so then that's just a bait question.
So you don't actually think that there should be, so you're just making a semantic distinction.
You're saying this works on TikTok all the time, too, right?
Just for you, the audience.
Yeah, go ahead.
I will give you some credence there that I do think that often that phrasing of free and legal nine months can be very baiting because of how people view the term abortion, which is why I've also included without restriction.
And now on my prompts, I just do pro-abortion.
Yeah, right.
Because you do want restrictions.
No.
Yeah, right.
But only because the semantic distinction is something other than what people associate with abortion.
Like Colorado doesn't have any legislation regarding abortion.
And that's what I want.
I don't want legislation regarding abortion.
None?
Colorado has none.
So Canada doesn't have any.
I believe Washington is another state.
So what happens in Colorado if you do terminate the pregnancy at eight months?
Then it would just result in a live birth, either a hysterotomy abortion, which is similar to a cesarean or an induction abortion.
Six months?
30 weeks, same thing.
Again, it would depend specifically on the con, like, obviously, I had a friend when we were in our 20s.
Like I told you earlier, I live in Montana, and any kind of abortion past 24 weeks is illegal.
So she had to travel to Colorado because her son had a severe fetal abnormality and he would not survive birth.
Yeah, I get that.
But if there is no problems with the pregnancy, right?
And there's no direct harm or threat to the mother's livelihood or the mother's health, what happens if you want to terminate the pregnancy at six months?
Then it would just result in an induction or a cesarean.
But at six months, that could easily lead to the child's death.
It could, just like birth could.
So premature birth could.
So wouldn't you want there to be legislation against that?
No.
Yeah, but the chances are significantly.
Can you tell me, like, because this is always kind of where I get really frustrated with people who are pro-life, is kind of explaining to me the landscape of someone who has waited 30 weeks and then wants an abortion, you know, no longer to be pregnant for any reason.
Yeah.
Okay.
What's the question?
Can you explain the landscape?
Because I feel like a lot of pro-lifers just kind of assume that there are people out there who are like 30 weeks, just wake up, like, not feeling the pregnancy anymore.
Might as well just go get it taken care of.
If you don't think there's a problem there, then why would you be adverse to legislation?
Just enforcing that you can't do it.
Because legislation creates complications within a very complex medical condition, which we can see in primarily in Texas, especially in Idaho, to where, you know, how sick do you need to be?
How much in harm's way do you need to be before you can actually get access to an abortion or to some kind of termination of pregnancy?
Okay, but legislation can also offer clarity, right?
It doesn't.
Yeah, it can offer clarity.
It doesn't.
It can't or it does not.
Descriptive.
It can't.
I don't see any effective legislation.
Why do we have laws against murder?
Again, I think there can be instances or certain contexts where it can be specific.
If you want me to relate that to abortion, like specifically if we look at Texas, Texas has regulations regarding exceptions for life of the mother as well as health of the mother.
But this has created complications because the Texas legislature won't give specifics or even conditions which would qualify under the under the exception.
They were sued and asked to do so, and the Supreme Court said they didn't have to.
Yeah, right.
So clarity is your issue.
But you agree with that.
It's not clarity, no.
Because again, I just think pregnancy is so nuanced and it's so complex that legislation cannot effectively do it.
If we want to talk about like murder is also vastly complex, extremely nuanced.
The justifications vary from literally municipality to municipality.
Sure.
But again, I think the ultimate authority and autonomy is with someone who is a medical professional and understands the health history of their patient as well as the own patient's testimony of what's happening.
Well, it's not going to be up to them.
It's going to be up to the person actually having the abortion, right?
What do you mean?
Well, it's not up to the medical.
The medical professional is not making a prescription.
They're just executing in some capacities, they are making prescriptions in terms of this is what you're, you know, these are where your vitals at.
This is what this can lead to.
These are the outcomes that they want to prevent.
Those are descriptive.
This is what we're going to do.
Those are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Okay.
In terms of like what you ought to do?
Okay.
I'm sorry.
So what you ought to do is going to be determined by the autonomy of the mother?
Not necessarily.
Then what's it going to be determined by?
I mean, I would say like the pragmatics of the situation.
So who gets to make that decision?
I think it can be a cohesive discussion, but the doctor would have some authority, just like the doctor has authority in terms of, you know, I go in and I want my leg amputated.
There's going to be specific context to where the doctor's not going to do it.
I don't disagree with that in a matter prescribed by law.
But you're saying you don't want.
I don't think that is prescribed by law.
Yeah, but that is.
You can't cut off a person's foot because they want you to.
That would be against the Hippocratic oath.
Well, that Hippocratic oath and law are two different things.
No, that is law.
If you make an oath, that is law.
And it is legally binding.
Yes, it is.
Are we talking about like civil law or are we talking about legislative?
Yeah, it's civil law.
Civil law.
And by the way, there are actually specificities, too, within the medical market of doctor discretion not being, like, they can't, for instance, say, no, we're not going to treat you for the symptoms that you're complaining about.
They still have to treat you, right?
And I'm sure that's what they're doing.
True, but they can exclude some aspects of treatment.
Sure.
I'm not even disputing that.
But in this case, you're asking no legislation.
No, no legislation, no state legislation, no federal legislation.
Yeah.
Correct.
Yeah, right.
So if you're saying no federal legislation, no state legislation, then the doctor can obviously, you can obviously have a doctor who's just like, I'll just do whatever the person's asking me about.
That's not happening.
Well, yeah, because it's legislating.
It's not.
I gave you the example.
Yeah, you know, I'm curious about this.
Can you pull it up, Mike?
I gave you the example.
Does Colorado have any abortion law whatsoever?
Can you pull that up for me?
Yeah, Blake, can you find us?
Canada as well.
I'm pretty sure Washington too.
No abortion law?
No abortion law.
And they actually had a lower abortion rate up until, I want to say, 2023.
So it says here, Colorado, at least from the AI, one of the most abortion-friendly states in the United States.
It's legal in Colorado, all stages of pregnancy.
Constitutional protection.
In 2022, Colorado voters approved Prop 79 enshrined the right to abortion in the state constitution.
So there's legislation on abortion.
That's incorrect.
I think.
So there's definitely legislation in Colorado.
What is there in Canada?
I mean, constitutional protections.
Yeah, that would definitely be the law of the land would be the constitution.
Maybe I can be more specific then in terms of legislation against abortion.
Because we did just read.
So you want legislation for abortion?
One second.
We did just read that the first line was abortion is legal.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, yes.
But it's legal because it's enshrined in the law.
Because it's constitutionally protected.
Yeah.
Right.
So I would be against legislative in terms of like making laws against it.
I'm sorry if I wasn't specific on that.
Okay.
So it's just laws against it.
Correct.
Okay.
So what if the termination of the abort or if the doctor was willing to perform the abortion in such a way where it terminated the fetus?
Even at eight months.
Okay.
Would you be for a law against that?
No.
No.
Would that be murder?
Yes.
But no punishment.
Correct.
How is that morally consistent?
That's like the most monstrous thing I've ever seen.
So I think this is where like a utilitarian position would come into is that I when we look at abortion post 21 weeks, even in states that have all legal protections towards abortion, it's 1% of abortions.
And then when we look at that 1% even further, it's prior to 28 weeks.
So post-28 weeks, I think a lot of pro-lifers just kind of make like up these ideas that people want to come in and just have lethal terminations for no reason.
This is all descriptive.
You're just talking if I can finish.
Yeah, but this is descriptive.
I'm asking about prescriptive.
Right, so I'm getting there.
So what I'm saying is that this is a non-existent at worst and rare event at best.
And in terms of the deaths of fetuses within this criteria, that is going to be less than the deaths of pregnant people who are denied abortions who are medically necessary.
And so which one would I rather have?
I would rather have more people live, which would be the pregnant people.
Okay, so I'm still really confused here, but maybe you can give me some clarity.
You are aware that in Russia, abortion was also legal under first wave feminism going into communism, right?
What time period?
Would you like the exact dates?
Yeah.
Yeah, so I think that this was roughly.
Hang on, let me pull it up.
I got it in my notes here.
USSR was the first country to make abortion fully legal up to term and paid for in state hospitals within 10 years of implementing that policy.
They had three abortions for every one live birth and they had to outlaw abortion again.
Again, one time frame?
I'm trying to pull the dates up here.
Yeah.
Hang on.
I didn't write the date down for that.
I'm I'm just wondering, essentially, against the conditions.
It's like around 1920.
1920.
Yeah, later restricted than banned in 36 because of this problem.
So it was 1920 through 36, right around roughly the same exact time as what other amendment was 1920?
Do you know?
Amendment in the United States, 1920.
The right to vote.
Yeah, yeah.
So I'm sorry, are you saying that's correlated?
No, no, no.
I just think it's interesting that the right to vote and feminism, because in the 20s it was roaring and same thing in Russia, but they had three abortions for every one live birth.
They had outlawed.
Literally had outlawed.
They didn't re-build it.
I mean, that was a time where Russia was a pretty war and torn country, wasn't it?
Because Stalin was overthrowing the monarch regime and the Bolsheviks.
Yeah, they definitely needed to have human beings.
They knew that.
But the problem is that if you have three to one and the live bursts, you can't sustain the nation.
So when they reintroduced it in 56, it looks like that's the time period that they re-legalized it, was in 56, had significant regulations on it to prevent that from happening.
So hang on.
I'm just saying the reason I bring this up is because you claim, well, descriptively, this isn't happening now.
Okay, but descriptively, it was happening when it was allowed without laws against it.
So I have actual evidence.
So again, like I obviously this can be conditional outcomes depending on certain things.
Do you think that the sooner you have an abortion, the better?
I mean, I don't see how, like, from my specific worldview, from the secular worldview.
Because I always think abortion's wrong.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
So that would be one of my argumentations: is that if you were having essentially a society to where medical access wasn't available or it was at a high cost, then this could delay obviously your opportunity to get an abortion, which may cause it in later stages of pregnancy.
Yeah, that's rare.
What do you mean?
That in later stages of pregnancy, you're going to have abortions, right?
Isn't that what you said?
It is rare because access is available.
So I'm saying if it's happening later in pregnancy, it's most likely because there are times where access is not available.
Yeah, okay.
So from your view, you're just saying, like, because you don't see a distinction, right?
You just think life begins in some arbitrary point, like 24 weeks or something, tied in with consciousness or something silly, right?
Something silly.
Well, it is silly because you can't define consciousness.
It's not a definable thing.
I mean, do you think you have a subjective experience?
Sure, but that's not defining.
It's not defining consciousness.
What does that subjective experience mean?
I don't, I have no idea.
Do you?
What's it made of?
I think it's made of a lot of different components of things, but the fact that you recognize that it exists.
Doesn't define what it is.
And what do you mean?
What kind of definition do you have?
Well, tell me what consciousness is.
The ability to have experiences.
Yeah.
So are you saying that you have no experiences when you're unconscious?
Well, I think there's other aspects of experience that not just only go into.
So you are having experiences?
Even when you're unconscious, uh, well, I don't think consciousness and being conscious are necessarily the same thing, they're not uh, no, like I wouldn't say that, um, like someone who is sleeping doesn't have consciousness, even you don't believe that, um, when you're sleeping, you're completely unconscious.
I'm sorry, what you said earlier you don't believe when you're sleeping, you're completely unconscious when we're talking about grape you're completely unconscious, yeah.
You said you didn't believe that you're completely unconscious when you sleep, you are unconscious.
That was my main tenant: you're having sex with someone who's unconscious.
Okay, so then if you're not unconscious, if you are unconscious when you're asleep, are you experiencing things when you sleep?
Yes, you can still experience stimuli.
How could you be unconscious because of other qualia?
Uh, qualia, sensation, emotions.
I mean, your ability to dream.
If consciousness then is defined as one who has babies if consciousness is expressed as one who has experiences, I hang on.
I'm sorry, can we give you a question?
No, no, we can't.
I just want to make sure we pivoted from no, we really didn't pivot.
You pivoted in here, no, no, you said arbitrarily at 24 weeks.
That's a different subject than what we were talking about.
Yeah, but I just want to disable that, but I'm going to.
Let me just finish this real quick.
It'll only take one second.
I'm fine.
Consciousness, one who has experiences is conscious.
If you're having experience when you're unconscious, then you can't be unconscious.
Then you must have consciousness even when you're unconscious, right?
Yes, there are aspects that you can have consciousness when you are unconscious.
I don't know.
So, are you actually unconscious?
Yes, because I think unconscious and consciousness are different.
What's different?
I have no consciousness or I do.
What is being conscious to you?
I don't, well, it's not a thing, again, that's definable, really.
I'm just in terms of so you when your wife is sleeping, that's as good as she's awake.
What do you mean?
In terms of conscious and unconscious, yeah, I think that she still has consciousness when she's sleeping, yes, even though she's unconscious, right?
Well, no, she's not, no, she's not, I don't think she's unconscious, I think she's knocked out.
What's the difference?
Well, this is the thing about consciousness, like I said, it's not definable.
I think, therefore, I am is the best we can come up with, but we agree on what that when you're sleeping, you still have consciousness.
I agree, even though you're not conscious, yeah.
From my worldview, that makes sense.
From your worldview, that makes sense.
Why does that make sense from your worldview?
Because you're the one who's making the determination as to when life begins.
It's 24 weeks because of consciousness.
What do we mean by life?
Consciousness.
What do you mean by life?
I'm doing an internal critique.
Then you can do your obviously, there's different terms when we talk about like the mode of life.
Like, I'm sure you would recognize that cellular division and metabolic life is very different than someone having a subjective experience.
I agree, it's human life.
You agree, it's human life.
Yes, great.
There's no disagreement there.
Right.
What I'm saying, that's before 24 weeks.
But it is different than someone having a conscious experience to you.
Or a subjective experience.
It's you.
Why is that not different?
Because for you, that's the thing you value, not the life itself.
Well, yeah, without a subjective experience, there's no society, right?
Right.
But the problem is that you can't demonstrate there's no subjective experience before 24 weeks.
So that's one.
And two, even if you could say there's no subjective experience before 24 weeks, consciousness itself is the one thing that human beings really don't understand very well.
Okay.
We just really don't understand it at all.
So it's not easy to define.
We don't know why we have it.
It makes no real sense, right?
It's a thing not well understood.
So the reason I point out that it's arbitrary is because it's kind of impossible to prove that there's no subjective experience before 24 weeks in a fetus.
It's just like impossible to prove that.
I mean, I agree.
I guess it's kind of the, I classify it as like the same as like puberty.
Like obviously there are certain metrics that you hit when you have reached puberty, but when does someone like go through puberty or experience puberty or how long does puberty take is going to be different?
So sure, depending.
That's a very metric.
Yeah, I don't disagree.
Yeah.
So that was my whole point.
It's like you came up with a 24-week arbitrary metric.
I think in some instances, like there are going to be some instances where, yes, things are arbitrary.
It's just, you just have to draw a line somewhere.
Okay.
So we'll table that.
We know it's arbitrary.
I'm glad that we got the semantics taken care of so that we understand.
No, I'm sorry.
And then it didn't seem like we agreed.
I'm glad we do.
And then moving forward, well, we kind of do.
But moving forward from there, right, I would still like to know why it is on the legislation end.
And then we could just move the topic because there's a bunch of them I want to get to and we only have so much time.
I just want to know when it comes to legislation.
They did not legislate there.
And it did actually descriptively lead to an increase in the number of abortions that happened.
There was no regulation on it.
And it was a three to one against live bursts.
That's obviously very unhealthy for everybody.
That's not good, right?
Since I have the descriptive claim that that already happened when there was no legislation, what would be your demonstration here?
Like you see.
I don't think you've established like a causal.
Well, without abortions, there wouldn't have been abortions.
Yeah, that's pretty causal.
Well, in terms of like what is the reason that people are terminating pregnancy.
So let me put it.
Who cares why they're determined?
I think that really is a huge assessment that we have to make in terms of if we want abortion to reduce.
So if you and I are on the same goal that we want to reduce abortions.
And having legislation against abortion redoes that.
No, I would just say it just limits access to safe abortions.
If we're going to actually pragmatically reduce abortion, I would say that we would want to prevent unwanted pregnancy, which would be through comprehensive sex health education, which would be through long-acting reversible contraceptives.
So that would be one way to prevent it.
If we're going to, when people get pregnant, give them more options to where they want to or feel like they have the capability to take care of another child, that would be thing like access to health care, access to paid parental leave, access to subsidized daycare.
Those things would actually meaningfully reduce abortion.
So with legislation.
Huh?
So with legislation.
It doesn't.
It does.
And you actually conceded to this in the first statement you made.
So here's what you said.
You said it limits your access to safe abortions.
Do you think that if abortions are unsafe, more or less people will have them?
If abortions are unsafe, more or less people will have them.
More or less women will have them if they're unsafe.
I think I don't it's hard to gauge if it would be more or less because I think someone who has an abortion, I would say less women would have an abortion.
Less, yeah.
Yeah.
So then necessarily legislating against abortions equals less abortions.
It just equals less abortions.
In some aspects, yes.
And in others, no.
No, in all aspects, yes.
Because if there's one less abortion than there was yesterday, and there would ordinarily have been one more abortion today that would not have happened had you not legislated yesterday, then there is less abortion.
Okay.
Correct?
Sure.
Yeah.
So then legislating.
It would really depend, because I think, like, obviously in Texas, there has been restrictions on abortion, and we just see people flee to other states.
Where abortion is legal.
And then also in Texas as well, I would argue that, like, with the heartbeat bill, when it was six weeks, because people had such a short window to decide if they could get, would want an abortion or have a child, that they erred on the side of caution and had an abortion.
Yeah.
So the legislation, in fact, increased abortions because if people would have had more time.
But what if there was no abortion?
Maybe they would have decided to actually carry the child to term.
Well, here's my refutation to both those arguments.
The first is all that that would do is signify to me that you put legislation at conception and don't give people an opportunity.
Well, you're not pregnant at conception.
Yeah, you could still make the legislation at conception.
So if, so then would IUDs be illegal?
Well, no, just the conception of the pregnancy, whatever that is, right?
Right.
Whatever you want to term that.
Conception is different from...
Okay, fine.
Whatever the semantic distinction is.
I'm just saying.
It's not a semantic distinction.
Okay.
Were you confused about what I said?
Yes.
Okay.
When does a woman get pregnant?
Implantation.
Okay.
So whenever that is, whenever a woman gets pregnant, maybe I misspoke, whenever a woman gets pregnant, okay, you could just legislate right then and there, that's when life begins.
You're not allowed to have an abortion.
So you can legislate against abortion effectively before the six-week marker.
You could just say, nope, not allowed, period.
Okay.
Right?
So that would significantly limit those because you say people are just panicking because they have a narrower window.
I'm saying take the window out and then they won't panic.
You just can't do it.
So then you say, well, they flee to other states where abortion is legal.
Okay, fair enough.
So then if you made abortion illegal in those states, abortion would drastically reduce as well, necessarily.
Sure.
Yeah.
So in both cases, it seems like we can greatly reduce abortion regardless of making it criminal.
In fact, it's going to reduce.
I would say that having a more pragmatic approach would be, number one, more effective because we would see better outcomes.
And again, you just really lose me on regulating a woman's autonomy.
I think if we're going to give anyone the choice to determine family planning, to determine health risks, to determine mental health, then it would be the person who's carrying the pregnancy.
I literally made the argument earlier that you care about the woman's autonomy, and you said, no, the doctor also, he has the authority to say.
Wait, wait, that was a different delineation we're talking about in terms of the procedure that you're having.
Which is an abortion.
There's no difference.
There's different abortion procedures.
So I thought that's what you were talking about because obviously if you're in the third termination, or I'm sorry, in the third trimester, there are different methods that you can enact in order to terminate the pregnancy.
So when it came to that method, yes, obviously the doctor can have the authority on that.
But when it came to the decision, yes, that is the patient.
Yeah.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to limit women's autonomy?
Just like we limit men's autonomy by sending them off to war?
I just don't see the justification for it.
I don't see the justification for sending men off to war, but it is necessary.
I agree on that.
But it is necessary.
I disagree.
I don't think it's necessary.
You don't?
No.
Okay.
Got it.
So then if your nation was invaded and men didn't want to fight, your nation gets taken over.
That's that, right?
Yeah.
So basically, there's no duty for men to in any way fight in a compelled way.
I mean, having a duty is different than being forced to do something.
Yes, absolutely.
Okay.
I would think if this is central to your society, then yeah, people would step up and want to do it.
If they don't because they're scared.
Okay.
Yeah.
They're scared.
I mean, they're scared, right?
But I mean, you do realize that many, many, many nations, they have compelled service.
I think again, like when we go back to this idea of like engaging in war, I think we need to have a critique on society in general.
We don't even need to do that.
I'll just grant for you.
I think we do.
Well, I'm granting it for you.
I'm just going to grant for you.
Okay.
You're right.
There should be no compelled service.
That still doesn't actually answer, though, why autonomy is the thing in which we should not limit autonomy for people.
Why not?
I think there can be instances where we limit autonomy, but I just don't see a reason for abortion.
Well, I think you do.
You've already expressed multiple times that there was.
How is it ethical to force someone to sustain pregnancy?
After six months?
Yeah.
So what if it's going to kill the baby?
Okay.
I don't think that they have an obligation to give their, for them to have their body used as life support.
So then at nine months they can kill their baby?
Again, we would just terminate the connection.
So their labor would just be induced.
You do.
The purpose of abortion is centered around pregnancy.
So if you want pregnancy to end, there's a lot of different ways we can do that.
And obviously, there's no necessity in killing the fetus once you're.
What do you mean?
Like, for instance, you claim that the mom has bodily autonomy, right?
And that shouldn't be violated.
And the bodily autonomy is that the baby needs to use her body.
Right?
Okay.
So what happens if the baby is born and the mom doesn't want to feed the baby?
Well, babies are fed with breast milk, right?
Sure, sure.
So I think we need to decide what are individual responsibilities and more societal responsibilities.
It's about autonomy, I thought.
I haven't even finished.
So when we talk about societal responsibilities, obviously, if a parent doesn't want to take care of their child, then they would become a ward of the state.
And then the state would take on those responsibilities of caring for the child.
I don't understand.
Why can't the mom just choose to not feed the baby until the baby expires?
What do you mean?
Is she taking on the parental role?
Yeah, well, she had the baby.
Okay.
She had it.
Okay.
Let's say she had it at her prom.
She was like.
She had it at her prom.
Yeah, she was outside.
She had a prom night dumpster baby, as the family guy would reference it.
She was terrible.
Okay.
She had a prom night dumpster baby.
And so anyway, she has the baby.
Okay.
This is important.
It's actually an important distinction.
So anyway, she has the baby.
So the dumpster is an important distinction.
She doesn't want to feed it.
She just doesn't want to because it's her body and it's her autonomy.
So she just lets it die.
So if we are, once the baby is born, as a society, obviously the care for the child needs to be determined.
So at that point, the mother can either claim the parental responsibility, which comes with all the obligations of obviously feeding the child, or if they don't claim it, then obviously that baby would be awarded the state.
So now the mother is in possession of a baby that's not hers.
So I think in order to avoid kidnapping charges or harms towards a ward of the state, she needs to turn it over to the state.
So she has a duty to turn the baby over to the state.
Without correct, because she's in possession of a ward of the state.
So it's essentially almost a kidnapping charge.
Okay.
So I want to make sure I get this right.
So the mother, if she says this baby is mine, then she has the obligation to breastfeed it, right?
I mean, I wouldn't, I would say breastfeeding would be a reasonable obligation, but why is there not formula?
Well, because formula is extremely unhealthy for babies.
Well, I mean, formula is what has like saved the lives of babies.
Yes, when there's no, you know, their mom's breast milk around, sure.
Right, a lot of women don't have the capacity to breastfeed.
No, most of them have the capacity to breastfeed.
They don't.
They do.
A lot of women struggle with breastfeeding.
A lot, yes.
You can even make that claim because I would say a lot is like 1% of women would be a lot.
Do you think that if a mother chooses not to breastfeed, that she's harming her child?
Well, yeah, but what I'm looking at is...
Do you think that's to the degree of neglect?
Uh...
Or that she's not.
I'm not saying that it's neglectful.
There could be reasons for it, including ignorance.
There could be just like ignorance.
Should she retain custody?
Even if she doesn't?
Under most cases, probably, yes.
Because she's feeding the baby through.
Yeah, but I think that there should be a state mandatory propaganda campaign that mothers should breastfeed their children, yes.
Should she receive legal consequences if she chooses not to?
If she had the capacity to do so and decided to give the kid poison instead, yeah, probably.
Well, I'm not.
So when you say poison, you mean formula?
Yeah.
Okay.
In comparison to the breast milk, it's poison.
So when you like, you get most of your immune system from your mother's breast.
Sure.
Sure, sure.
When the child is born, you acknowledge that breast milk has not come in.
No.
No.
Okay, so breast milk hasn't necessarily come in once the child is born.
And if you don't.
Yeah, most of the time breast milk has been there before the child's born.
Nope.
Yeah.
There's, I believe it's called colostrum, which is not the same as breast milk.
It's more like a clear liquid.
How do you think babies used to eat?
Well, one second, because this is the process that I had to go through when I gave birth.
Like, I breastfed for eight months, and it took, I think, at least 36 hours before my breast milk came in after birth.
And so when you have that choice, when parents make that decision- You mean after the colostrum?
Correct.
Lord.
So how do babies eat?
One second.
So if you don't essentially start engaging in nursing, then you don't know your capacity for lactation.
So I'm asking if once birth happens and the doctor's like, are you going to breastfeed or we should get formula?
Yeah.
Is there some kind of legal obligation for you that the mother tries to breastfeed?
I don't understand that.
What are you asking me?
After birth, do you think women should be forced to attempt to nurse?
I think that there should be nursing as soon as it's possible to nurse.
Well, that's a yes or a no.
Do you think women should be forced to nurse post-birth?
Maybe not.
Okay.
So then we need to be within the confines of reason.
Well, how would you ever then say that someone can have legal consequence for not nursing after birth?
Okay, so I see what you're saying now.
Let me get this right.
There is a thing, a small gap or a small possible window where you can't breastfeed after baby born.
Right?
You can't breastfeed?
Can't.
You can nurse, but it's not fully breast milk.
Yeah.
Okay, so you can breastfeed?
You can nurse, but again, it's not fully breast milk.
It's not the complete nutrition.
Is the baby eating?
Not in the complete way that breast milk does.
Because that is something that that is something that you do monitor with your doctor because they want to make sure.
Okay, so I see.
We're scooking across each other, so let's back up.
When you put your nipple in the baby's mouth, is the baby getting food?
It depends.
Most of the time.
In adequate amounts, that's debatable, but some.
And how early do they usually start getting an adequate amount within?
It depends.
Again, I had my son quite a while ago.
I want to say mine came in around 36 weeks, or I'm sorry, 36 hours.
So three days?
It was a day and a half.
Day and a half.
Yeah.
But again, I think other, it's just, you know, when does puberty occur?
It just depends.
So hang on, so let's back up.
So milk, your full breast milk comes in within a day.
Yeah, it could be a couple days, could be a day.
Yeah, I was just reading.
The reason I said three days is because it said three to five when I was looking up on the colostrum, right?
But it can be as early as 12 hours, maybe.
Yeah, and I think even some of my friends have had breast milk before birth.
Yeah, I don't see any problem with feeding the baby that.
Yeah, that seems fine.
So I'm just, but if you don't begin nursing, then you would essentially inhibit that process to where you just never produce breast milk.
So you should start doing that.
So I'm asking you, should mothers be forced to nurse post-birth, even though we don't know their capacity to breastfeed?
Yes.
So you think women should be forced to breastfeed?
Yeah.
All right.
The problem with that is what?
You have accepted responsibility for the baby, right?
By your worldview?
Yes, but obviously if there are other...
So then you have an obligation to feed the baby.
So then, yeah.
And obviously there are other means which you can feed the baby.
Yeah, poisonous means.
They are still other means.
So do you think that feeding kids poison is a good idea?
I think kids that are fed is best.
Absolutely.
So do you just like, would you give the baby like straight fucking chocolate?
Of course not.
Why?
Because breast milk and formula require are essentially the only liquids at that point where an infant can get their full nutritional profile.
You're not getting your full nutritional profile, though.
I mean, you are.
Otherwise you would die.
So you're not.
No, you wouldn't necessarily mean you die, but it would inhibit the development of your brain.
It would inhibit the development of your brain.
I'm not interested in having a discussion between formula and breast milk.
Well, which one do you think is better for the baby?
I think fed is best.
But I opted for breastfeeding.
That's not what I asked.
What a cop out.
Which one is better for the baby?
I opted to breastfeed.
Why?
Because it was cheaper.
And you thought it was better for the baby, right?
Yes.
Yeah.
So then the thing is, it's like, why couldn't I compel you to do that?
Or shouldn't I be able to?
I think it should be like, obviously, the person's will.
I think will be.
Yeah, but now you're in charge of somebody else.
Like, if I fed my kid chocolate every single day as his only source of nutrition, wouldn't you advocate that the state came in and took that kid from me?
If you fed them chocolate every day?
No, that's all I fed them.
Is chocolate?
I mean, if they were starving, yeah.
Yeah, so depriving.
I mean, I guess at what degree are we deciding that parents have their child or parents have their children taken away based on their diet?
We don't always know what's optimal, but in this case, we do.
We're going to be arbitrary.
In this case, we do actually know what's optimal.
Wouldn't that be arbitrary?
In the one case, sure.
Okay.
But in this case, no.
We actually do know what's optimal here.
So I think if we're talking about like what we would want to happen, I agree with you that like breast milk is great and it's the optimal choice.
I don't think someone should be forced to do so.
Why not?
Seems like a good idea to force them to.
If you're going to take possession of your child, I don't see any problem with them telling you that, hey.
Because it's your body.
So, I mean, so I think obviously then the other alternative, would you have an issue if they pump?
No.
And then, and then breastfeed.
But that's the same thing.
Breast milk.
Okay.
Yeah.
That's the most optimal thing to give them, right?
I think, again, this would just relate down to autonomy because obviously everyone's conditions are different.
Yeah, but in this case, you have to depend on that.
Or I think more women would breastfeed if we had more social safety nets when it comes to women giving birth.
Yeah, but I also think they would breastfeed if they say you need to breastfeed this child.
You must.
I think it's just an unreasonable.
So what if your child.
I think it's the most reasonable.
What if your child needed blood?
Would you be obligated?
Would you want legal laws that parents are forced to give them their blood?
Yeah.
And the problem with this in society would be blood.
What about kidney?
No.
So where are you drawing?
Why are you drawing the line?
I draw the same place that you would on the idea that if it's going to kill you, getting rid of your kidney wouldn't kill you.
Oh, yeah.
It's going to lead to your demise much faster.
It wouldn't kill you, though.
Yes, that's killing you.
It's not.
You can survive with one kidney.
Yes, for less time than you can survive with one kid.
It doesn't kill you.
That's killing you.
I mean, you could say the same thing about blood.
Okay, so just to make sure that this is correct.
If I said I'm going to take off 10 years of your life, I'm not killing you.
No, you're not directly killing me.
Oh, you are limiting my life expectancy, sure.
So if I took your life down to tomorrow, I'm not killing you.
If you took my life down to tomorrow, what are you doing?
Or 10 minutes.
That's not killing you?
If I could just like say that.
Again, so if we're talking about like direct cause, obviously things have chain-link reactions.
So are you just saying like you do anything, you're responsible for any link in the chain?
Or are we talking about what?
I'm saying that your duties to your children need to comport with reason.
And so I think that you can make at least a strong enough case.
If there's an alternative food source, I don't think.
Hang on.
I think that you can make a strong enough case that if no other blood was present to give from donors, that a parent had a duty and obligation to give their blood to a child to a child, and that would comport with reason just fine.
Whereas it may not comport to reason to say that this could have dire effects on your health, giving them a kidney.
That's a whole different situation.
I mean, I don't think it is because you would even say like pregnancy can come with severe health complications that can reduce your life expectancy.
Sure.
So then I don't have to do that?
No?
No, you still have to do that.
Then that's inconsistent.
What's the inconsistency?
You just said I don't have to give the kidney because that comes with health complications.
No, it's not because it comes with health complications.
It's because this particular complication demonstrated to always shorten life.
Pregnancy is not.
In fact, pregnancy has been demonstrated to elongate life.
If there's one instance where someone gives a kidney and it doesn't demonstrate a shorter life expectancy, then it's okay.
How could you demonstrate that?
I don't know.
How are you demonstrating that?
Well, it always does.
Yeah, the only way that we're demonstrating that.
Aren't these just typical outcomes?
Well, we can just compare people who give kidneys to people who don't give kidneys, and then you can just correlate the lifespan.
Simple.
But that doesn't mean always.
Yeah, it's almost always the case.
But it doesn't mean always.
There could be some exception, just like in pregnancy.
So the same thing could apply with a kidney.
Here's the thing, though.
If there's a single exception to something, that doesn't mean we wouldn't legislate based on the general rule.
But then you're not.
Because your standard is inconsistent.
The standard's still consistent.
If you and I are going to establish what a parental obligation is or responsibility, it's just going to be arbitrary.
Yeah, but okay.
To what severe degree does a parent need to experience in order for that not to be a drug?
If you make the case of arbitrary, then you can say everything is arbitrary.
The age of consent is arbitrary, right?
There are a lot of things that are the age of consent arbitrary.
What do you mean?
Is the age of consent?
I don't want to pivot.
Can you answer my question?
No, I've checking you for your consistency on arbitrary.
I'm checking you for being your consistency.
And I'm happy to answer, but when you say when you say a thing is, because we're talking about what's arbitrary, so if you say a thing is arbitrary, almost everything is arbitrary.
We already agreed that essentially establishing when consciousness occurred is arbitrary.
Yeah, but I'm talking now.
I'm saying, is the age of consent arbitrary?
In terms of what?
In terms of there's no arbitrary.
If the age of consent is 16, no, that's not arbitrary.
It's obviously consistently.
How did you come up with it being 16?
I mean, that would depend on the reasoning.
So it's arbitrary.
In some cases, sure.
But if it is the case, and I grant to you that, hey, no, it's not arbitrary because you're 16, then no, it's not arbitrary that you don't have to give a kidney, but you do have to give blood.
That's not arbitrary now.
It is.
How are you, like, selecting at what degree the parent has to experience in order for that?
How are you selecting the age of consent?
I think we can obviously have markers when it comes to the age of consent.
So we can have delineations between harm factors where we can comport them to reason when it comes to giving blood or kidneys.
Simple.
Do you think parents have an obligation to like experience torture in order to keep their children alive?
I think that you can make the case that a father or mother should have some duty towards trying to experience, or not trying to experience it, but that they may need to suffer in order to keep their kid alive.
Yeah.
I don't disagree, but I'm asking, is that like a legal expectation that we will torture you to keep your child alive?
That's a moral expectation then.
So, obviously, but you do want to have laws that would require parents to be tortured to keep their children alive.
What's the torture?
I mean, forced pregnancy is torture.
How is that torture?
Well, I mean, it's classified as torture by the UN.
I would say it would just meet a specific threshold of suffering.
Okay, well, then I would say that it's torturing the baby.
So, like, because you're going to kill it, I would say that that's a form of torture.
Or I could even say it's mental torture on the mother to terminate the pregnancy.
It could have long-term side effects on her mental health.
That only depends on how wanted the pregnancy is.
And again, if you don't have the capacity to experience, I don't know how you can experience torture.
Yeah, but not only that, you know what's really weird about this argument specifically is like, do you have an obligation to be tortured on behalf of your children, right?
It's like, well, let's look at this.
Let's examine it.
On the one side, I do want to say yes.
I think you do.
And I think you even agree that to some degree we do.
But for some reason, you're like, unless it's inside my stomach, which is really weird.
What do you mean?
Well, you just got done saying that you think to some degree parents need to be able to experience suffering for their children.
That they will experience suffering.
Do I think they should be forced to?
No.
Never?
I can't think of an instance.
Like, oh, I don't know.
Your kid, for instance, has autism or something like this, right?
You still need to take care of that kid, give them special treatment, things like that.
That definitely causes suffering.
Not to the same degree that I would say violations towards your bodily autonomy would be.
That is violations.
And again, I wouldn't force.
One second.
And I disagree with that.
I wouldn't force if a parent can't meet the needs of the child, then I think that would be a societal responsibility.
So then it just you just ship the burden.
Yeah, I don't want to force parents to be parents.
I want that to be done willingly because that's the best outcome for the child.
So if nobody gave blood, let's say hypothetically, just nobody gave blood, right?
Do you think the parent has the obligation to give their kid blood if they're in an actual case?
I think they should, but I don't think that it should be legally enforced.
So then the kid just dies if the parent doesn't want to?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know.
That sounds like a way shittier society to me.
I don't know.
Do you think like if the child is starving that like the parent has an obligation to cut off parts of their skin to feed their child?
I think that if you were crash-landed somewhere, like on a desert island or something like that, there's a moral obligation to do so.
Yeah.
We're talking legal.
Yeah, I could, I can't make a legal prescription there for something that very, very clearly.
Would be like outside of society.
So you think that parents should be, they should what?
Cut off parts of their skin to feed their child.
If they absolutely had no other way to feed that child, I think they have a moral obligation to do so.
Okay.
Moral.
You agree, right?
Again, I think it has to.
Would you cut off pieces of your skin to feed your child in a plane wreck?
Yes.
Yeah, okay, then.
That's the end of that.
I mean, that's what I would do.
Yeah, because you're not going to be able to do that.
But again, that's my, but that's my will.
Because you think it's moral.
It's like the most moral thing you could do, right?
Sure.
But again, I don't think that my moral desires would necessarily be imposed on other people.
Like, I've had an abortion.
I've had an abortion as well.
So do you say that a woman who wouldn't do that for their kid was a bad person?
I would say someone who does that is a good person.
So somebody who didn't do that was probably not a good person?
I don't think if you're not a good person, it doesn't mean you're a bad person.
Yeah, that's not what I asked, though.
Are they a bad person?
No.
Okay.
Do you think like if you are walking down a path and you see someone drowning, you have an obligation to save them?
Yeah.
Do you think that you should be legally criminalized?
I think in some cases you are legally criminalized.
So what if you can't swim?
Well, there's states, for instance, where there's a law where if there's a felony in progress or a misdemeanor in progress and you don't report, you go to jail.
Sure, I can, you know.
That's the same thing.
I think that's very, though, because obviously it comes down to like what is reasonable expectation.
Is it a reasonable expectation that you make a phone call?
Sure.
Yeah.
So I think that's a good question.
Is it a reasonable expectation that you think it's a reasonable freezing water when you can't swim?
Now you're loading it, though.
Now you're loading it.
Okay, fine.
Warm bathwater.
So let me ask you this.
Let's reverse it.
Okay, now the kid is drowning in a puddle.
Should you face some sort of criminal charges if you don't go over and just roll him out of the puddle?
Then what are you even talking about?
What do you mean?
So yes, I think that you can have moral obligations with thresholds.
Sure, I don't disagree.
Yeah, but that was my point.
With kidneys and blood, you can have moral obligations with thresholds.
Yes, I think you should be able to force people to give blood.
So then what's the delineation?
I don't know if you're not.
You're engaging in a fallacy right now.
What's the fallacy?
Yeah, so the, I don't remember what this one's called, but the specific fallacy that you're engaging in is because you say this thing, you can't, you don't have a delineating point between thing A and thing B, that means there is not one.
There is.
You don't need to be able to point out what it is.
You can clearly see that a kidney is different than blood.
We both know this.
The procedure for a kidney is different than blood.
I think it's totally acceptable.
Even if you can't identify whatever the exact threshold is, maybe doctors can't.
I don't know.
That I can't say that there's no.
But then wouldn't we just be, then wouldn't the threshold just be arbitrary?
Well, wouldn't that be the case with the puddle and the ocean?
I agree.
Yeah.
But then why would you save the one in the puddle, but not the ocean?
Because, again, of threshold.
Well, then what's the problem here?
We're both saying the same thing.
Yeah.
So do you think that giving kidney is less invasive than pregnancy?
Yes.
Yeah.
Oh, wait.
Giving the kidney is less invasive?
Yeah.
No, I think it's more invasive.
Really?
Yeah.
Than pregnancy.
Yeah, you stuck, stuck with that your whole life.
Pregnancy, you have for a few months, nine months.
Well, I mean, obviously, depending on the health outcomes of your pregnancy, you can have health issues for the rest of your life.
Yes, that's true.
And I would say the risk is greater.
No, it's not greater for most women than giving the kidney would be.
No, it's not.
I disagree.
Based on what?
Based on health outcomes.
Okay.
Well, how many?
Okay.
Based.
You think that people who give a kidney, right, are more or less likely to die than the average woman who has a pregnancy?
Really?
I mean, we're not even talking about death.
We can talk about health outcomes.
Yeah, health outcomes are way worse if people have one kidney.
You can't drink ever again.
You have to be super careful.
You have to take enzymes.
You have to take various things that make sure that the kidney is compatible with your body.
And you have to take that stuff for years.
Like, no, the health outcomes for people who give a kidney, way worse than the average woman who's pregnant, for sure.
Like, I wouldn't even put them in the same universe.
I think the complexities of pregnancy, it's not a fair assessment to say, because obviously every pregnancy is going to be going to be different.
And then obviously, like, the health of the mother is going to be different as well, which can add core morbidities.
Yep, that's the same thing with kidneys.
Same thing.
But except that kidneys, again, yeah, you're going to have to take it.
I just think the line would be drawn in terms of parental obligation is you don't have to use your body as life support.
Yeah, I get it.
I'm willing.
And then I would say that.
I'm actually willing to move to the next topic for the sake of time only because of this.
Okay.
I was willing to engage in this, right?
But your position basically was just a bait position.
It's not a bait position.
It is a bait position.
Okay, fine.
Well, you believe it's murder to kill a person seven months.
Yes.
You just don't care about enforcing that.
Well, I just don't see the necessity in it.
Of enforcing it.
No, the necessity of a lethal termination.
Yeah, no, but if a doctor did lethally terminate a fetus at seven months and there is no law governing it, he didn't do anything wrong, right?
I think he did something wrong, but there's I still would be opposed to that.
Yeah, so you're just because it would cause more harm.
So you're just opposed to murdering babies.
Like that's the you're opposed to legislating against murdering babies.
I mean, not within, I'm opposed to legislation that would cause a lot more death of pregnant people.
Yeah, right.
So, but you're opposed to legislation of murdering babies.
My position would be that it's essentially a harm reduction.
Got it.
So I just want to make sure, though, you don't want any legislation in regards to doctors who kill babies.
Correct.
Okay.
Correct.
You wanted to move it on?
Yeah.
By the way, we did hit our 50 of 50 goal.
Yep.
So we have 99,000 people watching right now.
Oh, wow.
We have pineapple pizza on the way.
We will do Rocession a little bit later.
We have three chats that are going to come through.
We have Ogle, who writes.
Oh, it comes in as a blue.NET donated $200.
Reminder, there is virtue in conceding points when they're made, even if it goes against tourism.
Sometimes.
Ogle, really appreciate the TTS message.
Thank you.
We have Not Sure coming in here in just a moment.
He says, OMG, is that the guy who played Beef Supreme?
Tell me.
Okay, thank you.
Oh, wait, it hasn't even popped up yet.
There it is.
Not sure.
Thank you.
Not sure.
Are you Beef Supreme or is it talking to me?
I don't know.
Who are you talking to?
But that's some idiocracy right there that I'm referencing.
And we have, he sends a follow-up message.
It's going to take just a moment to come in.
We have not sure again.
Not sure donated $199.99.
Bro, are you Beef Supreme?
All women should bow to your greatness.
You should have received 10 Emmys.
That's the movie reference again.
Of idiocracy.
Okay, well, thank you, Not Sure.
Guys, if you want, we're doing $100 reads.
Also, if you want 100% of your contribution to go to the show, you can do that.
Whatever pod Venmo and Cash App, guys, like the video.
Also, if you're watching on Twitch, that's twitch.tv slash whatever.
Can we get that pulled up?
All right, guys, twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow and a prime sub.
If you have one, if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
Guys, we're almost at 100,000 followers.
I don't know if we're going to be able to do it tonight's show, but if you guys can, drop us a follow.
Get us to 100,000 followers over there on Twitch.
We're a thousand away.
Guys, like the video if you want.
And like I said, once the pizza comes, we'll drop the we'll do a TTS portion.
And then if there's anything else to get to for the debate, we'll do that.
Andrew, what did you want to get into?
What are the other topics?
Well, there's the gender wage gap, but it sounded like there were specifically other things that...
Yeah, what are the other ones?
Sure.
There's gender wage gap and anti-purity culture.
Yeah, was that we'll probably actually agree on the anti-purity culture.
Really?
Yeah.
Your anti-purity culture?
Well, it depends on how it's defined.
How would you define it?
Prescribing virginity and less sexual, essentially sexual encounters before marriage as pure and virtuous.
Oh, well, then, no, we would disagree.
How do you define it?
So for me, purity culture would be like absurd things like you have to wear a burqa, right?
Yeah, I mean, definitely prescriptions towards purity.
I mean, but that's really circular.
Yeah, well, that's a circular position unless you have specificity, right?
So we'll start with this idea of why do you think prescribing virginity is bad?
Well, I don't think virginity is real.
What do you mean?
I just don't think it's something that you can quantify.
Yeah, no dicks in your vagina to qualify as virgin.
If I just have sex with women, I'm a virgin?
No.
Why?
Well, so.
There's no dicks.
Yeah, yeah.
So you would still be a virgin to a man, right?
At least from that perspective.
From my perspective, I would.
You define virginity as no dicks.
Yeah, yeah.
I was being facetious, obviously.
You said no dicks in your virgin.
I'm a virgin and not a virgin.
Yeah, if you have sex with somebody, you're not a virgin.
Well, what is sex?
It would be the art of intercourse.
I don't think women can really have sex with each other.
It's just mutual masturbation.
That's it.
So are we just defining sex as penetration?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think.
I think blowjobs do.
Really?
Blowjobs count?
As a form of like sodomite sex.
So if I give a blowjob, am I a virgin?
Well, your mouse is not a virgin.
I mean, this seems really inconsistent.
I'm just.
Yeah, so when we're talking about virginity, I don't think that there's anything that's really confusing.
So, women can masturbate each other.
Men can masturbate with women, right?
But when you're talking about virginity itself, and by the way, all of those things are bad, right?
All of them are bad.
So, if you gave- I agree with that.
Yeah, okay.
Well, so I'm just talking about purity culture, would say all those things are bad, right?
So, when you're talking about virginity, it's like, yeah, it's pretty simple: like no dick, no D in the V. I am maintaining the virginity.
Is this like a medical or like a body standard?
Or so, this is just an experience thing?
Yeah, how far does it have to go in?
I mean, if the if it goes in at all, so just the tip, yeah, you're not a virgin anymore.
So, the reason that I think it gets touched, it gets touched, it's over.
So, my vulva touches.
It's penetrative sex, yes.
It's penetrative sex.
So, the reason that I think that this concept is just not like a functional definition is because sexual experience is very complex.
And I think it's absolutely silly to say that me having just sex with women and being a lesbian somehow puts me in a condition that's less than if I were to have sex with a man.
Why is that silly?
Because, like, what is the delineation here?
That you're masturbating.
If she, if they like magic, is there a penis in my life?
I mean, if there's a dildo, does that count?
Like, if then, like, I use a dildo on myself, does that count?
She's holding it up.
That would be called what?
Masturbation.
Right.
So, I'm wondering, like, what are we measuring here?
We're measuring your purity when it comes to how many dicks you've had in your vagina.
Like, human dicks?
Yes.
Why?
Because that's the metric for virginity.
Yeah, so I just think it's obviously, again, I don't think it's a good working definition because it reduces sexual experience down to not only a heteronormative narrative, but also that sexual experience can be done in a multitude of ways to where I would say that what meaningful difference is it that you're crossing this threshold?
That there's a male penis inside your vagina.
What does that do?
It removes your virginity.
What that's circular.
Like, you're not.
Virginity is just having a penis inside you removing your virginity.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Can you have sex without a person?
No.
Well, you can masturbate.
Well, you can masturbate.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
You can't have sex without another person.
Are we counting masturbation as a person?
What counts as sex with another person then?
Kissing?
I would say, I mean, again, when we talk about intercourse, I think it's really hard to have like these kinds of things.
Is kissing sex?
No.
What's not sex?
I would say oral, oral, vaginal.
What's not sex about that stuff?
This seems like you have the inconsistent, you have the inconsistent position.
Why isn't kissing sex?
Why isn't kissing intercourse?
Because I would say intercourse.
Well, what's the difference between sex and intercourse?
Well, intercourse, I think something enters, right?
Okay.
Yeah.
So like if you can have lesbian sex, nothing enters, right?
Well, you can have something enter too.
Is lesbian sex sex?
Yeah.
Okay, so then there's a difference between sex and intercourse?
Sure.
Okay.
So then I use those interchangeable things.
I'm fine with that delineation.
So then why isn't kissing sex?
I would say the use of essentially the inclusion of genitals would be sex.
What?
Why?
Because you can kiss your mom, and I wouldn't say that that's like.
So, if you lick a guy's balls, did you have sex with him?
Just once?
I think that's definitely a sexual experience.
Did you have sex with him, though?
Yes, I did.
Oh, okay.
So, licking balls is licking balls is doing the deed.
Yep.
Okay, gotcha.
What about licking his feet?
Oh, no, great.
How come that's not sex?
I think that can be a sexual act, for sure.
Just like licking the balls.
Yeah.
It sounds like you have an arbitrary metric.
Mine's way more specific.
I think when you and I are talking about sexual experience, I think you're proving my point.
That sexual experience can be very variety and nuanced.
So the idea, though, of intercourse thing enters, right?
We're talking about virginity, right?
So I think that there's men, too, inside of the kind of religious focal who would say that if you gave a blowjob, you're not a virgin.
I'm fine with that, too.
Yeah, and I think that, and that's kind of one of the issues that I have with it is to, you know, I think one of the most common questions that teenagers ask, like, I've done X, am I still a virgin?
And it's because you have this notion that when you do a specific sex act, somehow you're a different person than the person you were prior to the sex act.
Yeah, something definitely changed.
What?
You had sex.
Well, I'm talking about like character or who you are as a person because, and this is where I think.
But that's not why people select based on virginity.
I think this is a prescription of purity culture: that somehow you are tainted, you are less than, you are impure, that your character, that your value as a person has lessened because you've had this experience.
No, I think it's just based around preference.
So I just think that the idea is very simple.
I'm saying that's what purity culture implies, that if you've had sex, you're less pure.
Yeah.
I think that this is based around the preference that men have of women having less sexual partners.
I think it's not an innate preference.
It's a societal one.
No, it's innate, and I'll demonstrate why it's innate.
Do you want me?
I can demonstrate it.
So do you agree with me that paternity tests were not always a thing?
In fact, they were very recent.
Yes.
So how to minister paternity before there was paternity tests?
Well, someone not being polyamorous.
So only having sex with them?
Well, you can not be a virgin and still be monogamous.
Sure.
But one way that you can assure that your offspring is going to be yours is to only be the only person that woman's ever slept with.
How do you determine that?
Well, they used to have hymen checkers, things like that.
That's not an effective determinant of virginity.
You can lose your hymen writing.
That's true.
That's true.
But it is a pretty effective metric.
Considering technology.
Yes, considering technology, it is.
It's not.
Hyman tests are very ineffective.
When there's no other test, what other test is there?
That's my point.
There is no touch test.
Yeah, right.
So then.
Yeah, so hymen tests are not a good litmus.
Calm down.
I'm not.
If it is the case, if it is the case, though, that that's what's there, right?
And the only way that you can determine whether or not a child is yours if the woman is sleeping with you.
Of course, it would follow that you would be revolted by women who slept with a lot of men.
But you can't determine that if the hymen is there or not.
Why would that?
Listen, first of all, yes, that's a good indication they're not a virgin if the hymen's not there.
No, like I said, you can lose your, you know, your hymen can break like horseback riding.
Sure, but it's not common.
Falling on a fence, it is common.
No, it's much more common that the hymen breaks how.
How do most hymens get broke?
I have no idea.
With a dick.
How do you measure that?
Are you?
We could look at it.
Do you want me to look it up right now?
Yeah, I would love something just put most common way hymen breaks What'd you get?
The most common way is sexual intercourse followed by tampons.
Okay.
Which makes sense to me.
Tell me the methodology.
Just people.
Research has been done.
Shows there's no scientific way to tell from the inspection of your hymen whether you did or did not have intercourse.
That was not what was said.
What was said is that the most common way a hymen gets broken is with a based on a lot of research shows there's no scientific way to tell from the inspection of your hymen whether you did or did not have intercourse.
And that is your position, right?
No.
Okay.
What's the most common way for a hymen to break?
Again, are you saying that the hymen is a scientific way to tell if you've had sex or not?
Only if there's no other scientific way available.
It would be the only scientific way.
It's not a scientific method.
And there is no other way.
That's that's yes, it is a scientific method, whether you think it's good or not.
It's not a scientific method.
Yes, it would be a scientific method.
It's not.
Okay, so tell me this.
How would you make a determination, right, if the only thing available to you was to check a hymen?
That was the only thing that was available to you.
Again, it's not a good criteria.
A man, right?
That's the only way to check for chastity or virginity.
And women were told and trained not to break their hymen to say, hey, trained not to break their hymns.
By doing activities that would break them.
That is just absolutely ridiculous.
But happened.
I don't care if it happens.
Yeah, that's nice.
But it's not an effective way to determine if someone is.
I think that if there's no other way around, it's the most effective way.
It doesn't mean it's effective, though.
It's just the most effective, which is why I say it doesn't mean it's effective.
It's just the most effective way.
We agree.
Yeah, so great.
So then it's the most effective way.
Not effective.
So if it's the most effective way, but when there's no other way, and the reason that it's not effective is because there is no medical condition of virginity.
Nobody's saying it's a medical condition.
Or physical condition, even.
Well, I would argue that.
There's no physical assessment that you can do to determine if someone's a practical person.
Yeah, I think virginity is conceptual.
Sure.
Yeah.
But I think that you can still have signs for a concept.
Like, I think.
Again, it's not effective.
Like, obviously, the hymen can be absent and someone would be a virgin, and the hymen can be present and have interconnected.
I'm not disputing that.
Okay, great.
Yeah, but that was never in dispute.
What's in dispute is how you could tell about why it is that a man would want to select for women who have low body counts and the reason they'd want to select for him is because.
Well, now we're going into body count, which is different than virginity.
No, it's not.
Yes, it absolutely is.
No, you can't have bodies and be a virgin.
Well, body count is different than virginity.
Which count is just a running count for like virginity.
So, but there's a way to determine zero count would be a virgin.
That's what we mean by virginity.
Zero body count.
And again, like, this is where I just think it's an effective because sexual experience is an important thing when analyzing.
I don't, when it comes to men wanting to.
Let me just figure this out.
One second.
When it comes to men having this preference of guaranteed paternity, I don't think that this is an innate preference.
Why?
Because of essentially how different mating strategies worked in different tribes.
Okay.
How did they work?
There were obviously polyamorous.
I mean, even in Rome, in more modern day patriarchy, like they had wedding orgies.
Yeah.
So I think it was just in terms of making sure that children were born so that the community could survive.
Well, let's test this out.
I just want to ask you a quick question.
Okay.
If your son came to you and said, Mom, I have this woman who's only been with one man, and I have another woman who's been with 250 men.
Okay.
I'm trying to figure out which one I want to be with for the long term, right?
Which one would you tell him you would think would be the most monogamous?
I don't think you can determine monogamy based on body count.
Well, that's not what I asked you.
I wouldn't have an answer.
So if one had only, now, what if one had never slept with anybody and the other one had slept with 200?
Which one?
Which one?
You wouldn't have an answer.
You wouldn't have an answer.
Yeah, I mean, even if I look at my own relationship, whatever you consider to be a body count, mine was higher than my ex's, and he's the one that cheated.
So I don't think that that determines your faithfulness.
Sure.
I think that there are women who've had sex with hundreds of men who could be monogamous to one man, whereas a virgin could cheat on him.
Sure.
I totally concede that there's outliers to everything.
We're just talking about likelihoods.
I don't think that, I mean, I could even argue that because you have less sexual experience, you would be more inclined to stray.
If you become bored, the relationship becomes stale.
I don't think that that is the ultimate reason why people cheat.
Do you trust Pew Research?
I think Pew Research is a good source.
So according to Pew Research, women who get married as virgins are far less likely to cheat than women who don't.
Yeah, I think there's a correlation versus...
Well, actually, it gets higher by every one.
The metric gets higher.
Is this the same study when it comes to, I'm sorry, is this cheating?
It's not a study.
These aren't studies.
So were these surveys?
Yeah.
And so, I'm sorry, explain.
Yeah, yeah.
So it's just that the correlate there seems to be that virgins cheat way less.
Right.
I think obviously we can, and I don't, like, obviously correlation is not causation.
And so when we talk about causation.
But all causation are correlates.
Sure.
But again, you would need to establish causation.
I could say that women who have like what you would deem lower body counts would more than likely be religious.
I won't even dispute this.
So if you and I agree that correlation is not causation, but all causation is correlation, then we're just looking for strong correlates.
And that's what we're going to make.
You would need to determine cause.
Well, but causes.
I think it's really.
Aren't all causes correlates?
One second.
I think it's really silly to say that relationships fail or people cheat because of necessarily their past experience.
I'm not even saying that.
Okay.
So what is your own?
I'm explaining it to you.
So if it is the case that we're just looking for strong correlates, this seems to be a really strong correlate.
Okay.
That if you're a virgin, you're going to cheat way less.
Now you can make the claim, well, have we determined that that's the cause?
Well, I think that I think even if you haven't, let's just say that there's some other correlations there.
Like, I don't know, maybe virgins, like, they don't cheat for some other reason than they haven't been with a bunch of guys.
Like, they're just virgins are more likely to be brunettes.
Let's just say.
They're more likely to what?
Be like Burnetts.
I don't know.
Burnettes?
I can't think of it.
I think Burnett's cheat less.
Yeah, I can't think what the correlate would be that would be more strong than less sexual experience leads to less cheating if virgins are cheating way less.
I can think of a single, but you are technically correct that correlation is not causation.
We need to establish causation.
But from a reasoning standpoint, if you're a man, right?
Can you tell me the Pew Research Day?
From a reasoning standpoint, I'll link it to you, actually.
Great, thank you.
From a mystery, send me over that study or the Pew Research data.
So if you just tell me the title.
Yeah, I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'll give it to you.
Right.
I've brought it up in debates and sourced it multiple times.
I'll get it to you.
No, no, I'm not.
But anyway, so on the idea.
Yeah, on the idea of virgins, let's just assume for a second, right, that we don't have a causation.
It's just a really strong correlate.
Me as a rational man, why wouldn't I take that into consideration when doing mate selection?
Like, I don't want to get divorced, right?
I mean, if you do want to enter into marriage, I think that's the obvious goal.
Sure.
So then it seems like anything that would reduce me getting a divorce, like having a woman who's much more religious, that's going to reduce the chance of divorce.
It's also going to demonstrate to me that.
I think there can be other goals, though.
Well, it's also going to demonstrate to me if she's not having sex that.
Would you rather be unhappily married or happily divorced?
Well, from my religious standpoint, well, from my preference or my religious standpoint.
Either.
Yeah, from my preference, I'd rather be happily divorced, preference-wise.
Yeah.
But I still think you have an obligation to stay married, even if you're unhappy, because unhappiness in marriage can be short-term, even if it's only a couple of years.
So I still think there's an obligation, especially for kids, to stay together.
So anyway.
I mean, I don't necessarily disagree.
Yeah.
So that aside, we'll leave that for a second.
If I look for correlates of things, right, that strongly correlate that are going to reduce the chances of divorce for me.
In this case, a woman cheating is going to greatly increase the chances we get divorced.
That's just true.
Why?
Because if you cheat on me, I'm going to divorce you.
So, but you just said you have a duty.
Yes, but there's threshold breakers for the duty.
Okay.
Why is that a threshold breaker?
Because this would violate the very thing which kept me in the marriage to begin with, which is the religious obligation towards it.
I see.
Would the degree of what are we counting as cheating?
Is that intercourse?
No.
Okay.
If you just like, even the I have an emotional connection with X for me would be cheating.
Oh, really?
So if your wife said, I have emotional feelings for this guy, even if she didn't want them, but she just still felt that.
Well, that's different.
Well, it depends on the severity.
Like, I'm in love with Chad.
I don't want to be in love with Chad, but I am.
That's it.
You're done.
That's over.
So.
Go be in love with Chad when we're not married.
I'm sorry.
So if your wife developed emotional feelings for someone but didn't act on them, that's still done.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
So I would consider that.
Do you think you have control over that?
I think I have control.
Sorry.
Do you think someone has control over that of developing emotional feelings for someone else?
Sure.
You have tons of control.
For instance, you can put yourself in positions where you don't engage with men who aren't your husband, and then you can't develop those feelings.
Very simple.
Wow.
Am I wrong?
I mean, you could never talk to anyone ever.
No, you could talk to anyone.
And then, well, I mean, people, you don't just meet a person and go, oh my God, I'm in love.
That doesn't matter.
No, I agree.
I think things happen over an elongated period of time.
I agree.
Yeah, so I think, yeah, you have tons of control over that.
But that aside, back to the idea of virginity.
If it is true that virgins cheat less, and that seems to be what the Pew Research poll says, and if you have less than nine, right, it continuously decreases.
And then I don't remember what the number was before it basically flashed out.
I feel like you're talking about the Institute of Family Studies, which actually said that women with two to nine, I believe two to nine partners had less divorce rates than women with zero to well, no, that was two to that was two to four, I think.
I believe it was two to nine.
No, because I've cited that several times.
I think it was two to four.
But we can check.
Yeah.
I'll have Brian pull it up when he gets back.
But still, it is the higher two to nine than virgins and people who have low, like low body.
But let's just grant it.
Let's just even grant the research for family studies, and we'll just say like the two to nine, right, have a less divorce rate than even the virgin, right?
Fine.
Like, so if I was obviously not a cause, right?
Yeah, if I wasn't revolted, well, there could be other contributing correlates or confounding factors.
Right.
Yeah.
But the thing is, is that if I'm not revolted, so you agree with me that relationships revolve around attraction?
I guess it depends on what you mean by attraction.
Can you have sex with men you're not attracted to?
I mean, I can't, no.
Yeah, right.
So neither can most people.
They don't want to have sex with people they're not attracted to.
So if you're a person.
Are we just talking about physical attraction?
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah.
So if you're not physically attracted to a woman because she's not a religion.
I mean, I think that's changed.
Like, there have been men that I haven't been physically attracted to, and then I get to know them and they become attractive.
So then you become attracted to them.
Right.
But I just want to say it's not necessarily based on a physical basis, but because of who they are as a person.
But you are attracted to them physically, or you wouldn't sleep with them, right?
Yeah.
Okay, great.
Or emotionally, if you will.
Okay, whatever it is.
But so for men, physical attraction, and they don't want to sleep with women that they don't find physically attractive.
If they find this to be revolting to them, right?
That there have been with other men, they find they can't maintain some type of attracted level to the other person, then what's wrong with them selecting for a virgin?
I would wonder why this is a criteria.
They're not attracted to you if you're not a virgin.
Well, but like, why is that a quality?
I think when we talk about like attractiveness, sure, I think there can be metrics that don't necessarily have reason.
Like for some reason, I like brunettes more than blondes.
I don't know why.
But when it comes to specific behaviors, I think that's more of like a philosophical stance than just like this innate, you know, I'm attracted to you because of X degree.
I mean, you think you can help me?
What if I discussed that?
You think you can help what you find attractive?
Well, what if I don't disclose, though?
And then you do?
Yeah, so let's just say hypothetically that, you know, a beautiful man's attracted to me and like everything is there, the personality, the compatibility.
You know, is he really not attracted to me?
Yeah, what if he disclosed to you that he molested children?
Would you still be attracted to him?
I think there would still obviously be some feelings for that person.
Would you still be attracted to him?
I wouldn't stay with him.
Would you still be attracted to him?
Or do you think you could decrease that would decrease the attraction level?
I mean, I would definitely be repulsed.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's my whole point.
But I don't think that.
So then all that matters is that even if it's revealed to you later and now you so basically I guess there would be like efficacy or some form of validity because I think like women engaging in consensual relationships is very different than someone who is engaging like graping children.
But that's not in dispute.
It's just if this piece of information, pertinent information was revealed to you that was not before, could that deviate your attraction?
Right, but what's reasonable, I guess, is what I'm asking.
I think it's totally reasonable if somebody releases to you that they have slept with 50 men, that you could be repulsed by that.
Why is that not reasonable?
Why would it be reasonable?
Because you don't want to envision men having sex with your woman.
So it is a property thing then.
Well, it's not just a problem.
Or like an ownership.
It's a revulsion thing.
I don't know.
That just seems kind of insecure.
Oh, well, then it's kind of insecure that you won't date a guy based on his past relationship molesting children.
I don't think that's insecurity at all.
Like, is that not insecure?
Like, him molesting children is obviously a heinous act.
But he's reformed now.
He's not reformed.
It's obviously a heinous act where someone else engaging in a consensual relationship is not.
Why would I have an issue that they've had a past partner?
Because all that really matters is what deviates your attractiveness.
So for you, it deviates the attractiveness for this person because they did X activity.
It's the same thing here.
No, I don't think that that is a fair equivalence.
Well, it's 100% a fair equivalence.
We're just talking about your attractiveness to X person, and without attractiveness, there can be no sex.
There's no relationship.
But I think we have to talk about essentially what when we look at societal qualifiers, I think there are obviously reasonable expectations when it comes to a partner.
I just don't know why someone would be repulsed by consensual sex acts.
Why is that?
I don't understand.
I feel like you're just kind of saying men are conditioned into patriarchy to value virginity because they view it.
You're not making an argument.
Like you're not making an argument right now.
Can men not be attracted to women based on the fact that they have a higher body count?
And if the answer is yes, and attraction requires and reattraction requires, is required for there to be sex in a relationship to begin with, then I need an argument for why it is men can't be attracted to only virgins.
I need to know that.
What is the argument against?
Are you attracted to an experience?
You're attracted to the fact that they've had less men they've slept with.
That's an attractive quality to you.
How is that attractive?
Because it is.
It's attractive.
I don't think it is because it is.
Do you think you can help attraction?
I think that attraction can come from aspects of social conditioning.
Sure.
So you could personally help right now who you're attracted to.
I mean, in some capacity, I think there are levels of conditioning when it comes to society that tell us what are okay criteria and what are not okay.
So can gay men do that?
What do you mean?
Can they determine that they're not attracted to men?
I mean, that's different.
Now we're talking about like sexual identity versus like we're still talking about what we're talking about that we find attractive.
Do you think gay men can suddenly just will themselves to not be attracted to other gay men?
Of course not.
Oh, okay.
Well, sexual identity is very different than what we would consider preferences.
Do you think if I find brunettes attractive, like I don't find blondes attractive?
Well, wait a second.
I'm super confused.
I also don't think that you could only find blondes attractive and not find brunettes attractive.
So you can definitely only find blondes attractive.
So I think that when we talk about social prescriptions, to say that men have this social prescription to want virgins to me is no, I didn't say anything about social prescription.
For men to have this philosophy or preference of wanting virgins to be again, it's just essentially like misogynistic conditioning.
Yeah, that's an assertion, right?
You're not actually making an argument.
So I need an argument for why it was that men couldn't be attracted to women who have not slept with any other men, and that's their preference for attractiveness.
I mean, it's information that only the person can give you.
That's right.
So, if I say I am a virgin and that's a not fact true, then yeah, but now we're back to the same issue with the guy who reveals that he diddled kids.
If he tells you he didn't diddle kids, you find him amazing.
The second he reveals to you that he did, you find that way less attractive.
I guess we're like, I feel like the false comparison here is like you're comparing an immoral act to a non-immoral marriage.
Well, that's a matter of perspective.
I could say that from my perspective or the Christian perspective, it's an immoral act to have sex outside of marriage.
So, the less you do that immoral act, the more attractive I find you.
Yeah, I.
So, this is just perspective when you're talking about the moral aspect.
And by the way, because I mean, I think consent being a main basis would be a really good foundation when determining evaluating attractiveness based on sexual history.
Wait, say that?
I'm sorry.
When we're talking about sexual history, I just don't know why consensual mutual acts can be like that.
That's not immoral.
Engaging with someone consensually is not an immoral action.
From your view.
But from the view of the Christian, it is.
So if you were a Christian and your preference was to have a Christian woman.
Right, but why does Christianity prescribe that?
What?
Who cares?
We're just talking about your.
I do think.
Well, I mean, obviously, that's a problem.
Why would that matter when it comes to your preference for attractiveness?
Because obviously it's a patriarchal prescription in order to maintain male supremacy.
So is it with the Christian purview, is it equal?
Well, I think that religion is the only thing which can account for things like purity, good, bad.
They're the only thing that accounts for those things anyway.
So I disagree with them.
Okay.
Well, then let's take something that's super simple if you disagree with that.
Justice.
Account for justice from a secular worldview.
Like it's just as, well, so it's just as just for me if somebody were to murder my daughter for me to murder theirs.
That's just as just.
Why isn't it?
You did a wrong to me.
I did a wrong back to you.
Right?
You got exactly what you deserve back.
That seems very just.
And yet we don't do that.
Again, I think just isn't necessarily like what is right in terms of punishment because like obviously you killing the person's daughter doesn't bring your daughter back.
So what does that have to do with justice?
The idea is.
I think that would be the justice is where your daughter was never killed.
Yeah, but so you're accounting for it just through preference.
So that's fine.
You can account for it.
No, I'm just saying that justice and kind of like retribution or punishment is just not the etymology of the word justice, if I remember correctly, is to set to right.
That is the idea of justice, to set to right.
Okay.
Or to bring order, something like this.
Now, don't quote me on that.
I could be wrong about it, but I think that that said the etymology is like just setting it right.
You can literally make that anything you want to be just, right?
Anything you want.
Well, again, if someone's punished, I don't think that's like to set to right.
Punishing somebody?
Correct.
So jails?
Bad?
I mean, I don't think that that's necessarily like justice in itself, especially within our system.
We don't give like victims any access.
So justice is just perspective.
It can't be accounted for outside of your preference.
So the thing is, is like since 90.
Well, I would say justice would either be preventing the action from occurring in the future.
You would say.
Stopping me.
This is me saying again.
Okay.
No, you.
You're saying.
Yes.
I'm defining the concept correct.
Yeah, from your, from whose perspective, though?
From mine.
So it's accounted for by your preference.
My preference for what?
To whatever justice is.
Okay.
Right?
You're accounting for it through your preference, right?
Sure.
Like, I guess understanding of concept, but I think we can obviously see that like within harm reduction.
Harm reduction itself is just accounting for through your preference again.
You want harm reduced.
Like my preference could be that I want harm maximized.
You can't account for why mine is bad and yours is good other than because you want harm reduced.
It's all accounted for through your brain.
Well, I think harm reduced, like when we look at harm and suffering, like that is a physiological experience that our bodies do have negative outcomes for.
And if we're both going to agree that our subjective experience is essentially what our life is, then the thing of life that we have value would need to be of the best quality to where we have experiences that are desired.
Yeah, but you can have experiences that are desired that you would still be against, even if they cause no harm, because you don't have a consistent principle.
Like here, I'll give you, I think, a great example.
Two brothers want to have sex with each other and they're consenting adults.
This is wrong due to what?
If there's no power dynamic, I mean, I don't have a claim against incest.
Really?
Yeah.
Oh.
Other than it's just icky, but no.
It's just a yucky.
What about necrophilia?
So necrophilia, I do think is obviously what we talked about, like a paraphilic, which I would say in terms of someone's sexual psychology is harmful to them in itself because it has the criteria that you're engaging with someone who's unconscious.
You're not engaging with someone at all.
Well, right, but an entity that is unconscious, if you don't.
You're not engaging with an entity at all.
You're not engaging with anything, right?
From your view.
There's no soul, right?
Right.
So then what are you engaging with with a dead body?
I mean, obviously, you're having, like, there is still remnants of a person there, even though personhood is present.
There's no person there.
Personhood isn't present, correct?
There's nothing there.
It's just nothing, right?
Just flesh.
I know, but just, again, it's similar to someone if they were unconscious, right?
No.
Unconscious, you agree that's still a person.
Dead, you agree?
Correct.
You agree it's not a person.
Correct.
So then no, it's not that.
But I mean, in terms of the experience that you have as the assailant.
Yeah.
What if your experience is that you fucking love this and it's great?
I think that's even if there is pleasure from it, it still is harmful for you.
Prove it.
What's the harm?
Prove it.
How do you demonstrate that's harmful if the person tells you it's not harming me?
Again, like the psychology, it's kind of similar.
Like people always say like serial killers are really happy like unaliving and murdering people.
But I do think there is harm because kind of the concept of like harm is done to you, harm is done to me.
Dude, it's over for you, Brian.
I think there are psychological profiles of someone's sexual identity that even if they like it is still harmful to them.
It is detrimental.
Yeah, but you can't prove that.
You just like it's just made up, right?
So a person says, if a person's telling you I'm not harmed by this and I absolutely adore it, right?
You can't demonstrate that they're harmed by it.
I mean, there are specific ways I think you can through, like, I mean, you can't like test for it, sure, as it's happening because of certain brain chemical reactions not being monitored.
But I think, thank you.
I think you would agree, like, to someone who is like cutting themselves, even though they're happy about it and they love it, they're still harming themselves.
By your definition, actually, I'll just grant it.
And by your definition, sure, we can literally see that there's cuts on the arm.
Right, so I'm saying that what is going on in the brain, you can't see.
So, then how do you know it's true that it's actually harming them?
You don't, right?
Like, you don't actually know that.
I do, because I think we can measure, again, like, when we see aspects of suffering, how that changes your brain and how trauma changes your brain.
These are physiological occurrences that change your brain, which are harmful and negative.
You can't demonstrate that a person who tells you they're happy as can be banging a dead body.
I mean, I can't like that.
You're right, but we can see that people who suffer or have severe trauma have different brain structures that they are.
They're not suffering and have no trauma.
They love doing this.
It's their favorite.
Maybe if they're not conscious of it, sure.
No, they're conscious of it.
They just really like it.
Again, I think you can see differences in brain structures when it comes to certain psychological outcomes, even if the conscious is saying this is enjoyable.
So are you saying that there's not a single human being on planet Earth who's a man who's had sex with a dead body and continuously does this who doesn't just do it because they enjoy it?
Who does it?
Like, that's not my claim, though.
Then what's the harm to him?
I'm telling that there are brain, like, it changes certain brain structures that are harmful to him, even if he's not aware of it.
Which ones?
I don't know on that one.
Yeah, because it's totally made up.
You can't look at the brain that way and be like, oh, you've 20 dead bodies and this thing over here is now twisted.
That's not how that works.
Sure, sure.
Like, obviously, I can't say, like, you know, this brain, this region of your brain is where you did necrophilism.
So really, the harm principle is where you did like incest.
So you're just doing the same thing, right?
You're saying, I think that it's harmful because I think it's harmful.
I can't really demonstrate it.
I just think it is anyway.
I think like psychology, and sure, I acknowledge, like, I'm not, you know, like a neurologist or like a brain.
Yeah, I don't expect you to be.
But yes, I do think there is certain things that we can see in the outcomes of like how the brain mouths and transforms and responds to its environment that would, we could measure.
And that would happen with every single man who engaged in that activity.
Yes.
Okay, so then would you say that this is the case with women who have many, many sexual partners that their amount of trauma would increase?
Again, I think it would depend on the experience itself.
Like, obviously, I think someone who has been graped several times is going to have a different sexual experience.
You know, maybe having however many bodies you want to associate.
Let's just say for the sake of the argument, 10 bodies, but every single one of them graped her.
There's going to be a different psychological profile than someone who has engaged in 10 consensual relationships.
I see.
Do you think that a person who has engaged in multiple relationships is going to have more baggage than a person who hasn't?
I think it depends.
Just generally, on average.
See, it's hard to give that generalization because I think it depends on the quality of the relationship or the experience of the relationship.
Do I think if someone might have had like two or three really toxic romantic relationships, they might have more baggage than someone who might have like four or five one-night stands because they don't have but all of them are going to have more baggage than a person who had no relationships.
Who's had no relationships or no sex?
No relationships.
I mean, I don't know.
I think incels have a lot of baggage and a lot of them are virgins.
No, no, no, not relationship-based baggage.
What do you mean by that?
Like, for instance, if you're in a relationship with a man for, I don't know, five years or something like this, and it ends in complete, like, it's just a fucking disaster.
Sure.
Right.
It's going to create trauma for you, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
I would prefer not to deal with that trauma.
And I would say that women who experience that trauma would not experience that trauma if they weren't in that relationship.
So the idea here is the same thing with sex, right?
Is that the more sexual partners you have, the more chance for trauma?
So.
I think it depends kind of, again, on a lot of multitude of different things.
Like, I mean.
Here, I'll give you an example.
I would say I had more trauma from the disillusion of my marriage than I did from all other casual relationships combined.
Yeah, that makes sense to me.
Totally.
So being with a divorcee would, that would be trauma, right?
That they would have more baggage just on average than someone who wasn't a divorcee.
I would have, like, a divorce baggage.
Yeah, probably has more baggage than someone who's not been divorced.
I mean, sure, I can grant that more than that.
Yeah, so then, so now we're starting to whittle down sexual selection.
So if we're just talking about trauma, are we talking about things like this?
I would say that, for instance, is it okay for a man to have a preference not to have been, not to be with a woman who was graped?
Because he doesn't want to deal with her baggage.
I wouldn't necessarily place the preference on being graped, but essentially like their emotional state and kind of where they are within their capacity.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So that would be just depend on, again, it's not the criteria of have they been graped or not.
It's kind of where they are within, you know, that experience.
Was it 10 years ago and they've really healed from that?
Was it yesterday and, you know, they're having a nervous breakdown?
Again, that would just be context dependent.
Yeah, but that baggage exists due to the fact that there was a grape.
And you would agree with me that.
I mean, I think that baggage can morph itself in different formats.
I agreed.
But in this case, it came from that.
So in other words, I guess.
I guess I just don't think you should make assumptions on that.
Maybe not.
But do you agree with me that grape is traumatizing for women?
Yes.
I think it's traumatizing for anyone.
Sure.
I guess not you, but do you think that since it's traumatizing for women, that men should probably look at it as a red flag if they don't want to deal with it?
What do you mean a red flag?
Trauma.
They don't want to deal with a woman's trauma.
I mean, it can certainly be like a, I'm trying to think, you know, like a point, like something you note, but I think you should be evaluating the person that you're with based on their behavior and your interaction with them, not necessarily predetermined facts.
All predetermined facts or just some?
I mean, they're, you're going to go back, I'm sure, to the child molestation.
Well, I'm just, I'm just pointing out like the consistency aspect here.
It seems like it's perfectly acceptable for men to have preferences where they say, I rule you out because I just don't want to deal with this ever.
I mean, like, sure, I'm not going to like force someone to be like, oh, no.
But I mean, it sounds legit.
What's illegitimate about a man saying, I want a virgin because I feel revolted when a woman's not one?
I think he needs to unpack why he feels revolted.
Okay, so he unpacks it and he discovers why, but he still is.
Well, what's the reason?
I don't know.
But whatever it is, he knows what it is, but he can't just shut it off.
Well, maybe then he doesn't need to.
I mean, so.
So what's wrong with that?
Do you support large age gaps?
Sure.
Is there any criteria?
Not really.
No, so you're fine with a 45-year-old dating an 18-year-old?
Yeah.
Okay.
You know, we can come back to the age.
We can come back to this, like, real quick.
We're all right there.
Andrew, the pineapple pizza.
I'm not eating it.
Andrew?
I told you I wasn't going to eat it.
I'll literally throw up, bro.
I can't do it.
It's so gross to me.
It's so gross.
Will you eat a singular pineapple?
You won't even, do you like, you don't like pineapple?
Dude, it makes me sick, literally.
Like, you won't eat pineapple on its own.
No.
Pineapple juice?
Nope.
Nothing.
Are you allergic to it?
No, it just makes me feel sick.
Are you feeling a bit uncomfortable that it's even that close to you?
It's close.
Like, skin contact's okay.
Yeah.
But ingesting pineapple is a no-go.
Don't you have like a food you really hate?
Sure.
That's that.
What is it?
Well, I have an actual allergy to something.
Oh, yeah.
Well, but what's the food you hate, though?
Shit, that's a hard one.
Horseradish.
Oh, delicious.
Or sauerkraut.
That's okay.
I'm not a, I don't like Sour.
Bye.
I hate sauerkraut.
I don't like sauerkraut.
But that's all.
That's because cabbage grows.
Do you want to eat some of your pizza or are you?
I mean, I'm fine.
But if you're forcing people.
I'm the only one who's going to be.
If you're forcing people to eat.
I'm just alone here eating a good time.
Let her eat a piece of pineapple pizza and I'll have a smoke.
We'll finish this thing.
Yeah, you guys want you want to pick a picture?
I mean, I'm not hungry, so that's it.
Well, did you want to do bathroom break?
Andrew needs a smoke?
And then we'll go for what?
Another 30 minutes?
I already forgot.
But before you guys get up, I do want to let a couple chats come through really quick here.
So we have.
That's pissed at you.
That's really mad.
That's not working.
Myron wants to collab.
He already reached out to you and maybe the master debater as well.
Would love to see you all together.
Oh, slash.
Yeah, well, Andrew, you've been on their show a couple times.
So hold on.
We got some other chats coming.
Daddy, thank you.
Oh, my God.
I can't believe I said that.
Thank you for the, oh my God.
That's ridiculous.
Okay.
We have Lucas here.
Lucas donated $100.
For the love of God with these gender studies nebulous talking points three, what virginity is defined as how ABT no hymen, no diamond.
If it's good enough for me.
No, hymen, no diamond is crazy.
It's good enough for me.
Wait, sorry, just repeat it just I don't know if they heard.
No hymen, no diamond is crazy.
Oh, okay.
All right.
No hymen, no diamond.
It's crazy.
Why is it crazy?
Just for Lucas?
Because he's curious?
I mean, I think when we, again, I just don't know why men fetishize someone who has little sexual experience.
Why would it be a problem even if they did?
Because I think when we're talking about like someone who's making decisions or someone who's well-balanced and well-rounded, that obviously with more experience, you make better decisions.
Well, this assumes that the person has more sexual experience and the person has none.
Like, well, you can, I don't understand.
Why can't you fetishize a woman having no sexual experience and have no sexual experience yourself?
That's bad.
Again, I think when you are centering the fact that she doesn't have sexual experience, then that is because you see you have more opportunity to manipulate, to coerce, to abuse.
Oh, I see.
So then I just got to quickly ask.
If the roles are reversed, if a woman selects on a man based on the fact that he hasn't gone out and slept with a bunch of women.
So let's say that there's a man in town and he's, well, you know, he's pretty well known for being a ladies' man.
You know, the women all like him a lot and he bangs a lot of them.
And this woman doesn't really like that.
She thinks that that's kind of ick.
You think that she really shouldn't find it very icky, right?
Should she find it icky that he slept with a lot of women?
Yeah.
I mean.
Okay.
Does she?
I don't think, no, I don't think that this idea that like having multiple conceptual relationships means that you're icky.
Oh, I see.
So let me just want to make sure I got it clear.
If you went to a town and there was a guy in the town who had a reputation for fucking a lot of women, like he just did this a lot, you wouldn't make any preconceived judgments about him maybe being a playboy.
Maybe being a player.
I guess what you mean by playboy or player.
You know, like he doesn't like to commit.
He likes to play the field.
He likes to have a lot of sex.
He likes to maybe lie to get into women's pants.
You know, like preconceived notions, which would come with a guy who normally has sex with a lot of women.
Why am I making this assessment?
Because you are a pattern recognition machine and notate that.
I mean, am I engaging with him?
Well, I'm just going to ask you flat out.
Have you ever known guys like that?
Yeah.
Oh, okay.
And the types of guys that you know who are like that, aren't they generally players?
And so, again, just so I understand the criteria that you mean by player, are they just someone who is interested in casual sex?
Or are you also adding that criteria that they use the means of manipulation in order to gain access to them?
All the above.
They like all of that.
I mean, I wouldn't necessarily place the criteria that he uses the means of manipulation, but could I say he has an interest in casual sex?
Sure.
You wouldn't ever associate any negative characteristics with him, though, just because he had slept with a lot of women.
Sure.
Correct.
Never?
Nope.
As long as I'm aware that they're consensual.
Would it give you the ick?
No.
No?
No.
Could you foresee that there's other women who would give them the ick?
Sure.
Then why can't it give the ick to the man?
Give the ick to the man?
Well, again, I think this is just kind of like certain social purviews that we see within society to where somehow having multiple consensual relationships is dirty or gross and kind of the, you know, I just think so.
So you think the women shouldn't have the ick.
In purity culture.
Okay.
So you think that women shouldn't have the ick.
I think it's, yeah, the reverse of purity culture, right?
Right.
So it just depends on what your goals are in terms of.
So then virgins should give men who've had a lot of sexual partners a chance.
Yeah, I don't think you shouldn't base your decision-making just on their body.
I agree.
We don't have anything to argue about.
If a woman has no body count and a man has a really, really high body count, she should not make any preconceived judgments about him and should date him and should not assume for a second that that man just wants to take her virginity.
She should not assume that.
Okay.
Right?
No, I don't think she should assume that.
Okay, good.
No.
Then I think we're on the same page.
Okay.
All right.
I agree.
Wow, a shocker.
Let some other chats.
I saw you kind of eyeballing the pizza.
I'm really not hungry.
Can I have another drink, though?
We can get you another drink.
Once Andrew's back, we'll get to the rest of the chats here.
I won't let any come through unless everybody is at the table.
Blake is going to get you another drink.
If you can pass him the other one.
Appreciate you.
Rock it.
Rocking.
So you just don't like pineapple pizza or what's up?
No, I've actually debated on TikTok if pineapples should go on pizza and I was pro.
You're the pro pineapple on pizza.
Okay.
I don't think you should have social prescription on what you like any kind of prescription on what you put on pizza.
Got it.
Okay.
Is it you just don't like, you don't want to eat it?
I'm just not hungry.
I don't know what you want me to tell you.
Okay.
You know, that's.
If I took a bite, would it make you happier?
It would, actually.
Why?
Whoa.
Get your mind out of the gutter.
I feel like you're.
I'm not in the gutter.
Get your mind out of the gutter.
I don't know.
You're trying to say, like, I want to see you eat a pizza.
Like in the second time.
I'm not what I'm saying.
Are you not making a pizza?
Are you flirting?
Like, what do you, what's going on?
Stop it.
Look, you're like trying to put, say, say I'm wanting you to watch you eat a pizza.
I'm just all you had to say.
I don't like to eat alone.
Look, if you want.
For reason, that's fine.
Look, if you want to deal with dudes who like watching you eat food, I don't kink shame.
I'm not a kingshamer.
I'm just saying, if that's what you want, I'm just, I was more just, I got you pizza.
I don't want to watch you eat it.
I just, you know, I thought it would be a kind of a kind gesture.
That's all you had to say.
Good talk.
So, guys, I don't know if we're going to do the 16.
I mean, because nobody else is eating, I was eating awkwardly there.
But those that did come through.
We're going to pull them up.
What's the thing we were doing if we were all eating?
Huh?
What are we not doing anymore?
Oh, so, well, we were going to do like a pizza roast session while y'all were eating your pizza, but you're not hungry.
Andrew doesn't want to have pineapple.
You've had it on the show so many times.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And you don't know that he wouldn't eat it?
Well, you know, this was like a punishment for Andrew, the pineapple pizza.
He actually, he agreed, he agreed off screen to that he.
He told me he was like, Brian, we'll do it.
We can, fine, we'll do it.
Can I tie this last thing off real quick before we get to the super chats?
Because we were like right there.
Sure.
Right.
Okay.
Absolutely.
So I just.
When you left, we had agreed on something.
What?
Well, yeah, we agreed, but I just wanted to tie it off with the agreement.
That's why I wanted the agreement.
Okay.
Are we to assume then that you have a high body count?
Are we?
Well, it doesn't matter, so you should tell us what it is.
If it doesn't matter, why would I tell you?
Because it doesn't matter.
No, I would think if it mattered, I would tell you.
Well, if it doesn't matter, why wouldn't you?
Because it doesn't matter.
If I would answer any question that you wanted that didn't matter to me.
No, like when you go to court and like someone's, well, I'm just giving you another example.
When someone's asked a question and they're like, irrelevant, you know, it doesn't matter.
They don't answer.
Erroneous!
Oh.
Erroneous.
Yeah, so.
So, no, I don't disclose.
You don't, you don't, so it does matter?
No, it doesn't.
That's why I don't disclose.
You don't disclose the reputation maybe that comes along with it?
No.
It has nothing to do with reputation.
Then if you're not concerned about reputational damage and it doesn't matter, why not just disclose?
If it doesn't matter, why would I?
I have no motivation.
I mean, I'm sorry.
You can keep asking me 10 ways from not going to disclose.
I'll just ask you this.
What's your favorite color?
That's a good question.
I would say like wine colored, kind of like a purplish pink or a pinkish purple.
Did that matter?
Yeah, I think what my favorite color is matters.
Especially if you're like picking out a shirt for me.
Did that matter in the context of the debate?
I don't know.
No, it doesn't matter, right?
Okay.
So, okay, here's one.
Do you prefer water in a cup?
Or do you prefer, I don't know, water in a wine glass?
Are you giving me water?
Sure.
Okay, then I prefer it in a wine glass.
I don't have a wine glass.
Oh, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Oh, good.
So you just want it in a cup?
Sure.
Okay.
That's what you got.
So then the preference doesn't really matter?
No.
No.
Okay, great.
So if you're willing to disclose preferences that don't matter, why not disclose this one?
It doesn't matter.
What reason do I have to?
Because it doesn't matter.
I would think that would be the reason I don't disclose.
That would be the reason you should disclose.
No, I think if it mattered, I would disclose, right?
Don't you disclose material information?
I think if it didn't matter, you would have no trouble disclosing something that didn't matter.
If I were going to have sex with someone and I had an STD, do you think I should disclose?
Yeah.
Because it matters?
Yeah, sure.
Yeah.
Yeah, but if somebody asked you if you had it to STD, would you say no if you didn't?
Even though having sex with him, it wouldn't matter.
What?
Like, if you didn't have an STD and you had sex with someone, you're not going to ever transmit them in an STD, right?
So it doesn't matter.
So wouldn't you just disclose to a person you didn't have STD?
Wait, that does matter because obviously if I don't disclose, they think that I do.
Right.
So it matters to them.
So then in this case, it does matter for the purpose of something.
This matters to them, right?
Yeah, this matters to me.
Okay, well.
So disclose it.
I'm not.
It doesn't matter.
Because it doesn't matter?
I thought you said you only can disclose if it does matter.
Yeah, if it mattered, I would, but it doesn't.
But it does matter.
I want to know.
It matters.
Well, it matters to you.
For the purpose of this conversation, it matters.
So are you going to disclose it?
I don't think that matters that you think it matters.
But you think it matters that the guy.
If I didn't disclose, you know, if he's like, do you have an STD?
And I'm like, that doesn't matter.
What are we doing?
Do you want to have sex?
It's really strange to me that this thing that just means nothing to you is also a thing that you refuse to disclose.
Yeah.
That's really weird.
It doesn't matter.
Why would I disclose?
Because it doesn't matter to you.
Exactly.
So why should it matter to disclose it?
That's super weird.
It makes no sense.
I don't think it's super weird at all.
Okay, well then.
It's just irrelevant.
Let me just follow with this last thing.
So can you tell, right, that there is, or do you agree with me that there's reputational damage that comes with women who have a high body count?
Yeah.
Yeah, you agree with that, right?
So does it stand to reason from my perspective that I would think that you weren't disclosing that because it was really high and it would cause you reputational damage?
I mean, sure, that could be a possible explanation.
I mean, it's a likely one, right?
No, I disagree.
Well, isn't it more likely than somebody saying it doesn't matter, but I'm not going to tell you anyway?
Like, doesn't that seem like it's a more likely explanation than I won't tell you based on the principle of it doesn't matter.
So therefore, I won't, even though it doesn't matter to me at all.
I just don't.
So I guess when we're talking about why you want the disclosure, why is that?
Because I want to see if you're consistent.
Well, so this is just for the purposes of the debate.
Yeah, that's why it matters.
I'm checking your consistency.
And it's not very consistent.
So you're giving me.
No, I don't think your body count.
What are you evaluating?
Well, you're just giving me, you're giving me reason to believe that you're lying to me.
What am I lying about?
I'll explain.
You're giving me reason to believe that based on the fact that you think that having a high body count causes women reputational damage, that if you really thought that this didn't matter, right, I know for sure that you wouldn't be getting any reputational damage by expressing it if you had a very low body count.
However, if you did have a very high, hang on, if you did have a very high body count, you think that that would cause you reputational damage by your own admission.
So, which is more likely?
It seems more likely that you do have one.
Sure, but then you would be like implying that I care.
The only reason I'm implying that you care is because you won't say it.
No.
Yeah, that seems to be the implication.
I disagree.
Well, but the likelihood, the likelihood from you tell me, what is my body count?
I have no idea.
Yeah.
How would I know unless you told me?
Exactly.
Yeah, I wouldn't know.
Wouldn't I assume it's high?
If I just wanted to protect my reputation, wouldn't I just lie and just be like, you know what?
You're right.
You could, but it is the age of the internet where somebody could say, no, that's not true.
I slept with her and another guy's like, and I slept with her tiny.
I mean, you're really putting stock into the fact that my possible previous partners are watching.
Well, all it would take is the wrong discussion.
I would say if I were protecting my reputation, I would just lie.
So the fact that I'm not disclosing doesn't say that reputation was.
You can get caught in a lie.
You can't get caught in a lie.
I think it would be very unlikely for me to be caught.
Giving a false body count?
Yeah, absolutely.
Because I could just be like, they're lying.
Okay, well.
Of course, he's going to try and say, oh, she's lying.
It's low.
I don't know that guy.
We have children, right?
Child.
A child.
Yes.
So at least one.
Right.
Are we sure?
So we know.
Immaculate conception.
Yeah, so we know.
It may be artificial in some ways.
Right, so we know at least one.
Great.
Are you okay with admitting that it's at least one?
I mean, what does it matter?
I mean, clearly, I think you can deduce that.
Yeah, right.
We can deduce it.
Yep.
So we can use logic.
So we can use logic to deduce the truth of matter.
And if it is the case that it doesn't matter, but you're unwilling to disclose.
I, again, I don't think it supports that it's just a reputation thing because then I could just lie and be like, you know what?
You're right.
Yeah, but you can get caught in lies.
It's too.
And that damages your reputation, too.
I could just continue to lie and be like, that guy's lying.
He never slept with me.
Yes, and then other people could bring proofs, right?
I, what?
I don't know.
Whatever there are.
What proof is there?
How would I know?
Yeah, I don't think there's.
I have no idea.
It's just very, it's a very strange standard.
I think it would be weird.
A thing doesn't matter, but I do know that it causes reputational damage if it is high, and I refuse to disclose it even though it doesn't matter.
Yeah, I mean, again, like I said, I think I've told you if I was worried about reputational damage, I would just concede you and lie.
Do you think it stands to reason that if a man wants to know your body count, it's because they think that you have a bad reputation of sleeping with a lot of different men?
No, I think there can be multiple reasons that someone would want to know your body count.
I think, obviously, like you've indicated a lot of social prescriptions come with like a high body count.
But I also think, excuse me.
I also think if you've been with someone a long time, it can just be out of curiosity.
Sure.
Yeah.
And do you think that the stigma associated with reputational damage, a man might want to avoid a woman like that so that they don't end up being associated with that woman's bad reputation?
Yeah, sure.
I don't know.
So then it seems like it's a perfectly valid preference to want women who have low body counts.
I think it's weird that men kind of evaluate the quality of their partner.
Oh, no.
Women also evaluate women based on how many sex partners they've had.
So when you're, I know you're married.
What do you look for?
You're a virgin.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Virgin.
Yeah.
Do you want a romantic relationship?
Do I want a romantic?
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Would you want that long term?
Long term?
Yes.
Yes.
What would you want from a partner?
Virgin.
Is that it?
Is there any other qualities you would want for a long-term partner?
No, virgin, like she can be like obese and stuff, but like virgin.
Okay.
Why are you dragging me into this?
Why are you dragging me into moderating?
That's not fair.
It's not fair.
It's not fair for me.
He's married, so obviously it doesn't.
You know, there's not necessarily an assessment of looking for the next potential partner.
Yeah.
But so my partner.
But let's say my wife died tomorrow.
Okay.
Right.
What would you want in a partner?
I would definitely want a woman with a low body count.
Okay.
Is there anything else?
Oh, yeah, sure.
All the like all the normal things that people would look for.
A woman who was loyal.
She was very kind to me.
She was kind to children.
She was kind to the elderly.
So kind.
Yeah, kindness matters to me.
Right, but I'm just saying you said kind three different ways.
So I got it.
Loyal, kind.
Loyal, kind.
Somebody wasn't didn't or wasn't prone to nagging, that would be a big one for me.
Prone to nagging?
Okay.
Wait, I'm sorry.
I did think of one other thing that I do look for is large labia.
No knees.
Large labia.
Big labia.
Is that labia minor or labia?
Both can be large.
Both can be large.
Yeah, so Audis, like the wizard's sleeve.
No, this is, I actually do prefer large labia.
Are your only conditions like based on their appearance?
No, there's other conditions.
Like she has to bow to me.
Not okay, you're dead.
No, literally, no, literally.
So anyway, these are not figuratively.
These are like standard qualities that I think are pretty shared across.
Sure.
So, I mean, we just named two, though.
Loyal, kind.
You said no nagging.
Yeah, no nagging.
Do you can make my life easier?
Do you view like communication as nagging?
Or you think being communicative with your partner is.
Yeah, she needs to understand what my needs are.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay, I guess I'm not sure what nagging is.
So, yeah, I think we don't know what nagging is, really.
Wasn't I just nagging you to give me your body count?
Oh, yeah, you definitely were.
So then we do know what nagging is?
I guess I'm trying to understand nagging to what your degree.
Like if she asks you, will you take the garbage out?
And you're like, yeah, I will.
And then you don't.
Yeah, shit like that.
Yeah.
I don't want nagging.
No nagging.
Yeah.
I gotta, we can come right back to it, but there's so many messages coming through that.
Like basically done.
And then we're just done.
Let me let two come in.
Okay.
And then we'll do the rest just because I don't want them to fall off.
Because Streamlines does that.
Daddy Smodel's donated $100.
He sent it in kind of twice, I guess.
Pretty sure he spoke to the master debater about it as well.
That collab is what we've been waiting for.
BTW, Karen.
Good luck.
You've lost horribly.
Now, you got me the first time on your username.
I'm not going to refer to you.
I'm going to call you D-Model.
Still bad.
Model, thank you for the message.
I do appreciate it.
Thank you.
oh got lucas coming in donated 100 woman you know nothing abt the scientific research dot there is not one study out there and there are many that does not indicate a strong and i mean really strong male preference towards female chastity oh Oh.
Do you want to respond to?
I'm sorry, what does it say?
Women, you know nothing about the scientific research.
There's not one study out there that does not indicate a strong male preference towards female children.
I think that would just be culture-dependent.
Why is it across culture?
Why is what a cross-culture?
The fact that men value youth and chastity.
Are you referring to like the evolutionary psychology?
No, I'm just referring to the demonstration of basically everywhere this is asked by pollsters and by various researchers.
If you prefer women of X age, most men choose around the same ages for women that they find the most attractive.
And the same thing for men looking for chastity that seems to be across the board.
What is the age?
What?
What is the age most men choose?
Is this regardless of their age?
Yeah.
What is the age?
I think it's like 18 to 26 or 24.
Okay.
Yeah.
They prefer.
And do women have that similar?
No.
They tend to want men around their same age.
Right.
And find them like that.
Right, so I think there would be a hard argument to say that this is just an innate determination and not some form of social conditioning.
Across all cultures.
Correct.
That's truly baffling to me.
Like, these cultures that have very little to do with each other still have preference towards chastity.
What would you base that on?
I mean, I just, again, we don't know what cultures, number one, that they are evaluating, but I also think that there's like the global idea that paternity is really important.
Where previous to like patriarchal constructions, when it was more egalitarian, you know, not knowing paternity wasn't necessarily a big deal.
Because I could even argue that in terms of community survival, that not knowing paternity could be a beneficial because then men that are engaged with women, now they have an investment and obviously the offspring living and surviving.
And she would have more access to resources from those different men.
This seems like it would be offset very quickly by just saying a man's primary edict and objective evolutionarily would be to pass on his genetics and he would need to know that his genetics were actually passed on, not another man's in his stead.
I don't necessarily think that that's like just an innate thing.
That's the primary edict of all living organisms is to pass on their genetics.
No, to pass on their genetics.
I think it's also survival.
No, the primary edict.
If you're passing on your genetics is it, then what's the point of marriage or relationships?
Well, okay, you can have factors past this that human beings value, but the primary edict from an evolutionary standpoint, the applying directive.
I would see men wanting not relationships at all, just be engaging with multiple women and then having no investment.
A lot of them do that.
Do you think men should have investment in child rearing?
Yes, but this does not contend with my question before you change it.
Right?
Is not the primary edict of the evolutionary dictate to pass your genetics on?
No, I would say survival.
Well, what's the point, purpose of survival?
What's the point of survival that your community continues?
Yeah, it continues through what?
Passing on your genetics.
Right, but even if you don't pass on your genetics, your community can still continue.
It's not going to continue without people passing on their genetics or living organisms passing on their genetics.
All people need to pass on their genetics.
Yes, but all people do need to have the drive to pass on their genetics.
Again, you can have the drive, but even if you haven't completed it.
Yeah, but you still have the drive to complete it.
Even when you have completed it.
You still have the drive to continue to complete it.
Right.
So again, I don't see why paternity would need to be certain.
The whole point of you getting horny and a man getting horny is to pass on their genetics.
Otherwise, there would be no reason to get away from it.
Well, then if he's done that, then why wouldn't it?
He can continue to do it.
I know.
So he wants to continue to pass his genetics on over and over and over again.
One vessel can accommodate this.
It doesn't take 50 vessels.
I agree, but obviously, even if you pass on your genetics and then the children don't survive and your community doesn't survive, then you haven't achieved the goal.
Yeah, maybe not.
I don't think that's a problem.
That doesn't mean that your primary edict is not to do that.
But again, I don't think that, um, you're just descriptively saying, but what if it doesn't happen?
And I'm like, yeah, then it doesn't happen.
But still the motivation is to pass on genetics.
But obviously, too, it's also for the society to continue.
The only way it continues by passing on genetics.
I agree.
But obviously, like, if a woman is sleeping with multiple men and then there are children, all of those men could have a potential investment in that child's survival.
No, they have no way to verify they've passed on their genetics.
I know, but they would have the potential investment in being.
Yeah, listen.
So Brian here, his ultimate drive, let's say, is to pass on his genetics and mine.
Okay, so let's say that Brian.
Wait, I want to pass yours on?
Yeah.
Yeah, well, I want to pass mine on.
He wants to pass this up, right?
So he ends up with some chick with one of his friends and they bang her.
Okay.
I'm sorry, he ends up with...
With some chick with one of his friends.
Him and one of his friends bang the same chick.
So there's a third guy.
Okay.
Not a third guy.
Bang his chick.
Well, you're there.
Why does she have to bang my chick?
I'm not there.
Listen, I'm drawing a comparison.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I'm with one woman.
He has screwed one woman and this other guy has screwed one woman, right?
I'm just with one woman.
One woman's with me.
I'm assured my genetics are passed on.
They are not assured their genetics are passed on.
I mean, you're not sure.
They're not assured their genetics are passed on.
If the primary edicts pass your genetics on, it's not to, oh, I don't share with another guy and hope your genetics get passed on.
That's not how I feel.
Well, I mean, obviously if your child dies, then your genes are not passed on.
Then you try to have another child because it's your primary edict.
I mean, I think ultimately primary edict would be for survival of like yourself, but no, I don't think necessarily like there's an edict of like legacy, if that's what you're talking about.
Literally every living organism's primary goal from an evolutionary standpoint has to be to pass on their genetic material.
Otherwise, survival of the fittest doesn't work.
You can't be the fittest species if you can't reproduce.
Well, also, but if you can't survive based on certain conditions.
But you can't survive because you can't reproduce.
I agree that reproduction is an aspect of it.
But even if you do reproduce, it doesn't mean that there'll be the necessary conditions for your genes to continue if your genes don't survive.
Yeah, but that's a descriptor, right?
That's not a descriptor which contends with the primary edict being reproduction.
It does, because when evaluating a mate, it not only comes into obviously their capacity for fertility, but their capacity to care for the young.
We aren't just, like, we are social creatures.
And so there are social aspects that come into the aspects of mating.
And I would argue, too, that prior to other civilizations, that this was a common method, that women had multiple partners so that multiple children could be have so that the community in Saidi could continue to be able to do that.
There are pagan tribes.
There are pagan tribes where this happened.
I agree, right?
But for the most part, it didn't.
There are some.
I would disagree with that.
Nope.
Look, then that's ahistorical.
I think your position, I'm okay, right?
Because I think your position is ahistorical.
No, it's not.
It's ahistorical to say men may have had multiple women.
Women did not generally have multiple men.
They were not in a position to have multiple men.
From what time period are we discussing?
I mean, this all of human history.
I mean, no, I would say for 50,000, 25,000 years, no, there were more polyamorous relationships.
Yes, between men and multiple women, not women in men.
Plus polygyny.
I'm talking about polygymus.
No.
Where women have as much multiple partnerships.
That's nonsense.
Brothers would marry sisters.
They would switch partners, so on and so forth.
I mean, I even told you about the example is Rome, where they would have wedding night orgies just to assume that their family lines would continue.
When it came to Rome, men were in the position of authority over wives, right?
And they generally married virgins.
They would have sex, that's true, with women who were not virgins, and even with men.
It was a correctness.
But it was still very much.
It was traditional practice that also there would be multiple men, even.
That doesn't guarantee your paternal line.
Yeah, that's just masturbation.
No, I'm not saying with each other.
Oh, okay.
I'm saying with the wife.
Like there would be wedding night war.
Yes.
No, that's ahistorical, too.
That's not ahistorical.
Romans didn't tell people to come over and fuck their wives.
That's very much ahistorical.
I can give you a source.
It's super rare that that happened.
What are you talking about?
Especially in the Roman Empire.
So it's insane.
No, they didn't.
That's totally ahistorical.
It's also ahistorical.
She gave you the source when she made the peer.
You can give me the source.
I'm telling you, it's totally ahistorical that women had multiple men.
Yes, men had multiple women.
That's true.
But it's ahistorical.
You know why, too.
Women can only get pregnant by one guy at a time.
Men, on the other hand, they can impregnate 100 women as many times as they do.
And again, we have to determine the fact of survivalship.
Like if a man impregnates 100 women and so he's passing his genes on.
You know, these hundred women don't have community or support when it comes to resources and caring for the child, then the children are going to die.
And then what?
Yeah, but this is baked into the pie.
That would be a lesson for monogamy, right?
No, I think that's a huge difference.
Aren't you assuring the most amount of resources possible by having one man responsible for the child?
No, obviously you would ensure more aspects, more resources if multiple men were responsible for the children.
If they could reinforce, like, oh, I have an uncle, that's helpful.
They're somewhat responsible for my child, I guess.
They're part of my family.
But having one man who gathers resources specifically for that child and that woman seems like a way more effective dating or strategy.
It would be, no, communal gathering and communal ownership would be the most effective strategy.
You can have communal gathering, communal ownership where every man still owns the child and is the primary caregiver for that child.
Who's his?
I agree.
I agree.
And that would be a way better system.
So you can also have men who are potentially invested in, obviously, the children growing and the community surviving.
Okay.
There's no need for that.
Which thing makes more sense.
We have a community, but I'm responsible for my offspring.
If paternity certainty was such a valuable thing, why is it not easily detected?
Like, you know, when it comes to maternity, excuse me, obviously, we always know who the mother is.
But you don't always know who the father is.
Correct.
So it doesn't really matter.
Yeah, so that completely blows your own point out.
Makes no sense.
You're not actually assured yourself paternity.
Correct.
Neither are men.
Correct.
Yeah, so the only thing you know is that it came from you.
Community resources, and obviously having multiple people invest in the outcome of the offspring would be the most successful.
Multiple people will still invest in the outcome of the offspring just by being family to the offspring, even if they didn't are not directly responsible for the offspring, meaning they did not reproduce the offspring.
Okay.
So you have uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters and cousins and there were a lot of indigenous tribes that had the same philosophy.
Yeah, right.
You know, the children belong to everybody.
Yeah, but men don't want to share their women.
Again, it depends on the culture.
There were many indigenous tribes who children belong to everybody.
Even Native American tribes didn't operate this way.
There are many American tribes who did operate this way.
Some, but it's rare.
And by the way, looking at an example of where polygamy could happen, it's still an A, it's completely an ahistoric standard to say that because polygamy did happen, that it was common across all cultures.
It was not.
It's not the case.
It was.
No, it wasn't.
I mean, what time period are you talking about?
I guess you're talking about all of human history.
Yes, all of human history.
I mean, I don't know how we can go back and forth saying one's ahistorical, you're a historical, you're a historical.
Like, it would essentially just come down to sources.
Yeah.
We would just have to prove our sources.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So in this case, you're going to come up with sources that give us direct evidence that 25,000 years ago, women were mostly polygamists?
Really?
Yeah, that paternity, that male paternity was not at the center of society.
That it didn't matter because the children were communal.
So it's matrilineal?
Yes.
Instead of patrilineal?
Correct.
Yeah, it's totally ahistorical.
Okay.
I'm fine with that.
Okay.
Okay.
Shoot.
A couple fell off here, so I'm going to have to find another way to pull these up, but I'm going to let some of the chats come through.
Moonlight donated $100.
Hi, Rachel, and Andrew TA checks for letting me know details about her sex life.
Been wondering for years, and it's finally being addressed.
I can now rest easy, but I don't think he'll ever fall asleep around Yarn.
Yo, Moonlight, thank you very much, man.
Appreciate the message.
We have a bunch more coming through, so I'm going to let them come through.
Membered man donated $69.
I swear, after listening to this, I think she justifies skillfully an eight-month amp.
Maybe her ab.
Hey, if mom's eat the placenta, did she make hers into a stew or a drink?
A bloody Mary.
We have some more.
You guys can respond to these, by the way.
We have Justin Martin's thank you.
Justin Martin's donated $69.
Andrew's obfuscating from the pizza by engaging in the debate.
If you don't eat the pizza, you lose.
I'll take the L. Ah, shoot.
I don't.
Yeah, unfortunately, some fell off.
I'm going to see if I can get them back, though.
One moment, guys.
we have.
They'll be red regardless, but they might not pop up on screen.
For underscore I'd underscore clown underscore goblin donated $69.
Everything she says slave master style privileges her gender.
Telling you you're not allowed to be grossed out by promiscuity, but it's okay to get the icky for guy so much as smiles at you wrong.
I mean, I never made that claim.
Okay.
We have, let's see here.
We have Membered coming in again.
Oh.
How do you feel about it?
Give us the crystal, please.
Just drop the crystals over there.
The crystals was quite the controversy before the podcast started.
Give her the crystals, please.
Just place them on the table, right?
Just place them right there.
Thank you.
Yep.
Okay.
What are we doing?
I'm not sure, really.
Okay.
He did bring up crystals, though.
He did.
It wasn't.
Which one is your favorite?
The green one?
I mean, you have to be really gentle with the crystals.
You were a bit, that was a bit.
They just be color preference.
Okay, cool.
All right.
Thank you, Birdman.
We have Lucas coming in here.
Thank you, man.
Lucas donated $100.
We do know what cultures were studied.
From tribes in the Amazon to tribes in Papua New Guinea.
Also, it's not just survival, dot, it's both natural selection, survival, and sexual selection reproduction.
Okay.
Yep.
Nice.
Nice.
All right.
We got a few more coming in.
There's just usually a bit of a pause.
We have Lou, Lou, Lou, and then, oh, Flynn, thank you for gifted tier one.
Lululu donated $69.
This girl has an inability to concede.
Every time you get close to cornering her with logic, she starts to ask you to define terms as a distraction technique lol.
When she can't argue, she detracts.
I mean, I think there's things I've conceded.
Yeah.
But she also, like, there's only so much you can do when people bite these kinds of bullets.
You're just like, okay.
I don't know what you, where do you go with that?
Graffito tagged, men evolve to spread genes, maximizing offspring.
Women seek long-term support to ensure child survival.
Marriage balances this, giving men paternity certainty and women stability for raising kids.
Makes sense.
That's a way better strategy, or seems like a way better survival strategy.
One sec here.
I'm just double.
I mean, do you think if we're talking just that marriage is essentially what determines, obviously then that fraction would be separated from the community.
Why?
Because that's the foundation, right?
Yeah, why would they be separated from the community?
Well, because that's what else do you need?
Well, you still need support.
Yeah, exactly.
So it wouldn't be marriage that would determine the.
He didn't say marriage.
He said monogamy.
He did.
They said marriage.
I thought he said monogamy.
What did he say?
I'm not sure, to be honest.
Yeah, I mean, that evolved marriage, yeah.
But I thought he said monogamy.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But in any case, it doesn't matter.
His point is correct.
It makes way more sense for a woman for resource perspective to have a man who specifically guards her and that offspring.
If he's always unsure of the offspring, what's his incentive to guard her?
But we don't look from protection from one individual.
We look from protection from community.
Yeah, okay.
So the thing is, is you get that community through this single person giving you this offspring.
I disagree.
I think there are a lot of communities where even children are viewed as not even necessarily just the mother's children, but other women within that community are also just as responsible for instilling values and raising the children.
Well, help me out here.
Do you think it would be better then if women could just like communally had sex with men and men were not assured of paternity?
I mean, yeah, that's definitely a possible outcome.
I don't like to necessarily give sexual or sexual or relationship prescriptions.
I think everyone do you think it would be better though?
Better if men were not able to determine paternity and women just had sex with whatever men that they wanted to, but and they couldn't assure paternity.
Do you think that's better?
A better outcome than knowing who the father is in terms of survival?
Sure.
So then you should prescribe that for women, right?
Yeah, I do think when we...
You want women to be whores, basically.
Again, I think, like, I don't agree with the term that you used.
Well, you want them to fuck a bunch of men so that they're not assured of paternity.
No, I even said that that's not my position.
No.
You just said it was your position.
No, I think when we talk about like the idea of family and community, it doesn't have to be this nuclear aspect with certain people who are biologically related wearing the domineering hats.
I think we can look at it through more of a communal.
I forget what country it is.
I can look it up if you want.
There was one woman who had nine children and she ended up giving two to one of her infertile friends.
And they asked, like, are you upset with that?
Are your children upset with that?
And they're like, no, we both love the children.
It's anecdotal, though.
It's just an example, though, of like how it's a better survival mechanism for women to do this.
So you would prescribe that women do do this.
You can't actually tell them not to be sluts because, and here's why.
I would say that if we look at certain reproductive strategies in terms of society, that female bonding leads to really great outcomes of less infanticide and longer child lifespan or more success for child span.
Yeah, but for a man not to be assured of paternity, the woman would have to be sleeping with multiple men.
Okay.
I mean, or he could just assume that.
So then it's actually a bad survival strategy for women or a better survival strategy for women, right?
From your perspective for the woman.
I don't know why we can't have like, if people want to be in monogamous relationships, I don't think that's.
That's not what we're talking about, about whether or not you think that men and women can be in any type of relationship.
We're asking about better or worse as far as outcomes go.
And so if it's a better outcome, I would think you would prescribe the better outcome.
If it's a better survival strategy for women to sleep with multiple men and not then the man not be assured of the paternity of the child as the better survival outcome for the woman, then why wouldn't you prescribe that for women?
You would, right?
Yeah, I do think that would yield better outcomes if we were less nuclear and more communal, essentially individualistic and more communal.
So then you're prescribing that women sleeping with multiple men and then hiding the paternity of...
I mean, it's not necessarily hiding.
Well, yeah, you just don't know, right?
So you can't lie about what you don't know.
Right.
And obviously, I think when it comes to like partnership, people do find love and stability with multiple people.
And do you think that a man who, like, I don't know, for instance, me, I adore my kids.
Like, I love them to death.
Wouldn't that take that away from me?
Because now I would not even be sure if they were mine.
I mean, forgive me, they're not yours, are they?
No, they are mine.
Biologically?
Yeah.
I have biological children, yes.
So I'm sorry.
You were misinformed, weren't you?
By trolls.
But anyway, go ahead.
No, I'm sorry.
Yes, I have stepchildren and biological children.
So do you feel that your stepchildren aren't your children?
No, I still love them and adore them.
So I'm sorry, they're not your children or they are?
They are, but they're still a different relationship.
So I mean, you're a different relationship.
You're doing it yourself.
No, I'm not.
I just told you there's child rearing of children that aren't like biologically.
Yeah, no, that's incorrect.
There's a distinction in biological versus stepchildren.
Yes, there is a distinction there.
I mean, for you, sure.
Yeah, for everybody.
I mean, we wouldn't even have a classification if there was no distinction.
Doesn't mean I don't love them.
So, are you just talking a distinction in terms of biological distinction, or are you talking about how you love and care for them?
Yeah, I'm glad that I know who each child's father is or is not, including my offspring.
Yeah.
I'm wondering, though, do you love and care for your stepchildren?
Yes, of course.
Yes, of course I love and well, no, you didn't finish answering the question before I was saying yes.
I know I never made a distinction in how I treated them, but you can't make a distinction in your heart for who you adore or don't adore, right?
So, yeah.
So, for instance, wouldn't you agree that if you were raising, like, I don't know, a child that you came in contact with by the time they were six or seven, for instance, right?
That it's going to be a different form of relationship than the child that came out of your womb?
Yeah, but if I think that just necessarily has to do with timing and not the fact that I'm biologically related to them, well, but if you were biologically related to them, the timing would be fine, right?
No, I think I would have the same, like, let's just say, for example, that, you know, I gave birth and then for whatever reason, you know, the child was raised by someone else and I got them back at six or seven.
I would say that the experience would be very similar if I got a child that was not.
Similar, but it's not the same.
I think it would be the same.
I don't think I could tell you.
You just said that it wouldn't be the same, and now you're saying it would be the same?
What do you mean?
I'm talking about a biological child that I raised from birth versus a child that I raise from the age of six.
Yeah.
It's not the biological component that makes it different.
It's the time in which I entered their life.
Yeah, okay.
So, and then if they biologically were yours, you would have entered their life from the beginning, right?
But I just gave a hypothetical to where if I, let's say, I did give birth and then for whatever reason I was separated from that child and then that child came back at six or seven, I don't see any meaningful delineation.
How do you know?
Like, you can't know that.
And again, we can go based on anecdotes, you know, because you gave anecdotes.
But you can't know that.
And the thing is, is like, yes, I agree.
I agree that you can love your stepchildren and should love your stepchildren.
Right.
But I also understand that there is this delineation between children that are biologically yours and ones that are not.
I get that.
Sure.
I would say that can also be just like a cultural distinction because of the culture that you've grown up with.
And it was so much emphasis on biological relation that that's why you have these different feelings.
So you don't think that men care to know who their offspring even are?
I mean, again, I think that would be based on the individual.
Like, I know this is an anecdote, but I used to joke with my ex because our son was conceived on our honeymoon when we were in Miami that, you know, the father was a native to Miami.
And I mean, even to this day, he's like, it doesn't matter at this point.
That kid is mine.
Repeat that?
You were on your honeymoon?
When our son was conceived, yeah.
So I used to joke that the child wasn't his.
Oh, okay.
And then after that.
I see.
I thought you were saying the child wasn't.
No.
And would your husband want to know?
I mean, he says that he says he doesn't care.
No, it's clear.
Is he your ex-husband?
Yes.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, he probably cared.
He probably cared.
I mean, it's pretty clear his son is his.
Okay.
Would you, if you.
I mean, I'm sorry.
I just want to ask this last question, then you can ask whatever you want.
Okay.
If it was the case that That technology was sophisticated enough that you could be pregnant the entire time your womb could be utilized in some way.
I don't know, whatever bizarre scientific way.
So, like nine months, nine months in the womb, right?
And you can have the child, right?
But you were never assured paternity.
Paternity?
Yeah, you weren't assured that.
So you were just assigned a child.
You never knew if it was yours or not yours.
Would you want to know?
I mean, it's hard to say.
Again, I can kind of relate my social conditioning.
I don't know.
I've considered selling my eggs.
So does it really, would it really bother me to know that there's a child that I'm biologically related to out there?
Not really.
Would I, if I decide to become a parent, is it necessarily a determinant that I'm biologically related?
No.
So would it be better than ultimately following this logic for everybody who had a child to just communally put them up and they be given out to the best parents?
I think in some, no, I don't think it needs to be a hierarchy like that.
I think that the community can all have equal investment in children, is what I'm saying.
Yeah, but this is a huge community, it's a 300 million person community.
Sure, I mean, again, I'm not necessarily just, you know, when we talk about communities, like obviously I'm an American, but I don't have community with people in New York.
You have community with obviously your close inner circle.
And I think with like capitalism and patriarchy and kind of this idea of nuclear family, it's really hyper-focused individualism and taken it from community, which is why the nuclear family is so popular in these prescriptions of, you know, mom, dad, and child.
It's not multi-generational.
It's not extended family.
Do you think most women would care?
That's really irrelevant because I could just say, again, it's because of these social purviews.
Do you think it's because of social purviews or because women want it?
Really?
Yeah.
So you think that if there was a different social purview, women would not care to know if it was their actual life.
I don't think that we just have like necessarily these innate senses when it comes to preferences.
Our brain is a social organ and so it responds to our environment.
And I think if we had maybe, you know, different structures, then yeah, like just we can talk about the food that you eat.
Obviously, your preferences on food that you like are depending on your culture.
I mean, I hate Vegemite where a lot of Australians like it because that's their culture and it's something that they were, you know, something that they were a part of through a long line.
Does that mean that they were born liking Vegemite?
Well, I mean, from an evolutionary model, yes, right?
Everything up to the point the first Vegemite sandwich was made was every fraction of evolution, which led to the point that that sandwich was made.
So everything was selected for up until the point of that sandwich.
Again, I think it's just based on like, you know, if I were born in Australia, I would have more likely to be able to do that.
Then everything in Australia was selected for the greatest amount of survival based on evolution.
Again, again, I don't think you're born with these innate things.
Like even then, what is natural selection?
It's like it's selecting out traits that are bad traits, right?
Sure.
States for survival, but traits aren't necessarily like women have children with poor partners all the time.
That's true.
So, I mean, it doesn't, it's not this innate thing.
That would make evidence for innate for like the idea of survival, like the bad boy, things like this.
That would actually make the case for that better for selection against modernity, right?
So, like, women make poor mate selection when it comes to, oh, he's a big buff Chad, but he's an asshole, right?
No, I could say that my selection failed me, which I would think would be the prescriptions that you would assign.
Yeah, so what?
Okay.
When you're talking about women making bad choices when it comes to men, they're often making choices based around the fact that they think this guy's a good protector.
These are all things that move into that, right?
And they're innate.
I don't know if I've ever evaluated a man on his ability to protect him.
Yeah, but you wouldn't need to.
It's innate.
Then, no.
So, so you're saying women who marry abusers, it's their fault?
Well, I'm saying that there has to be some kind of conditionals inside of women for why they're attracted to fucking jerks.
And they seem to be really attracted to jerks.
So, you're saying that women innately know an abuser.
What do you mean, an abuser?
What's an abuser?
Someone who's smashing them.
Physically violent, yeah.
Yeah, I don't think that they're selecting for physical violence towards them, but a man who's capable of physical violence towards other men.
Well, I mean, you said that women want protectors and that we can identify protectors, but obviously the prototype that most assault women are the quote-unquote protectors.
That's bullshit.
It's absolutely not.
Yeah, what makes them protectors if they're assaulting women?
Well, that's the role that they were supposed to, like, when we look at who the protectors are, it's supposed to be male family members and partners, and these are the most likely people to assault women.
Okay, so what?
So, how does a woman delineate between this is a protector and an abuser?
They would just use whatever the phenotypical expressions were that they innately thought led to a good outcome for reproduction.
That would be the evolutionary view.
So, the phenotypical expression of he's well-chiseled, he looks good.
I just want to make sure I understand.
So, when women get married and then experience domestic violence, they knew he was an abuser beforehand.
I already told you no multiple times.
Then, what?
And then evolutionary failure?
It takes nothing away from my point.
So, well, no, evolution.
So, evolution right now would lead to modernity.
You agree with that, right?
Every point of selection selected out traits which did not lead to modernity.
Okay.
You agree that that's true?
Sure.
Okay, so there could be holdover traits that women have and men have when it comes to the idea of mate selection.
You agree that that's true too, right?
They just haven't been selected out of the gene pool yet?
I guess we would need to identify what these traits are.
Just that there could be traits which are holdovers from, like, well, 10,000 years ago, because evolution is a really slow process over an elongated period of time.
10,000 years ago, this was a really useful trait.
Now it's not a really useful trait and it hasn't been selected out yet.
Okay.
Due to technology, you can agree that there's probably plenty of holdover traits like that.
Sure.
Okay, so one of them would be a phenotypical expression towards an aggressive male, right?
This person would be capable of protecting you or capable of advanced violence, things like this.
Doesn't mean that you assume that they're going to beat you up.
I don't know where you keep coming up with that, but just the idea that based on whatever the perceived attractive phenotypical expressions are, oh, women like really tall men.
Why?
I mean, that's cross-cultural.
They seem to be attracted to men who are taller than them.
Why?
Well, I think on average, men are taller than women.
Yeah, but why do they want men to be taller than them?
I would just say that would be gender affirming.
Even though it's cross-cultural.
Yeah.
Okay.
So is everything, is there any innate characteristics human beings have from an evolutionary standpoint?
I mean, you would have to establish to me what would be human nature.
So I do think, and again, are you arguing bioessentialism?
Well, from an evolutionary standpoint, yeah, it is essentialism.
Yeah, I mean, even evolutionary psychology doesn't argue bioessentialism, but biological influence.
What is biological essentialism?
Essentially, that behaviors and traits are predetermined.
No, I think evolution always argues from a sense of predeterminism, has to.
No, because you're, like, I'm sure you've heard of epigenetic effects.
There's also bio-social models.
But no, even evolutionary psychology does not argue for bioessentialism, but bio-influence.
So what?
What I'm arguing to you.
What I'm arguing to you right now is that you're going to have traits which have been selected for, right?
Like hands.
You have hands?
I do have hands, yes.
Yeah.
Was that selected for?
What do you mean, was that selected for?
Am I with my partner?
Through the course of natural selection, right?
Meaning this species dies, this species doesn't die, right?
Through that theory of natural selection, eventually we came to you have hands, right?
That is a trait you were born with.
You do have hands?
Adaptation, yeah.
Like you don't have fins?
I don't have fins, no.
Okay, so you have hands because of all of the traits selected out that weren't your hands.
Okay.
So then there has to be some type of essentialism to that, right?
I mean, I guess you're talking about like certain biological features, but we're also talking about behaviors, right?
And yeah, I don't see why you wouldn't have innate traits that were geared towards survival and behavior to prove like how you would prove the nature of human behavior.
The nature of it?
Or just traits that human beings seem to be driving towards?
Yeah, how do you know that these aren't culturally driven traits?
That these are just innate?
By taking other cultures and seeing if cultures that don't have other cultures that don't have contact with each other or didn't have contact with each other, but we see the same types of trends.
But were all those cultures or all those communities within the same certain time period?
No, you can do a cross-time period.
I mean, I don't think that that study was done through a cross-cultural.
I didn't say there was a study.
You asked how that could be done.
No, I don't think, like, obviously the conditions that one community is subjected to in a pre-industrialized community is going to be different than one that is industrialized and has different resources.
So it's hard to say like what the nature would be without accounting for the environmental influence and the strategies that come along with it.
Which is why we would take a look at different cultures over different time periods.
And then if we found that there was, oh, I don't know, something that they all kind of did based on the specific sex that they had, we would be able to make better determinations of things, which would be a lot of fun.
See, do you have something you're referencing?
Yeah, there's all sorts of studies on this.
Okay, I would love to.
Yeah, anthropological studies when it comes to Evo psych, which is now a big deal.
And I'm not an evolutionary guy.
I don't even believe in evolution.
But I can still make the argument from the evolutionary side of your worldview that there should be, you shouldn't have any problem with the fact that human beings evolve with traits.
Women are more empathetic than men?
No.
No.
Okay.
Never have.
Okay.
Let's let a couple chats come through just because they're kind of piling up here.
Two of them appear to have fallen off, so I won't be able to show it on screen, but I will read them from my computer because I can still access it that way.
But really quick before we do, guys, if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video.
If you're watching on Twitch, guys, go to twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Drop us a follow on a Prime sub if you have one.
If you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
Quick, free, easy way to support the show every single month.
Crazy Ace.
Thank you for the gifted five subs.
I do very much appreciate it, guys.
Like the video if you're enjoying the show.
Also, Venmo Cash App, whatever pod if you want 100% of your contribution to go towards us.
Also, TTS is $69 and up.
That'll be for the roast session.
I'm going to let these.
Ah, shoot.
Okay, that's not good.
All right.
I skipped one.
Blafist donated $70.
In the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary, come again.
Thank you, Blahfest, for your TTS.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
We have Lucas.
Lucas donated $100.
Initially, I thought it was just an act that you were dim-witted, illiterate, and ahistorical.
But now I just realized that it's no act.
Please tell me you're not a teacher.
I am not a teacher.
You should have been insubordinate, though, or maybe not insubordinate, but he told you to do something and you did it.
That's kind of like the patriarchy a little bit.
You should have been like, I'm not answering that.
I mean.
Because feminism.
Okay.
Yeah.
Well, don't let me dictate what feminism is to you.
Great.
I don't think that's...
Oh, okay.
Yes.
Men evolve to spread genes, maximizing offspring.
Women seek long-term support to ensure child survival.
I feel this is the same comment we've already had.
Marriage balance is this.
Giving men paternity surgery and women stability for raising kids.
Yeah, it says marriage.
Yeah, not monogamy.
You're right.
My bad.
Okay, so we have, thank you, Graffito tagged.
We got Gambit here.
That's for you, I think.
I mean, again, community survival.
You obviously get benefits from your community, and you would want your community to continue.
Okay.
Blafist donated $100.
This woman has five sons and has called them all Andrew.
She simply tells them all apart from each other by using their surnames so as to not complicate things.
Do you have five children?
I do not.
Oh, I don't know.
Okay.
Blah.
Blafest, thank you for the message.
I do appreciate it.
And we have two more coming in.
We have Christopher Murphy.
Thank you, man.
Christopher Murphy donated $69.
I'm from Las Cruces, New Mexico.
And I can tell you are drier than the dessert.
Desert, I think.
Like deadpan?
Does he mean deadpan?
Well, you did say desert.
I mean, if you are going to burn, make sure you don't make typos.
Yeah.
Oh, like a cupcake.
He's that kind of dessert.
There's two.
Not desert.
Wow.
He fucked up.
Just a little advice.
Just a little advice.
I've done it myself.
It really sucks when you have a good burn and you make a typo error.
So here are the two that unfortunately aren't going to come up normally.
Sometimes Streamlabs bugs.
We have Corny Peters 432.
I apologize very much that it's not coming up as it normally would.
Streamlabs bugged out.
You're either acting for your fans and realizing that you're getting cooked by Andrew, or you're full of shit, and your husband's going to divorce you after he sees this debate unless he's a simp.
That already happened, I think, right?
We are already divorced.
Already divorced.
Okay.
All right.
And then Moonlight says, Hi, Rachel and Andrew.
Thanks for letting me know details about your.
You read that one.
Oh, it did?
Okay, so I might have.
Oh, I missed, excuse me, I missed Lucas's.
Lucas, I apologize.
Streamlabs got bugged.
Men are hardwired for 100,000 years towards a subconscious revulsion against female promiscuity.
This is settled, excuse me, studied by Dr. Buss across 37 cultures.
Stop with these social constructionist bullshit.
Do you want to respond to Lucas?
I mean, in some of the sources, like it does reference Dr. Buss.
And again, he's not arguing bioessentialism, but just bio-influence.
And again, when obviously he's evaluating cultures, these are going to be cultures with historic record.
And a lot of the cultures that I'm talking about might not have written historical record, but how do you know?
Delineate it from artifacts, from fossils.
Yeah, artifacts and fossils aren't going to be able to demonstrate that how?
How could an artifact or fossil absent a record?
I mean, if you find pottery where there are female figurines interpreted as goddesses and they're pictured with multiple males with children.
That literally doesn't prove anything.
It's just a pot that has some, you have no context for it.
I mean, how else can we determine how society happened without some kind of men and women working together to build society and then the limitation of knowing how specific biological functions work?
I think that all of that comports to exactly what he's saying when it comes to the idea of monogamy and not sharing women.
Yeah, I think monogamy was originated when we came back when essentially like agriculture and property became valuable.
Yeah, I agree.
Modernity, right?
Well, no, it existed long before that, by the way, like in medieval Europe and due to religion and due to Judaism and due to post-what post-property and agriculture.
Yeah, well, I thought you were, I think, I thought you were referencing Industrial Revolution, sorry.
No, okay.
No, just agriculture.
Just agriculture in general?
Yeah, the domestication of animals.
We don't even know when that happened.
I mean, again, it depends on what culture, but yeah, that's roughly about 8,000.
We don't know that.
We don't know when agriculture happened.
Like, you're just talking about the ability of humanity to grow a plant.
I mean, to create crops.
Like, obviously, there's a difference between hunter-gatherer societies and moving to agriculture.
Yeah, but animal husbandry could be, you know, 50,000 years old.
They have no idea how old animal husbandry is.
We do have theory on it.
Theory.
Yeah.
It's exactly what it is.
Theory.
Yeah, gravity is theory.
No, that's different.
So there's a force effect we can at least see that we call gravity.
That's not theoretical.
Right, but you still can't see gravity.
Yeah, right.
But we can't really make the determination of animal husbandry.
We can make the determination of modern animal husbandry, like when that became a mainstream may stay based on literature, but I mean, we don't, we don't really know.
We don't really know when like people started growing plants.
How would you even determine that?
I mean, I don't know the methodological process of how we would determine that, but there obviously are like Pleistene and Nicene epochs where we have evidence on what is occurring within that time period.
Yeah, but I mean, it's not.
So, like this guy, he points out, he says every culture which is studied cross-culturally, which is what I came up with on the fly, right?
Just to demonstrate how you could demonstrate this, but he said the same thing.
But what cultures?
He's like, there's 37 different cultures that we looked at.
Men are hardwired to spread their genes and women.
What's the methodology?
Is it during a certain time period?
He said it was across multiple time periods.
I don't think he said that.
And multiple cultures.
I think he just said multiple cultures.
I don't think he mentioned anything about time periods.
Didn't you say that this guy, Dr. Buss, I don't know who he is, right?
I think it's Dr. David Buss.
Yeah, didn't you just get done saying that he's referenced in a lot of these early anthropological studies?
No, he's referenced in evolutionary psychology.
Oh, evolutionary psychology.
Okay.
So anthropological studies, you think, actually demonstrate to you that men were not hardwired to spread their genes?
Not through like the mechanism of monogamy.
No, I didn't say through monogamy.
Just wired to spread their genes.
I mean, I think primates are like engage in sex, sure.
So men are wired to spread their genes.
And in primate culture, what do women do?
Do you think women don't like have a desire to have sex?
No, I do, but his point was to say that women select for a single man.
So they want a single man there for the purpose of protection and things like this.
Not men, women.
Well, again, community can offer you protection.
That's not what he's saying, claiming the studies say.
Well, I mean, if you want to talk about the study, we can.
Yeah, I mean, I'd like it linked at least.
Okay.
But yeah, I've never heard of such a thing.
I don't think that there are societies filled to the brim with women goddesses who were basically having sex with whatever man they wanted to.
Like that wasn't the case.
Okay.
Yeah.
I don't think it was the case.
Basically, anyway.
From my reading, there were.
Just before there was written history, right?
I mean, there is some evidence, but of like female goddesses prior to patriarchal ones and that they essentially represented the good mother, fertility, sexuality, and war.
Yeah, okay.
But we're not talking about that, about goddesses.
We're talking about women having big sex festivals where the men aren't interested in the paternity because they want to share based on the community.
Well, yeah, like again, I don't know why it's so far-fetched to say that there were civilizations that, you know, thought that didn't understand the contributions that men had towards reproduction or that didn't understand that just even a single encounter could lead to pregnancy.
I would even say from even a lot of semen would create the maximum outcome of pregnancy.
And so multiple men would be invested in fulfilling that need.
Do you think the ancient world didn't know that the penis going in the vagina led to a child?
Because that's a history.
I mean, I obviously think there's a certain yeah, I mean, I think there are certain civilizations.
Not the major ones.
Major civilizations knew it.
At least the ones we got record of.
Okay.
Well, I mean, if you have some kind of evidence that talks about prehistoric cultures, I'd love to see it.
Oh, okay.
Again, the major cultures we have evidence of.
I'm happy to give you my sources.
You can give me your sources.
But I think we're kind of beating a dead horse.
Yeah, okay.
Well, I mean, I just don't understand.
I have prehistorical non-written sources that demonstrate that men didn't know this, but in the written record, they did know this.
It's really weird to me.
It's just like conjecture.
All right.
So here's what we're going to do.
There's like one or two other super quick things we're going to do.
I'm going to let some chats come through.
Lucas donated $69.
I literally told you that the 37 culture study included secluded tribes in the Amazon and Papua New Guinea.
And before you dismiss Dr. Buss, know that he is the most, by far, sighted scientist in this area.
Response or?
I don't have anything.
Okay.
Thank you, Lucas, for the message.
I apologize that your message from like an hour-ish ago fell off.
We have Blafest.
Blafest donated $70.
Andrew, just because you can't actually see her point doesn't mean she might not theoretically have won.
That's true.
She might theoretically have one just because I can't see it.
All right.
We have Lucas again coming in.
Blawfest, really good to see you, man.
Thank you so much for your Streamlabs message.
If you guys want to get one in, streamlabs.com/slash whatever.
Lucas donated $69.
Yes, Dopey.his multiple studies included an access for mating preferences across time/slash history.
Dot your damn homework before you perpetually keep spouting off that you disagree.
You've lost any credibility.
I don't have anything.
Okay.
I do have a quick question for you.
We won't linger on it for too long.
I think, anyways.
Would you rather cross paths with a bear, a random man, or a random bear in the woods?
I mean, I live in Montana, so I have come across paths of with bears.
I think it would be context-dependent for me.
I would be really nervous being alone with a man.
Well, here's here, how about this context?
So you randomly spawn in the woods, and then you have two buttons that also randomly spawn.
You can press the one that spawns a random man, or you press the one that spawns a random bear.
It would be a random adult man from the United States or a random adult bear of any bear species in the United States.
Okay, bear.
Bear.
Okay.
Okay.
There is a follow-up question from double agent.
Double agent.
Question for the feminist.
Would you rather be alone in the woods with a man or in alone in a public bathroom with a mentally ill man pretending to be a woman?
I assume they're asking me if I would rather be alone with a cis man or a trans woman alone in the woods with a man or alone in a public bathroom with a trans woman.
Is that what they're asking?
I believe that's what they're asking us.
Oh, I'd rather be in the bathroom with a trans woman.
Okay.
We have two here.
Edwin Brater donated $20.69.
I've watched this whole debate and I never heard her stance on anything.
It always changes and just depends on something.
She never argued anything and stuck with it.
Classic Andrew W. Love you.
It's true.
It's like a two-way toothpaste.
Squeeze here, moves there, squeeze there, moves here.
I mean, I do think morality can be very context-dependent, like we've talked about in the aspects of killing.
Like, is killing wrong?
Obviously, there's going to be instances where it's justified and not justified.
By the way, guys, we did lower the TTS.
It's a $20 TTS.
We'll do the Roast session now.
We'll do a Roast session and then we'll get this all wrapped up.
We have 51st state.
51 ST state donated $20.
I'm just happy to see a Canadian stand up for you.
Oh, you're Canadian?
Good on you, Andrew.
Now, I do heard that from the same place you heard.
I didn't have any biological kids.
Andrew, you're going to be on, I think both of you actually are going to be on our dating talk panel tomorrow.
Yeah, I'll be here.
You'll be here?
Yeah.
Andrew, if somebody donates an Ethereum, one ETH.
I'm not eating a fucking pineapple.
Will you eat a slice of pineapple panel?
I hate it.
What about a singular slice of pineapple?
It doesn't have to be pineapple pizza.
Dude.
Are you upset your consent isn't being respected?
So gross.
You know, Andrew, no doesn't always mean no.
Look, it's a negotiation.
I'm not forcing him.
I'm just like negotiating the terms.
Coercing.
Negotiating.
How much is an Ethereum worth?
Like $2,000, I think.
$2,000?
No, I ain't doing it for an Ethereum.
You're not doing it.
No.
What about the champagne pot?
I'll do three.
Three Ethereum.
Three Ethereum.
$2,000?
I ain't doing it for $2,000.
Damn.
To me, of course, though.
The Ethereum.
Well, the reason it has to be three is because, you know, I want half of it.
That's how you negotiate.
That's fair.
That's fair.
All right.
We'll split it.
Okay.
All right.
We have some more coming through.
Let's see.
I'm going to take the Ethereum and stiff them too.
Leave me out of that.
Bear in the woods.
Oh, boy.
Thank you, Bear in the Woods.
I appreciate it.
Is that a common commenter?
Bear in the woods?
No, I think it's...
No, I don't know who that is.
I've never seen it.
No, I haven't seen it.
Do either of you believe in aliens?
I don't.
I mean, I wouldn't discount the existence.
What the?
It runs into Fermi's paradox.
I just, I don't think.
I don't think so.
Yeah.
Do you guys think Mark Zuckerberg is an alien, maybe?
I've read he's one of the lizard people.
I don't know.
That's actually true, though.
What's wrong with your head donated $20?
Saying women using formula is just as good as breastfeeding is insanity.
A mother's breast milk is formulated specifically for their baby and changes during growth spurts and illnesses day/slash night.
Oh.
Yeah, she knows.
She breastfed.
She was going to feed with no formula.
I did say breastfeeding is optimal.
Did this one from Lucas come through?
I'm pretty sure it did.
Did this come through?
Yeah.
Yes.
Okay.
We have Gambit here who is about to come in with a message.
guys, if you want $20 TTS, that's streamlabs.com slash whatever streamlabs.
Did you hear the feedback?
Is that maybe that's just, anyways, Gambit?
Gambit 99.
Gambit 90.
Where's Gambit 20?
Not surprised she's divorced.
Uh-oh.
Is she aware of the statistics regarding children growing up in a single mother home versus two parents versus single father?
Quick response to this, if you'd like.
I mean, I wouldn't necessarily constitute myself as a single mother.
His dad is very much involved, and we have joint custody, equal joint custody.
I mean, if we're also going to talk about like the outcomes of children, there is a meta-analysis that discusses same-sex relationships have equal or better outcomes as heterosexual parents.
I think we just need to look at like what kind of community the single mother has, what kind of access she has to money, so on and so forth.
Got it.
Okay, and then Blake, can I have you pull this up?
I think it'd be better to just pull up the video because we're going to react to one of your videos about the whatever podcast.
Oh, right.
Better to do it now than on the dating talk panel, I think.
You got to stay for this.
I'm going to have a smoke while you go into it.
Oh, is this where you shame?
Is this where we'll wait?
I've seen.
No, I know, but we'll wait.
I think this is where you shame the sex worker, right?
Shame?
Yeah.
You call her a degenerate.
We'll get into it in just a moment.
What here?
We'll wait for Andrew to get back, but let me see if there's anything else really quick that we can do.
Guys, if you want 100% of your contribution to Goats Towards the Show, Venmo Cash App, Whatever Pod, like the video, please like the video if you have enjoyed the stream.
Andrew will be right back.
He just went to get a quick dewey quick smoke.
Twitch.tv/slash whatever.
Guys, check if you can follow the stream if you have a follow available.
If you're watching over there on YouTube, we've got almost like what, 9,000, 8,000 people watching, something like that.
So if you guys can, if you have a Twitch account and you're not yet following us, open up another tab really quick.
Go to twitch.tv slash whatever, drop us a follow.
We're less than a thousand away from 100,000 followers.
So if you can, we'd really appreciate the support on there.
Also, check if you have a Prime sub.
You can do this if you're watching this back and you're listening.
We don't need to be live.
Excuse me.
We don't need to be live for you to drop a Prime sub.
So if you have Amazon Prime, you can link it to your Twitch.
It's a quick, free, easy way to support the show every month.
Yo, Tagan, thank you for the follow.
Dirty, thank you for the follow.
Chew got, thank you for the follow.
Landon, thank you for the follow.
Crazy Ace.
Crazyce, thank you for the gifted subs.
Smokeable, thank you for the prime.
Okie, thank you for the prime.
Real deal.
Polo, thank you for the tier one.
Really appreciate it, man.
All right.
And then I'm trying to see what we have here.
You know what?
Guys, if you want discord.gg/slash whatever, check it out.
We got a great community over there.
And also debate university.com.
Andrew has a program called Verbal Combat.
And if you want to learn how to become a master debater like Andrew, you can check it out.
That's debateuniversity.com.
Reminder, we're doing a $20 roast session, $20 TTS for the last few minutes here of the stream.
So if you want, get those in.
I'm going to let some of these come through.
Let me see what we have here.
One sec, guys.
Oh, okay.
Stiffler.
Stiffler donated $19.99 for us.
Ask the panel to rate their looks on a scale from 1 to 10, excluding 7.
Do you want to start?
Do us the honors?
Yeah, 1.
1.
Okay, cool.
I give myself a 5.
I give myself a 5.
Andrew tends to give himself a 10, so.
All right.
I don't know if there's any debate there on that.
We have, come on.
Wait, what the heck?
Oh, we got this one.
Dude, this one's for you.
$20.69.
Come on in here, all safe.
Whoops him naked.
Cool.
Thank you, dude in the ladies' bathroom, for the message.
Appreciate it.
Brian is only donated $20.
Let this debate be evidence that Andrew does influence.
Make it easy.
If they're civil with him, he's civil back.
Fuck the haters.
Brian, maybe I missed it, but why did you cut Tuesday shows?
Tuesdays, so I mean, pretty much a couple reasons.
Couple reasons, primarily just in terms of the longevity.
Longevity, is that a word?
I thought you did offer Tuesdays.
Well, I thought I mispronounced it.
Longevity, I don't know.
If I were to continue doing two shows a week of the dating talk, I'd probably this would be the last year of doing the show, and then I'd be done with it.
I think I can continue the show indefinitely if I do it just once a week.
So I know some of you looked forward to the two shows a week, but I just thought, hey, you know, one show a week's a little more feasible.
So that's why the decision was made not to rule out that it couldn't.
We could return to doing Tuesday Tuesday shows two shows a week, too.
You're going to eat it?
Pour him in.
Oh, wait, what?
Pour him in.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
I did agree that I would fucking do it.
I'm not going to break my word.
All right.
Did he?
I did.
I agreed to you.
I would do it.
Here, let me hide this.
After they pour it in, though.
They have to pour it in.
They have to pour it in.
How much do they have to pour in?
I want to see $1,000 of pour in.
$20.
$20 chats just roasting the shit out of Brian and all that.
Hey, roast the shit out of me.
Yeah.
That's if I got it.
Dude, if I got to suffer, you got to suffer.
Wait, hold on.
I'm going to let these come in, though.
Wait, what?
Oh, I paused it.
That's why.
JJK donated $20.
Put this into YouTube by mistake.
Where at in Montana Coors, I bet you you stay in Bozeman or Missoula.
We don't claim you.
Number 406 hashtag native pride.
Graffito tagged donated $20.
If you don't eat the pineapple pizza, you lose it.
I've been sufficiently social shamed in taking a bite of this pineapple pizza.
You don't have to.
I don't have to.
Yep.
But now I'm kind of hungry.
Is this the 514?
I have a question.
Check.
The only reason you're getting this is because mystery bailed.
Andrew checks in the mail.
I like this approach, Brixham.
Keep up the good work.
Brixon.
It's my nickname.
DDD 314 donated $20.
Strong men have created such a great, safe, and free country that it has created bored, useless women like this who contributes nothing but destruction.
If the world was in peril, these ideals would cease.
Roast Brian.
We shouldn't use love kits because a love kitchen is a little bit more difficult.
I underscore her underscore underscore hymn and underscore logic donated $20.
We shouldn't use love kits because a love kit is not effective in determining between actual love and other causes of penetrative trauma like accidentally grabbing the wrong size gingerly in the dark.
I'm not sure.
What is a love kit?
I don't know.
Okay, great.
Gonna run alone in that.
All right.
Let's see here.
Sorry, guys, one sec while I get these pulled up.
Are you donating $20?
I've asked guests before, but perhaps she may know.
Does liberalism cause mental illness?
Or is it the other way around?
On top of the.
I mean, I've said before, I'm not a liberal.
Oh.
Leftist.
Leftist, yes.
I guess it depends on how we're defining liberalism.
I don't know why there's donated $20.
Andrew, thoughts on the upcoming release of Red Dead Redemption 3?
I haven't seen a release date on that.
Yo, Chris, thank you so much for the Isn'tthick donated $20.
When you have a society full of Andrews, you get a first-world country.
When you have a society full of feminists, you get population collapse, inflation, mental health crisis, etc.
Pizza Source donated $20.
Thank you, Pizza.
As a conservative, myself, with traditional values, Andrew Wilson is the absolute worst debater there is on all these platforms.
He is an embarrassment.
Okay.
Olivia donated $20.
I'm sorry, Jess.
My hate and insecurities got the best of me just like high school did.
Who is Jess?
I'm not sure.
Okay.
No, donated $20.
Brian, what's your burrito body count?
I've had probably a thousand burritos my entire life.
Otis Drift is good to see you, man.
Thank you.
Is that Canadian pineapple, Brian?
You damn syrup lover.
Eat it.
It is Hawaiian-style pizza.
Hawaiian-style pizza.
Brian, there's a weird delay.
If anyone wants to know the definition of catfishing, check the thumbnail for this video and then check the people in the studio.
I promise I'm only talking about Andrew.
Brian, show us that dumpy.
Whoa, that's crazy.
I mean, I you my picture that you took was already edited, and it seemed like you edited it more.
I appreciate that you didn't do me dirty, though.
We used generative fill in Adobe Photoshop.
Boosted the exposure, boosted the highlights, boosted the mid-tones.
I think my eyelashes, too.
We helped out a little bit.
You know, nothing crazy, though.
All right.
Edwin Lundis Corporator donated $20.69.
Andrew, pineapple on pizza puts hair on your arms.
Eat a couple.
JK, that stuff is disgusting.
I had to switch to Marlborough Black 100s due to price, so that way I can super chat and TTS to support you.
Edwin, thank you so much, man.
You've only donated $20.
Feminist arguments all boil down to don't hurt a girl's feelings.
Their reality and logic are based around not hurting a girl's feelings.
Lulu, thank you for that.
Rachel Wilson donated $20.
If you're a Marxist feminist, why did you get married?
Isn't that an oppressive institution?
You want to respond to that real quick?
I mean, at the time I got married, I definitely wasn't a Marxist feminist.
At that time, I would say I was more liberal, and I wouldn't even have identified as feminist.
All right, we got graffito.
Graffito tagged donated $20.
Brian, just gotta say, you really pulled out all the stops moderating today.
You worked the eerie hard.
Is the sarcasm coming through on this?
Keep up the hard work, man.
It is appreciated.
I mean, look.
Everyone was.
It was a pretty respectful debate.
There wasn't much interruption for the most part.
You guys let each other talk.
What else is there to really do besides sit here and eat pizza while you guys talked about necrophilia and what?
Have you had to moderate debates a lot?
Yeah, he's moderating.
I've moderated, but I'd rather it's better to just leave it open.
You want me to do that?
No, I mean, like, have it.
Has have you had to step in a lot?
Are there debates where it's been pretty bad?
I mean, when I'm moderating or hosting the dating talk panels, yes, but when it's just two people talking and they're conducting themselves in good faith, that's you pretty much just sit there most of the time.
I don't want to be like these debates on CNN or the presidential debates where they're just changing the topic every three minutes.
I like to let you guys just open convo for the next one.
I was just curious if there had been like really heated debates where you needed to step in.
Not 1v1 debates where I had no, no.
But perhaps in the future, who knows what the cards hold?
Elias donated $20.
Is this woman for real?
Men should be hunky-dory raising children that aren't theirs.
Benefit to the community.
So any random guy is eligible to join and claim resources.
So what community is there?
Shniko Zero 4 donated $20.
Fine.
For the pineapple pizza.
Andrew, your man-milkers are almost as big as Brian's dummy.
Whoa.
Shave your arms.
What the?
How much a bench?
Love you, boys.
Are you benching Andrew?
Are you benching?
A little bit.
Vader underscore donated $20.
Vader, thank you.
If it wasn't for patriarchy, we wouldn't have the two greatest media of all time.
Anime and bless is anime.
Andrew killed it effortlessly.
Brian, is this your aunt, or where did you find this woman?
She is really annoying and lame and ill-equipped to debate my retarded cousin, let alone Andrew Wilson.
Noah donated $20.
Thank you, Noah.
Andrew, stop being a puss and eat the pizza like a man.
Lou up the EU UAU.
Ah.
Thank you, Noah.
Appreciate it.
We have a few more coming through here.
Five Dillionaire Bachelor coming in.
Can I go to the bathroom?
No.
No.
I think we're about to wrap it up.
Since we're gaslighting men into accepting biological cuckery, I suppose this airhead was happily married to a guy who gave another woman and her children all his money.
Jess Gerald donated $20.
So, to summarize, she's Marxist, but not really.
She's feminist, but not really.
And every woman who woke me up with lip love is a predatory savage.
What was this?
Where are the feminist champions?
Pintaf donated $20.
Brian, do a non-dating show for a second one during the week.
Something less stressful to book.
Shake it up.
Yeah.
Whatever Wednesday.
Whatever Wednesday, maybe that'll be the thing.
Gambit 90 donated $20.
The only truth she spoke tonight was her rating of one.
I should sue for that thumbnail.
Straight fraud catfishing us with that photo of her.
First off, how dare you?
Donated $19.99.
Are you really a feminist, or is that just your excuse for still being alone at 40?
You're not 40, right?
I am not 40.
No.
36?
38.
38.
That's not 40.
Please.
We.
Whoa.
That cup came out of nowhere.
Guys, be accurate.
Be precise.
Don't be.
Two years is that's a big that's a lot of time.
Okay.
Uh here, let's do the video reaction.
Are you able to hold it for five, ten minutes, or do you really got it?
Um, I mean, yeah, but I do want to go soon.
To the bathroom?
No, I'm tired.
Oh, yeah, we're like gonna wrap up.
I just um, but do you want to use the bathroom first or here?
Go full screen, please.
All right, go ahead and make this conversation less boring.
Go ahead.
I'm waiting.
How often do you think about the Roman Empire, Brian?
Is that your best effort?
Sure.
In any case, you're not particularly adding to the conversation.
You've been disrespectful this entire time.
You're entitled.
You're rude.
You have TikTok brain.
You cannot stay focused.
We've only been live for an hour and a half or so.
I'm going to ask you to leave.
Okay.
So get up, fuck out.
On my dead-ass podcast, bitch, you fucking do only things, you fucking degenerate.
As if.
Hello, and welcome to my series As If, your feminist companion product to the Whatever podcast.
As someone who has been debating feminism on TikTok for two years now, I can see there's a very unique setup when it comes to men holding spaces centered around anti-feminist red pill, incel, or heavily religious themes.
There are many men who hold these spaces so that they can have access to abused women.
I think we can all agree on the setup, the whatever podcast employs.
They'll have the host, some red pillars, maybe some conservative talking heads, and then maybe some religious figures.
And these are all against OF and Instagram models.
The only time they have women outside of that context is if they're conservative, like Candace Owens or Lila Rose.
And obviously, they have this structure because their arguments will go unchallenged or be poorly challenged.
And I'm not saying Instagram or OF models aren't competent, smart people.
If you don't have the experience, if you don't know the arguments, and if you don't have the information, you're just not going to do well.
The only exception they have to this rule is for a Calidi.
And our girl brings a smoke.
I honestly don't care about the context of the video that I'm stitching because Brian's statements made it irrelevant.
He actually made a moral claim by saying because she's an OF model, she's a degenerate.
Did I say that?
This type of abuse is more than a moment.
No, I said degenerate.
I didn't say because she's an OF model.
Oh, yeah, that's true.
He just said you do women to be the perfect Instagram model or a sex worker.
These men consider you to be on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy.
However, if you're on this podcast, it's obvious to see that you've actually claimed some level of notoriety or economic success.
And within the red pillar, there is a special type of anger because not only do they view themselves as the oppressed gender, but now they see what they view as the most degenerate social class of women even achieving high economic success, which obviously they think is undeserving.
And I think why so many men are interested in this content is because it not only allows them to cosplay masculinity, but essentially to correct an injustice within their own mind.
And I think traditional masculinity is very much centered around male supremacy.
So they've manufactured this system where it's very unlikely that they are going to lose as a way to prop up a facade of intellectual superiority.
And on top of that, they get to humiliate and degrade the undeserving privileged class of women in a way they view that is very justified.
And as someone who has been in spaces like this with men like this, not only do they justify the behavior, the biggest red flag is that they enjoy it.
Okay.
A couple questions there.
Sure.
I think I stepped away when you specifically referenced this term abuse.
Yeah.
So the clip that, which, and by the way, you said you didn't care about the context at all.
So context doesn't matter to you.
So she could have just like stabbed a family member and I call her a degenerate and I'm in the wrong.
When I was referencing the system of abuse, I wasn't talking about that specific instance, but how the podcast is structured.
You were reacting to the clip and saying, but also giving it a treat of the overall strategy that the podcast employs.
Sure.
So that clip in specific is not abusive or abuse.
No, I wasn't referencing that clip as abusive.
The specific aspect What is abusive about the show?
When we talk about when men hold red pillar spaces.
Is this a red pill space?
Red pill, incel, manosphere.
Which one of those?
Okay, which one of those in mind?
I would say red pill.
How do you define red pill?
That women are the privileged gender in society.
That's red pill?
That's what red pill philosophy is, is that women are the privileged gender.
Women are the privileged gender.
Right.
Okay, I'll grant that.
I would dispute that, though.
That women are the privilege.
That's what red pill is.
What would you consider red pill?
Red pill is just a series of descriptors that are trying to identify the distinction between the way women and men act.
So what is abusive about the show?
I think when you have a panel to discuss certain issues and then kind of try to humiliate them based on their career choices or based on certain aspects of moral prescriptions, that that is a form of harm, abuse.
Is anytime you disagree with somebody, is that always you humiliating them?
No.
So what would be like an example of humiliation?
I mean, I think calling essentially when you have these spaces to discuss certain aspects and then essentially categorize someone as a degenerate.
I didn't say they didn't have a problem with the clip.
I mean that specific space.
I think misogyny is a form of abuse.
And so when you're holding a space to be misogynistic and experience hostility towards women, that that is the main purpose of it.
Can we define misogyny first?
Yeah, misogyny is the hostility towards women and girls for stepping outside of their patriarchal prescribed gender.
So what if they don't step out of their patriarchal prescribed structure, but you just hate women, but they're like falling into the patriarchal expectation of women, but you still hate women.
That would not be misogyny.
I think it would be hard to quantify like how someone hates women.
I hate women.
I hate just saying I hate you have to hate all women.
Let's say they do.
Wait, I have a question for you.
What if like a leftist male hated like conservative women who were PIC-me's and who were like adhering to patriarchal expectations of women?
Would that be misogyny?
No, the only exception I would give is if they wish them aspects of patriarchal violence.
So if like a leftist creator.
What is, wait, what is patriarchal violence?
Like rape.
Grape.
That couldn't occur under a matriarchy?
Well, that could also occur between two women.
Yeah, couldn't.
Well, grape is a form of men to assert domination over women.
Unless it's women doing it to women.
Right, but I'm sure we both agree that rape is a gender-based crime.
Let's try to use grape crime.
I'm sorry, grape is a gender-based crime.
No, I don't agree that that's a gender-based crime.
I mean, we even discussed earlier, like within the military, that women are going to be more likely to experience grape.
Yeah, but that's a different claim than it's gender-based.
Gender-based means it affects like pregnancy is gender-based.
That's a gender-based claim.
That would be a gender-based claim because women and girls are more disproportionately likely to experience it.
That's literally the definition of it.
So when you say gender-based, it just means more of?
Essentially, it happens to someone because they are a specific gender or it disproportionately happens to a specific gender.
Okay, so by that definition, yeah, I'll say that, well, no, actually, I won't even grant that.
So, even by that definition, no.
But I don't want to delineate because I do want to go soon.
Yeah, we'll keep it focused.
So, I just want to, I am keeping it focused.
I just wanted to clarify: I do think if a leftist creator wished grape upon a conservative woman, that would count as a misogyny because it is a form of patriarchal church.
And I think that's a good question-based violence.
Okay.
So, misogyny is not just hatred of women, there's other qualifiers.
I think the hatred of women is just not really a good working definition because it centers the perspective of the person rather than centers the experience of women and girls.
And then, I think we need to see that it also acts as a policing force to police women and girls' behavior to conform to a specific gender prescription.
Okay, so we're using a lot of the buzzwords here.
We're talking about oppression, abuse, humiliation, degrading.
These are things that you allege I do or Andrew does.
I think this space in general is a misogynistic space, yeah.
It's a misogynist.
Okay, so what is an example of something done or said that was misogynistic on this podcast?
I mean, I mean, what?
Do you want me to pull up tape and point to it?
Just I mean, just one thing.
Um, I mean, would you say that originally you did have uh like OF girls and Instagram models?
What do you mean, originally?
I mean, I don't know if that's your guidelines now, but guidelines.
I mean, so who you're looking for as dating show, you know, a part of your show.
Like, that's like 15 girls.
Hold on, are you saying you can only be misogynistic towards OF girls?
No, not at all.
So, I'm not sure if you're not a person.
I'm just a question.
I'm asking if that's a specific demographic when you're having guests on.
How would that pertain to misogyny when a woman who doesn't do OF can be a victim of misogyny?
Why does that?
Right, because obviously, OF and women who engage in sex work under patriarchy are seen as undesirable.
So, having that specific clientele is meant to shame and humiliate them for being on OF or so on and so on.
Yeah, so I'll answer the question: of all the guests we've ever had, the representation of women who do OF, it's about 15%.
So, some shows there's more, some shows there's none.
And we still do have OF girls who come on the show.
I think it's actually decreased a little bit.
There was perhaps a period where the representation of OF models on the show models was higher, but now it's maybe a bit lower, but they still come on the show.
And then we have normal girls who come on the show, we have women in college, we have women who are professionals, women in the hair, excuse me, healthcare field.
So, we have all kinds of different women who come on the show.
I don't think you've really answered my question, though.
What did I not answer?
So, you were asking me, well, what are the kinds of women you bring on the show?
I've just answered specific demographics.
And I do think how is the show misogynistic?
Can you give me one example?
Well, that is one example.
Simply by virtue of bringing only fans, some OnlyFans girls on the show.
Meant to essentially shame and demonize sex work and saying that you're a degenerate, you're low class because this is how you engage.
I categorically reject your presumption there that that's the reason we bring them on the show to humiliate or degrade them.
Okay.
So, your premise is flawed.
What Brian doesn't actually think that they're necessarily degenerates or things like that because they do sex work?
That's me.
I mean, I think it was definitely implied by a statement.
Which statement?
You degenerate, you do OF.
Yeah, but I mean they were trading insults, right?
Like you don't always mean what you say when you're trading insults.
To say just kidding is kind of my point.
Well, I mean, here's the other, I mean, there's this is why context matters.
The girl was, I suppose there were other factors that led me to make perhaps assumptions about that specific girl.
She appeared to have possibly been on some kind of drugs, possibly, blasted in, you know, tattoos, had a weirdo.
I don't know if this pertains to her being a degenerate, had a weirdo boyfriend who was like acting really weird.
Probably doesn't pertain to degeneracy really, but yeah.
Well, that was the specific context that you gave.
Yeah, so she had just gotten done trolling the show.
She came on in bad faith.
She wasn't paying attention.
She was being rude to me.
I was extremely patient with her.
I'd reached a point in the show where I was like, hey, I'm not dealing with this girl anymore.
I gave her plenty of chances.
She intentionally came on in bad faith and to troll the show.
I was in the process of kicking her off.
As I kicked her off in a bit of an abrasive way, although I think it was warranted, she says something along the lines of, good luck with your dead ass podcast, bro.
And then that's when I say, dead ass podcast, who the hell is the implication, who the hell are you?
You do OnlyFans, you fucking degenerate.
So I think in a situation where somebody has been insulting towards you, you might just be like, look, just take it on the chin.
You just, you know, don't sink down to their level.
Sometimes you're going to feel compelled to insult somebody back when they've just insulted you.
So I think context does matter.
Perhaps you think it doesn't.
I mean, sure, if you would have been like, you know, said something different, like, great, you know, fuck off, asshole, have a great day.
Fuck off, idiot.
Yeah, you know, something like that.
But to, well, and the degenerate was attached to the OnlyFans label.
And so it's not her behavior towards you.
It's not her regression.
It's just, it's just the fact that she's an OnlyFans model that makes her a degenerate.
I mean, isn't the basis of like insulting somebody, like you might, isn't insulting somebody the idea there is, and I try to avoid it as much as I can, the idea is to put in a dig that hurts them.
Like that's the point of an insult.
It's to say something that will be hurtful to them.
And so I could, like, couldn't you make, say the same thing about like if you were to make a commentary about somebody's physical appearance?
Like oftentimes that's how people will insult somebody is by saying something about their physical appearance.
Okay.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
Is there a question?
Yeah.
So it's like you're saying I'm making some sort of like moral.
I don't understand your objection.
But the fact that she's an OnlyFans model isn't what makes her a degenerate, not her behavior towards you.
Yeah, it's a component of that.
Not her.
Patrolling, not anything else, just this only one component.
Yeah, I mean, I could have used all kinds of other words.
I could have called her a whore.
I could have called her a prostitute.
I could have used all other kinds of words.
I think degenerate was actually a pretty good thing.
Right, it's not the word that necessarily that you're using.
It's in what the label is applied.
If you would have been like, oh, you're on drugs, you fucking degenerate.
Then I would have said like, oh, he's calling her a degenerate because she's a drug user.
But you said, you're a degenerate because you're an OnlyFans model.
So in what scenario can one call somebody a degenerate?
Like what if there's evidence of them being a degenerate?
I mean, I don't think being a sex worker innately makes you a degenerate.
What makes somebody a degenerate?
From her view, nothing.
I mean, I guess, I don't know.
Do you want me to look up what degenerate is it?
But if it means without morals.
Without morals.
If the insult is originating from me, why were you calling her?
Hold on, hold on.
If the insult originates from me, wouldn't it be my worldview that would instruct the insult that I opt to use in the situation?
Like, I get that you don't think that letting 10 dudes bang you in a day is degenerate, but like maybe I do.
So like, wouldn't it just be my preference to say?
Are you agreeing that sex workers are degenerates?
I suppose it would depend.
You'd have to give me like what does she do?
Because sex work is this nebulous term that is like, it can mean anywhere from a woman who is a prostitute.
Hold on, hold on.
Only fans.
Hold on, let me finish.
A woman who's a prostitute who sleeps with 10 different men a day to a woman who takes lingerie photos.
So are all sex workers degenerates?
I don't know.
Maybe, maybe not.
Andrew might say, yes, all of them are degenerates.
I'm sure he would, but I might say like a woman who takes like lingerie, like who's who's like in like traditional calendar lingerie model, is she a degenerate?
What does her being an OnlyFans model have to do with you calling her a degenerate?
Well, I didn't have a great opportunity to review her OnlyFans work, but like I looked at her Twitter beforehand and I've luckily it hasn't been burned into the back of my retina, but there were some degenerate things, for example, on her Twitter.
She was sticking certain objects that I don't think belong in certain holes.
It honestly doesn't matter anyway.
It doesn't matter.
Because the point is just to say that he can think that she's a degenerate and probably does think she's a degenerate, probably thinks sex work is degenerate, but that doesn't prove that he brought her on the show to shame her for being a degenerate.
That's the problem.
I guess the whole problem with that.
I mean, I would think that if you do have this common demographic within your panel and when there is conflict that arises, that that's what you highlight in terms of, oh, you're just this, you degenerate, that that can be a reasonable strategy, even if it's only 15%.
I mean, didn't you have this debate with RC that this is his issue with the whatever podcast is that it features sex work models?
Yeah, and his channel does too.
Right.
So then if we agree that you do feature sex work models in OnlyFans, that is a common demographic that comes on your panel.
It doesn't mean it's coming on for the purpose of you doing anything to them because, or to start a conflict where you call them a degenerate.
Well, I mean, in that aspect, it did.
And that was the context behind the insult.
You know, again, it wasn't any other behavior.
That doesn't show you.
That doesn't show the purpose of them coming on, though, is for that to happen.
That's the problem you have.
Like, you can say, Brian, you think they're a degenerate.
And I'm sussing out that your motivation is that you only bring these degenerates on so that you can call them degenerates.
Okay, that's fair, but it doesn't.
You don't even show hate and hostility towards them.
Yeah, but that doesn't actually prove the intent that he was bringing these women on is so that he can somehow do something bad to them.
I mean, I don't have like a computer with all clips where I can give you examples.
Even if you did, though, like let's say you had, let's say 50 or fuck, let's say 75%.
You got in a fight with 75% of them and called 75% of them and you got pissed at them degenerate.
That still wouldn't prove that you brought them on specifically to call them degenerates.
Like that doesn't mean that.
I mean, obviously this is one example, but if I had clips of other examples of showing hate or hostility, especially within these contexts, isn't hostility just like they don't like it or it doesn't make them feel good and they would feel hostility?
Like if a woman feels human beings.
Hostility can be aggression.
It can be change in tone.
It can be yelling.
It can be talking over people.
It can be steamrolling.
I mean, it can be a multitude of things.
Yeah.
So what's interesting to me, though, if we've had, I think, I don't recall the exact numbers, but I think I said it was like 15% of all the panelists have done the OF.
I think that puts the number at like 150 to maybe 200 OF girls have been on the show.
I think I've maybe called, that might be the only girl of the perhaps 200 OF models who we've had on the show who I've called degenerate.
So you're saying this one inch.
Do you have any men off the street?
No.
What do you mean?
The majority.
Hold on, wait, wait, hold on, hold on.
The majority of our guests are pre-booked and they have typically weeks or months to prepare to come on the show.
We don't make, we don't just try to get people out.
Like people reach out to us predominantly of all the guests that we have on reach out to us to be on the show.
Sure.
So when you are getting people on the show, who are the male counterparts?
What do you mean?
like chase um justin waller who how long what they justin waller was like on the show a year and a half ago or something i mean I mean, how old is that video?
It's mostly just three people.
He wasn't even in that video.
Yeah, it would be a lot of fun.
No, I mean, how old is my video?
A year and a half.
So it can be around that time as well.
Yeah, so you're looking at it.
Justin Waller came on the show two times.
Right.
So why are there women that are off the street?
Just kind of random women, whether they're college, whether they're OF, whether they're Instagram models.
But when it comes to the male panelists, they're hand-selected.
You know, they just aren't random callers.
How does that pertain at all?
Before we get to the point of view, when you're having these subject matter experts within certain aspects, obviously like Andrew, he's had a lot of experience when it comes to.
Andrew is not a subject matter expert on dating.
Not at all.
He doesn't study.
He does have subject matter expertise, right?
I mean, he's married, but I don't know if that makes sense.
I don't know if that makes it.
I've been out of the dating market in like half my life.
You've been married for what, 20 or like I've been with Rachel for 20 years.
Andrew wasn't even dating when they were dating.
Again, like, I don't know what you want me to do when I can't reference like specific clips that I don't have.
Well, you can't.
Well, so.
I mean, I explain things and you're like, that was a year and a half ago.
Justin Waller is not a sub.
What is he a subject matter expert of?
I mean like capitalism and economic success.
He's not a subject expert.
Yeah, that's not a subject matter expert.
So he's just a random guy.
Are you a subject matter expert in Marxism?
No.
How come?
I wouldn't say that.
How come you're not?
What makes you not that?
I definitely think that's what my platform is based on.
So I would say more of a subject matter expert than like the average person, sure.
Well, then that's all Waller would be.
Right.
So why did Waller come on?
Because he wanted to probably engage with these various individuals about their various worldviews.
The same reason that most people are.
So he's a random guy, just like the women are random.
Why do you take random callers?
I mean, all my callers are random.
Well, I don't understand.
If all your callers are random, is it because you just want to humiliate people who aren't subject matter experts like yourself?
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
You have different motivations than that?
That's really weird.
I mean, it really, like, you're not random, are you?
No, this is actually, hold on, Andrew.
We've talked about this before.
This is actually a fantastic argument.
This is a criticism.
Hold on.
Well, this is a criticism.
He kicks people off, too.
You kick people off.
Rarely.
He tells people to be quiet.
You mute them.
Well, this is a criticism.
And I think maybe Dean and Parker have forwarded this.
Like, oh, why do you bring on these, huh?
You said Dean and Parker forwarded this?
No, no, no.
They like put the argument forward.
Yeah, they forward this.
Oh, man, why do you want to bring on these girls who are just ill-prepared?
And da-da-da.
You host, if I'm correct, you host TikTok lives, correct?
Yeah.
So that's like, and secondly, thirdly, I don't even know where we're at.
Firstly, that's just random people scrolling on their phone.
I suspect the IQ of people on TikTok, no offense, is probably lower than the IQ of our average guest.
Like, look, TikTok's like, so basically what you have, you have a guy who's never seen your content before.
Okay.
And you put in these prompts, and Andrew called you out on this during the show.
You forward these positions.
I don't know if it's Mod and Bailey, but you're like, oh, abortion should be legal for the entire term.
And then you're going to capture these people who are like, whoa.
So she's okay with people who want to get an abortion like five minutes before.
And then you totally like change your position.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
So these people that you and you do, how often do you do the TikTok debates?
Multiple times a week?
It depends.
Okay, so you do TikTok debates.
These people are going in 100% blind.
They're just on their phone scrolling.
They happen to happen on your TikTok live through the algorithm.
They're like, oh, let me do a request.
And it's some like completely unprepared person who probably like never debates or he just has like vague, you know, political beliefs and maybe voted for Trump and he's like some grandpa or some shit.
And you've like have you have all your information in front.
You have everything.
And instantly they get thrown in.
All the girls who come on our show have weeks or months to prepare.
They often ask to be on the show.
They have opportunity to practice their debate skills.
They have opportunity to review for weeks or months past episodes.
So how are you saying that I'm somehow doing this unfair thing with my platform where they have to come in studio and they have an abundance of time to prepare, whereas you're just like, you're just picking people who are popping up in the algorithm.
Sure.
They have way less of the people you engage with have far less time to prepare.
And less debate experience, not subject matter experts.
And you have proprietary definitions for everything you put up there like abortion.
In fact, almost every definition you have for everything we've discussed today, which is why we spent more time on semantics and defining things than anything else, is because every definition you gave is proprietary.
None of them are like, like your definition of feminism, proprietary.
Misogyny, proprietary.
Well, just everything is a proprietary definition.
Well, my definition of feminism is from Bell Hooks, and my definition of misogyny is from Kate Mann.
So obviously.
But these are not the definitions which you'd find in the commons.
Like misogyny would just be.
Right, the dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive.
So obviously I'm not making descriptive definitions of this one.
They're proprietary.
Well, yeah, like how do you define fascism?
I'm sure that a lot of political scholars have different definitions of fascism because they're talking about how they're trying to convey the subject.
But when you're talking about abortions, people think termination of the features.
So if I can finish, when it comes to the abortion topic, I've run a different variety of backgrounds, which I'm sure you've seen, legal without restriction, abortion, legal and free online months.
Now I won pro-abortion because there were aspects of the prompt that I was sick of explaining.
So, one of the aspects of TikTok is just finding good prompts to communicate what your position is effectively.
Yeah, but this is the same thing.
And I don't use the abortion-free and legal nine-month-old.
Yeah, but you say abortion is the liberation of a pregnancy.
When you say that, I never said that.
Deliberate termination.
Sorry.
Nine-month.
Yeah, yeah, sorry.
Deliberate termination of a pregnancy.
Yes.
So the thing is, is like that is super proprietary.
When people are thinking.
Would you like me to use the medical definition from Harvard?
When people are thinking of abortion, right?
They're thinking that you're saying it's okay to terminate the baby up to nine months.
That's what they're thinking.
Sure, I don't discount that, which is why when they come up and you know, we discuss that, I'm not like, oh, you fucking idiot.
Like, ha Oh, right.
But I'm just saying it's pretty.
I'm going to tell them this is how.
Well, and I've told you that I have changed my prompt because there are certain heavy lifting things that I don't want to do.
Like, there's conversations I want to have, and I don't want to spend my time correcting certain assumptions.
So I have changed my background.
I don't use that anymore.
Okay, here, we'll come right back to it.
I just want to let's wrap up.
Hold on.
Hold on.
We're almost there.
I just want to say I'm ready to go.
Okay.
Hold on.
Just to do that.
I need to let a couple come through, though, before they fall off.
If Andrew eats the pizza, then next up is a pineapple and sour cream-filled burrito for Brian on Sunday.
He won't care.
What the heck?
That's crazy.
One sec.
Mr. Cooper89 donated $25.
Karl Marx was a notorious slop who sat around and wrote philosophy, refusing to work while his children died from poverty-related illnesses.
Archetype for all.
You gotta see what they're doing.
Edwin Libbers Corporator donated $20.69.
I watched one of Brian's first YouTube videos.
I do believe the Virgin claim long.
Can we get an actual debate for Andy?
Someone like Nick Fuentes or Charlie Kirk or Andrew Tate?
Much love, Brian and Andy.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it.
Rick's 93 donated $20.
Oh, yeah, you haven't eaten it, Andrew.
They haven't sent in a thousand bucks yet.
Give me a break.
Ricks, thank you for that.
There's a couple more coming through.
Repeal the 19th donated $20.
Thank you, for that.
Okay.
Double agent donated $19.99.
You must face so many struggles as a middle-class white woman.
There will never be a female president of the U.S. because you simply refuse to just make sandwiches and nurture.
Rachel Wilson donated $20.
I am a woman and I demonize sex work.
I support patriarchy and I think feminism is extremely harmful to women.
Is that misogynistic?
Is that misogynistic?
Yes, that's again why I said the definition is to center the experience.
You don't come off as intelligent, which is what you're trying to do clearly.
You simply come off as ignorant.
You're 38.
For God's sake, you lost badly.
Ravan Bones donated $20.
Andrew is right.
Any OF model is a degenerate.
Get that out of my society.
It contributes nothing.
I blame men for allowing them to think it is okay by being weak and giving them money.
Prometheus donated $30.
Brian and Andrew do not represent the words misogyny as they invite women.
You're using it as an ad hominem.
Thank you, Prometheus.
Appreciate it.
We have two more coming in.
Appreciate it, guys.
Thank you, Raven.
Thank you, Cuff.
Cuff underscore Joe donated $20.
Shout out to the feminist.
You're a good reason for why females shouldn't go to college.
You can't change the definition of words to suit your meaning, but the hubris of the modern ovary is forever lacking.
Lendl Taylor donated $20.
Andrew, how do you feel about apostate profit joining the Orthodox Church?
Brian, are all those donations from Beatin Cheeks and Grid One, aka the divisive content purse jockeys, super chill?
I mean, the donations for, I don't even think, I don't know if we saw Grid One or Cheeks tonight, but they're definitely regular patrons.
One question for you: do you think like defraud?
Do you think defrauding people is degenerate?
How are we defining degenerate?
Without morals.
Is it immoral?
I mean...
To defront people.
In what...
Like just fraud.
In any consciousness.
Just fraud.
Fraud.
Is that wrong?
Well, I mean, fraud is wrong, sure.
Okay, like the majority of OnlyFans creators are employing something called typers and chatters.
So they're representing to their predominantly male audience.
By the way, this is me typing.
This is me chatting with you.
This is a representation.
There's this term in marketing or in the legal world, false advertising.
These women are false advertising.
They're saying, essentially, purchase this product and you get to talk to me.
Spend this money, you get to talk to me.
In the reality, they're employing either a management company or they have like a typer, typically in like a third world country.
You know, it's typically a man who's going to be typing on behalf of the woman and sexting with these men.
I think if you're representing and you're saying, hey, I'm the one who you're going to be talking to, they are making a representation, a false representation.
That's fraud.
Point blank, period.
They're defrauding.
I think it's civil fraud and criminal fraud.
They are defrauding.
And if they're not doing it, then it wouldn't technically be fraud.
But the majority of these women have a management company.
They have typers.
They have chatters.
They have somebody else, typically a man, sending messages, and they're saying it's me, but it's actually not.
That's fraud.
That's degenerate.
I mean, sure, that's definitely an aspect of capitalism that I would agree with as well.
Do you think it's wrong?
Oh, okay.
You do think it's wrong.
Yeah, I don't think there's a lot of ethical consumption under capitalism.
Okay, but you just granted that fraud would be degenerate, so I think I was justified then to call her.
Again, just because she's like, is she engaging in this specific practice of saying like, pay me and I'll chat with you?
Again, like, I think you're really being dishonest.
How would it be dishonest about you through sex work?
You're trying to massage it to make it seem that you were demonizing other aspects rather than actually demonizing sex work.
This is actually my go-to.
My go-to.
Hold on.
Do you criticize me?
You're not going to dictate what my own position is.
You're kind of steamrolling me.
I'm not steamrolling you.
Let me respond to you.
No, I've been quite.
I've been moderating.
I've been quite the whole show.
You guys have been talking a lot.
Well, at least allow me to respond to that.
So this idea that this is like some sort of, I'm now forwarding this position about these women defrauding men, like that I'm trying to massage it.
Yeah, you're trying to massage it.
Hold on.
And what you were referencing.
Actually, I mean, Andrew can vouch for me on this.
When I have criticisms of OnlyFans, it's never like, oh, you post naked photos.
You're doing porn, porn bad.
I typically defer to this precise argument.
Well, I mean, you haven't given a position.
I defer to this position of you are defrauding these men by having typers, chatters, and doing false misrepresentation.
Is that not the case, Andrew?
Whenever OF does.
not like oh they're they're they're immoral because because they're posting nude photos no it's like i actually have not heard that No.
Well, I haven't heard Brian demonize women because they do sex work.
Because they post like nude photos.
It's like my attack on it tends to be.
That's usually me.
That's Andrew.
That's me.
I mean, I don't know how you can say that's not the statement that you said.
You're a degenerate.
You do OF.
You're a degenerate.
But if the majority of OF creators are engaged in defrauding their audience and you granted that fraud is degenerate, you are defrauding your OF audience, you degenerate, then I would probably give you more leeway.
Why do I need to add that qualifier?
Because that's the menu.
You're trying to massage the context to make it seem to fit a different.
If within my own worldview and within my experience, wouldn't I be the perfect person to know this?
I have women admitting to me on the show multiple times.
Yes, I have a typer.
Yes, I have a chatter.
They tell me after the show.
They have management companies.
I have men who don't have a proprietary definition of degeneracy.
That's it.
That's like done.
She has proprietary definition for all kinds of shit.
You can have proprietary definition.
Like, when you say proprietary, do you just mean prescriptive?
No, proprietary meaning it's a definition unto me.
It means so you're not using.
What's the difference between proprietary and prescriptive?
Well, it depends, like a prescriptive claim.
A prescriptive definition.
Oh, a prescriptive definition.
Yeah, so it would be a prescriptive definition, but it'd also be here.
I'll give you an exact definition.
Of the difference between proprietary and prescriptive.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yeah, so that we have the delineation.
I'll just make sure we get it right.
Really quick, while he's doing that, can you pull up the video again?
Because I just wanted to check the video tab.
Yeah, five, ten minutes.
Pull it up early.
You said that five, ten minutes ago.
I was wrong.
Pull it up really quickly.
We have seven hours.
You're in the window tab.
Video tab, please.
Can you skip forward to the abuse part?
I just wanted to make sure I'm quoting it correctly.
Skip forward.
In any case, you're not particularly active.
Yeah, so can you skip forward?
I mean, I should leave that.
Proprietary in this case.
Like, scroll, though.
Can you just scroll?
No, can you scroll forward?
Like, like, then they.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm looking for the...
Here, I need to hide this.
We have to hide.
They have women outside of that context as if they're conservative, like Candace Owens or Lila Rose.
And obviously they have this structure because their arguments will go unchallenged.
The abuse part.
I don't know where that is, though.
There's a very unique setup when it comes to men centered around anti-feminist or heavily.
There are many.
Yeah, I think you should go to the beginning because I think I said.
Abuse women.
Right.
And I also said that they're not in these spaces as well on TikTok, and that there is similar setups when it comes to this.
A lot of men will hold anti-feminist, highly conservative red pill spaces to enact misogyny against the women that they hold anti-male spaces to enact misandry upon the men that come into your TikTok.
You host TikTok lives and you specifically seek out to debate men who disagree with your politics and worldview.
Not men, women as well.
It just depends who requests.
Okay, fine.
Obviously, comes on that.
And we've debated against men too.
Okay, and mostly women come on here.
So we're.
I mean, I don't see you having, like, men come on.
Me and Andrew did a 2v2 debate against one guy who...
When was that?
It was...
It was more recent than the Justin Waller appearance, but it was, what, six months ago, something like that?
Something like that.
How old is this video?
Huh?
How old is my video?
Like two years.
Three minutes.
Or a year and a half.
No, no, no.
Not how long.
How long is it?
How old is it?
I think it's like a year and a half.
Well, it does, because obviously.
I'm saying that's a blink.
Oh, obviously that 2v2 was after I made this video.
Right, but now you're not like changing your position.
I'm now referencing that into words that have come out of your mouth.
I'm saying this is at this time based on the content that I had viewed.
Again, if you want me to be specific, I can give specific clips, but I'm not prepared to.
I don't know what you want.
You don't even need to give the clip.
Just tell me something that I have said that is misogynistic or abusive.
I think saying you're a degenerate because you're an OnlyFans is misogynistic, an OnlyFans model.
Because you are shaming.
Misogynistic.
Yes, you are shaming a sex worker.
So if I said that to a male OnlyFans model, would it be misandrist?
Or would it still be misogynistic?
Obviously, her gender is going to be at the center of the misogyny because a sex worker is acting outside of the patriarchal prescription of their gender, which is to be virginal, to be virtuous, not to sleep with men, so on.
I think male sex workers could be degenerate too.
So would that be misogynistic or misandrist?
Or neither.
It would be neither.
It wouldn't be misandrist.
Yeah, because that's not a social prescription of masculinity or of men under patriarchy.
What if it's under like a Christian worldview?
I don't holdview, so I can't tell you that.
Okay, so it's just.
So you have to understand that everything, everything that's come out of this view has been the definition only applies to the next proprietary definition.
Proprietary, meaning you own the definition.
Again, I haven't heard the difference between proprietary and prescriptive.
I really do want to go.
I just want to say that.
I don't want to make it seem like I'm trying to run, but this hasn't gone on seven hours.
Yeah.
But proprietary, in this case, like I'm sure you want me to be here willingly and enthusiastically, and I'm not.
How about this?
If I give you a heart out in five minutes, can you stay another five minutes?
Like it's 11.05.
How about 1111?
Lucky number.
That's six minutes, five minutes ago.
I'm done.
It's like rage quit done?
Again, like I've been saying I want to be done for a while.
Well, I mean, we were going to ramp up.
And it keeps pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing.
But there's going to be an expectation, just to let you know, our dating talk panels go longer than this.
So there is an expectation.
What expectation did you give me when we discussed it over DMs for this specific discussion?
I'd have to review the email.
I don't recall exactly.
It was three hours.
Yeah, it was going to be shorter, but how long?
To be fair, look, you brought up the, you guys started talking about necrophilia.
You started talking about some crazy things.
Again, maybe this is the failure of moderation for not moving topics or having a different structure when it comes to the debate.
But I think I've been a very willing and considerate and participant panelist.
And now that I'm done after seven hours.
I'm not forcing you to be here.
I'm asking you to ask me.
I know, but you're telling me, oh, you're going to rage quit when I wanted to go 20 minutes?
Okay, fine.
I was wrong for saying you were rage quitting.
I'm asking if you can stay for an additional four minutes.
That's it.
And it's a hard out.
11-11.
It's 11.06.
I'm keeping track here.
Fine.
Four minutes, and then.
Okay.
So when I say proprietary, I just mean personal.
It's your personal definition of a thing.
It's not.
I told you where I got them from.
And were their definitions proprietary?
So again, it doesn't tell me what the difference between a prescriptive definition and a prescriptive definition.
So a prescriptive definition is how the word ought to be used.
The difference between a descriptive and a prescriptive is it describes how people often use it in language.
And then so it's the same as prescriptive or descriptive in philosophy.
Prescriptive being what you ought to do, descriptive being just the descriptor of how a thing is.
So, okay, so if it's a prescriptive definition for a prescriptive definition.
Yeah, in the commons, there's going to be a different way in which abortion is used than the proprietary definition.
Sure, and I think there is validity in having different prescriptive definitions to explain a concept.
While the majority of abortions do end in the death of the fetus, I think that a lot of people have censored it then that that is the goal of the abortion.
That's not my criticism.
My criticism is just that everything that you utilize is a definition which feeds a definition, which feeds a definition which renders these concepts true, just definitionally true, but it doesn't render them actually true.
Like your definition of misogyny.
Your definition of misogyny is essentially only a way to demonize men.
So you say, well, my definition of misogyny is anything which upholds the patriarchy, right?
Basically?
No.
Okay, what is your definition of misogyny?
The hater hostility towards women and girls for stepping outside of their patriarchal prescribed gender.
Right role.
Okay, so you add the word patriarchy in there.
So any type of hatred for you for stepping outside of whatever patriarchal gender roles you have.
Gender is a patriarchal prescription.
Yeah, right.
But what you did is how we have conceptualized masculinity and feminism.
Well, I'm just showing you how you use the things to make them definitionally true.
That's my definition.
Yeah, okay.
Well, then they're using it to make it definitionally true, and you're then using it also to make it definitionally true, even if it's not true.
What definitionally true?
So the idea of patriarchy is not anywhere in any commons version of misogyny I can find anywhere.
Okay.
So when people are talking about misogyny, they don't mean, oh, you're not conforming to whatever this nebulous patriarchy wants you to do.
They're thinking that you hate women.
That's what they think.
Sure.
So you use this to say, see, you're actually, because you believe in things like patriarchy, you're definitionally a misogynist.
No, you're fucking not definitionally a misogynist.
You're only definitionally a misogynist under your proprietary definitions.
That's my problem with Marxists in general.
Every time I debate with them.
What's not a Marxist definition?
Every time I debate with Marxists, they use proprietary definitions that feed proprietary definitions to make them definitionally right.
I don't know why you think this is a Marxist definition.
I've told you it's from a feminist theorist, Kate Mann.
And is Kate Mann a Marxist?
I don't think so.
Okay, well.
I don't know her.
What I'm saying is that this is a common definition.
You created one of the top 10 feminist thinkers.
Okay, well, this is arguments to why this definition would work better functionally.
Why?
I think when we categorize misogyny as the hatred of women, how can you determine outside of a man saying, I hate women, that he hates women?
Because he can just essentially say, like, oh, well, I love my mother.
Oh, well, I love my sister.
So of course I don't hate women.
So I'm not being a misogynist.
Yeah.
What's wrong with that?
But when we're, because then...
Because then you can't classify anybody as a misogynist.
The definition is.
No, it's still not meaningless.
It absolutely is.
Oh, you can say that a person hates all women.
They're a misogynist.
Or you can make another determination.
All women is absolutely ridiculous.
Or you can say that that's because you want it to be.
Every single woman, like what man would ever meet that standard?
Is it okay to hold it?
So then no one's a misogynist?
Well, first of all, there are men who meet the standard of hating all women.
Who?
The men who hate all women.
Well, where are they?
Men who have described themselves as, I hate women.
I hate women does not mean I hate all women.
Okay, but when they say, I hate all women, do you take them at their word?
I have not met one man who says I hate women.
It seems to me like you just want to, you could actually describe it in different ways, too.
You can say, you hate most women or you hate a significant portion of the population.
Does that now not make you a misogynist?
Yeah, you can do that, right?
You could do it in any different way.
But what you're trying to do is only trying to expand the definition of what makes a person a misogynist.
I'm trying to make it functional because it does address different concepts when we're talking about misogyny and patriarchy.
Obviously, under patriarchy, it's going to have the prescription of supporting male domination and supremacy, which is going to have women as subservient or as secondary.
And so there's going to be specific constructions around that.
And when women don't adhere to it, they receive hate and hostility.
So it is acting as a police of the patriarchy.
How can you prove that they're receiving hate and hostility just because they're women?
Like if I hated a guy for those same exact reasons, right?
Stepping outside of whatever their patriarchal role is, am I a misogynist then?
Well, no, because again, it would be towards girls and women.
Oh, right.
So what would you call if you do to a guy?
Nothing, right?
He's not a misogynist.
I mean, technically, that would be the definition of misandry.
I mean, if we're misandrist.
Yeah, that they're opposite, that men are not adhering to their patriarchal position.
So just real quick, so that we can wrap this up.
I know you want to go and all that.
Okay.
And it is 12-12.
I'll finish it like right now.
It's 12-12.
It's a hard out.
Yeah.
Well, I didn't make the agreement.
I just want to finish the last point.
Last last.
I mean, I stayed till.
I gave her the heart out.
If you want it, you're welcome to take a look.
But I would like to ask one last thing.
I mean, I would like to finish and close.
Yeah, close.
Should we do?
Can we do close?
Is that what I'm doing close?
How about this?
We'll do this.
We can do it tomorrow.
So whatever your points are, do you want to save it for tomorrow?
And do you want to close?
So I think if I recall, who opened?
You opened first.
So Andrew, you get to close first and then you can make it clear.
Yeah, yeah, I'll close first.
So yeah, it's always the same thing.
It's always just expand the definition of the thing.
She says it makes it more functional.
It's like, no, it doesn't actually make it more functional.
You can have tons of different definitions for misogyny that are functional.
For instance, I just don't like X thing about her because she's a woman.
That would be a perfect example of what you could call misogyny.
Because it's a woman, I don't like this trait.
That's easily provable and demonstratable.
It's because she's a woman.
That could be considered misogyny.
It's totally functional.
There's like a zillion different ways to do this.
But what happens with feminists, they constantly take words in the commons, and then what they do is they redefine them in order to expand what their meaning is.
And then they make the next definition in order to expand on that meaning as well to make the first one make sense, et cetera, et cetera.
So you spend all your time with them unraveling the semantics in the language before you can even get to a damn argument, which they never have because the second you move it outside of their definitions, there is no argument to be had.
It's just, it's all definitional based.
It's just based on my proprietary definition of this word, this word uses the loaded context of the word like misogyny, which is very loaded.
It's a very loaded context.
But people don't think of this word as meaning, well, based on my proprietary definition, it actually means behavior which doesn't move outside of the accord of what the patriarchy would think your behavior ordinarily should be.
Nobody thinks of it that way.
They think of it as you hate women or you hate people based on the fact that, or you, yeah, you just hate them based on the fact they're women.
That's it.
That's what they think misogyny is.
So, what happens is you take this term, which is loaded in the public domain, and with the hatred towards women, and then you expand it to include all these other things.
So, you can use the hatred around the room and expand that to more men who don't fall under the idea of hatred of women.
And it's a typical bait and switch, and it's very frustrating because they do this with other things too.
They do this with fascist, Nazi.
At this point, by the way, you're basically just a Nazi if you're not like, I mean, if you're not like just on your knees worshiping trans LGBTQ women, you're just a Nazi.
Like, that's that's the way they view it because they've expanded the definition of what that is.
So, this is just like how it always works, and it's super frustrating.
And you can barely get to any points because you can't address the point outside of their definition.
So, they just make everything definitionally true.
It'd be like if I said, Well, I think misandry is when you talk back to me.
It's like, well, they'd be like, No, it's not.
I'd be like, Yeah, I think it's just like when you talk back to me, that's misandry.
Would that be true?
No, right?
It wouldn't be true, but you, I mean, you could, you would, it would be definitionally true if she then talked back to me and I called her a misandrist, right?
That would be definitionally true.
And this is how all these loaded terms work.
So, it's super frustrating.
All the things that we went over very quickly in the beginning, she never really gave a good account for first, second, third wave feminism feeding women into the capitalist meatlock or meat grinder, except to say, Well, I guess I don't actually agree with those waves of feminism, even though I'm a feminist.
I'm just on some weird, bizarre fringe end of feminism.
We got into the feminist movement and oppression, cruel and unusable punishment.
There wasn't a lot of arguments there either.
Let's see, what else did we get into here?
Oh, yeah, we got into debt, and it doesn't seem like the idea that women now being in debt in any way, shape, or form makes them more liberated than when they depended on their husbands.
She just kind of says, Well, I just think that they are.
There's no real good reason that she ever gave for it.
And then, what else did we cover?
A few things, a few other things.
I was trying to take notes as I went.
Oh, yeah, jail.
She doesn't believe in jail, she just believes in rehabilitation.
But then when we dive into what rehabilitation is, it's basically jail.
They can't leave, right?
And if you do leave, they're going to come get you and take you back.
It's like, it's basically jail.
So, it's just all these crazy ass circles.
And then we get to the idea of abortion, the idea of murder, things like this.
And so, that was a bait and switch.
It's not really all nine months.
It's, again, a very proprietary definition of abortion designed to bait and switch.
And then we got into consent.
You know, she thinks that two people are drunk, they're graping each other.
If a husband wakes his wife up with sex, he's a grapist.
If she wakes him up with sex, she's a grapist.
It's like that shit's fucking crazy.
But at least there, we got a definition of what it was that we wanted so that we could point out the insanity.
So, I'm done with that.
That's my closing.
I appreciate it.
Henzo?
Yeah, so I think when we're talking about specific concepts that we want to convey, it's disingenuous and actually a logical fallacy to just say that, oh, we should define these words as the definition the dictionary prescribes because that's how like the commons uses it.
If we're having an intellectual discussion and I say something like, well, peanut butter supremacy, and you're like, Well, what is peanut butter?
And then we agree on the definition, then essentially I've just effectively communicated my concept to you.
We just use words as symbols.
And so, using abortion in this aspect, like I've talked about before, I think a lot of people have the notion that abortion, the purpose of it, is to terminate the life of the fetus when that's not true.
It is to end pregnancy.
And that is an important distinction that I want to make because there are cases where the fetus has already passed and the body has failed to complete the miscarriage.
And so, an abortion is necessary, where there are health complications, and deliberately terminating the pregnancy is necessary.
And so, and I just can't believe that we have a debate for several hours and even take the time to outline how we're conveying certain concepts.
And then, because the concept is concise, it's disingenuous because it doesn't agree with the dictionary.
That just seems so contradictory to me.
I think in aspects of sexual consent, yes, we absolutely want to have a conscious partner.
That's just absolutely wild to me that he's more interested in his wife sleeping rather than just waking her up and wanting to engage, where you know, consent is reversible and there's mutual experience and pleasure.
I mean, he even said himself he's only worried about his own experience, which is very red flag for me.
We did talk about the different waves of feminism, which I even said I didn't like categorizing feminism within that method because then it leaves out specific sects of feminism when it comes to abolitionists who were feminists, which were obviously going to be a lot of women of color.
And I don't want to whitewash when it comes to certain ideas of feminism, that just because bourgeoisie white women wanted to participate in voting in political power with men, that somehow this encompasses the entire first wave.
I think that's marginalization of racial groups.
And I already did disagree with him that I don't like liberal feminism, that we should be looking for women to find the means of liberation under capitalism.
I think if we give women more choice under oppression, that's better than less choice.
And so, that's what that would boil down to.
But obviously, I would like to get rid of the oppressive system in general.
We didn't really talk anything about second, third, or fourth wave feminism.
I do want to highlight too that I think he gave some information that was incorrect.
People do live long, healthy lives with just one kidney.
So, sometimes in these discussions, it's hard to always fact-check, which I do want to say to your point.
I definitely give people on my life the space to look up information or to give me what they're reading because I do want the intellectual challenge, I do want the discourse, I do want the knowledge, where obviously we're limited within this kind of purview to really ask for sources, which I know can be very boring and take time.
But that's kind of another delineation I think that's important to make.
I mean, the abolition of police in prisons is not a new take.
I'm not the first person to have that.
And again, I think just to say that jail is just sequestering from society, again, is an inaccurate way to represent what prison and what policing actually is.
Even prison, especially within America, is just a new strategy to continue to enact slavery.
And obviously, since people of color are disproportionately affected by the police, it's just a new method to do so.
And then, prisoners don't have, they're not humanized, they don't have rights.
And I do think, even when people have committed harm in society, that they don't lose their humanity and dignity to where we can just treat them like garbage.
And so that's the delineation between prisons and then obviously having someone who's committed, depending what crime it is, what other strategies we can take for them so that we actually prevent the harm in the future rather than just punish and release them into a system where crime and harm is prevalent.
I think policing is different, but we didn't really touch on policing, so I won't touch that.
Yeah.
Oh, sorry, is there more?
No, I think that that sums it up.
Okay.
Appreciate it.
Rachel Wilson says, I've given Andrew lifelong irretractable consent.
Lady, it's called marriage.
I think it's weird that you think it's weird.
I don't know if you want to respond to this, but we can leave it there.
No, I don't.
Okay.
We'll leave it there.
I know you have to go.
I'm going to let some of the other chats come in so me and Andrew will continue the stream.
I can't end it immediately just because we have them coming through, but you want the heart out.
So thank you for coming, Kenzie.
Appreciate it, Kenzie.
It was a very interesting debate.
I think honestly, I think it was, we've done a lot of these debates.
I think, Andrew, maybe this is probably one of the better ones in terms of an opponent.
Sure.
Okay.
All right.
I don't know.
Trying to do a little compliment there at the end.
But, Kenzie, thank you so much for coming.
Do appreciate it.
We'll see you tomorrow.
And please don't report us to the police that we held you hostage there at the end.
Thank you, Kenzie.
Oh, is he about, guys?
He's about to eat.
Oh, my.
We missed it.
Did we miss it?
No, no.
Was it good?
I snuck it in, bro.
Well, see, here, guys, snuck it in when you couldn't see because I'm a jerk.
This is wow, rude.
I waited until Brian couldn't see and snuck it in just to rob him of the pleasure.
Wait, wait.
Where are you going?
I'm going to get some water and wash his shit hard.
Guys, I'm going to let a couple of things come through here.
Let's see here.
All right.
Stephanie.
Thank you, Stephanie, for the membership.
Okay, final call, guys.
If you want to get the $20 message in, the heart out.
I'll let the rest of the messages come through.
Then we'll get this wrapped up here.
So, boom, boom, boom.
They held Mass Bundy's soldiers.
Swimming in Spermatosa, they were.
It was here that communal children were stored alongside the communal spears.
Many such cases.
Many, many such cases.
Thank you.
Blathis donated $20.
If the world is a sexist patriarchy and there are 3.8 billion women on the planet, why is it still dirty?
Wow.
Oh, wow.
Sick Wolf Tag donated $19.99.
Can you misogynists please let Kenzie free already?
We've listened to you talking about grading your wife, Egyptian gods, the drafts, slur, and more grading of wife for seven hours.
We get it.
Hail and well met.
Oh, it's lol paladins.
Yo, good to see you, man.
I haven't watched this debate yet.
Thank you.
But I can summarize.
Boys drool and girls gruel.
That's why I identify as the Norc.
The red pill men love women too, but I bet this feminist would disagree.
Yo, lol paladins.
Thank you so much, man.
It's been a minute.
I haven't seen you in a while.
But guys, can we get, guys, this is an OG supporter.
Can we get some W's in the chat for Lol Paladins?
Excuse me, really good to see you, man.
Great to see you.
Thank you so much.
All right, guys.
So we're going to get this wrapped up here.
Guys, if you enjoyed the stream, you can like the video, please.
Also, final call for Twitch.
Guys, go to twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a quick follow in the prime sub before I send out a raid.
Twitch.tv slash whatever.
Drop us a follow and a prime sub.
Also, guys, debateuniversity.com.
I've mentioned it a couple times tonight.
DebateUniversity.com.
Andrew has a program, Verbal Combat.
If you want to become a master debater like the great My Caucasian Andrew Wilson, you need to go to debate university.com.
You can get the program VerbalCombat, debateuniversity.com.
And we'll do, if any of these come through, I'm going to do a Twitch raid.
We're not even going to pull it up.
On Twitch, do you know how to pull up?
Is it just the Twitch main channel?
No, so it's you.
You're going to have to go to the stream.
You know what?
I'm just going to do the raid.
Don't even worry about it, Blake, just because we're way over time now.
So don't even worry about it.
So yeah, guys, please kindly like the video.
Those of you watching on Twitch, I'm going to raid Peekaboo IRL.
He's playing World of Warcraft Classic Hardcore.
He's got a level 60 Undead Mage.
So I'm going to get that sent in just a second.
I do want to say thank you, everybody, for tuning in tonight.
We will be, we've got a lot planned.
If you want to hear the schedule really quick, guys, tomorrow, dating talk, normal time, Monday, debate, Tuesday, debate, Wednesday, debate.
That's going to be at, let's see here.
We're aiming for like 4 p.m.
We might go live a little earlier, might be a little later.
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 4 p.m.
Be sure to check it out.
Give me one sec here, guys.
And thank you to everyone who super chats, donates, and supports the show.
Like I said, dating talk tomorrow.
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, debates with the great My Caucasian Andrew Wilson.
Let's get some 07s in the chat, guys.
07s in the chat as I get things closed out here.
Okay, thank you guys for watching on Twitch.
I'm sending the raid right now.
Thank you guys for watching on Twitch.
Boom.
And then that should have gone out.
And then I'll do the intro, okay, Blake, but give me one sec here.
And guys, can we get a little W's in the chat for Blake?
He's the new recruit.
He was handling the ones and twos behind the scenes.
So W's in the chat for Blake there, new member of the team.
And just double checking, we're all good here.
Yeah, I think everything looks.
You know what, Andrew?
One more bite.
Come on, bro.
No way.
Come on.
No way.
Just take, how about this?
One pine.
Take one pineapple.
Just pluck it in.
Nope.
I wanted to punish you back for punishing me with that.
And I feel like I did that successfully.
Find me not getting to see it.
Find me not getting to see it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It was pretty brutal.
It was like right there live, and I didn't see it.
I see the whole time.
I didn't even see it.
It's like if you had sex with the world's hottest woman, but you don't remember it.
What's the point?
It's like bragging rights, but it's like you don't even anyway.
Well, not only that.
You have to go back.
You will be able to see it, but only the same way the whole audience did, which robs you of the experience if I was there when that happened.
Damn.
You know what, Andrew?
I'm pretty happy about that.
Yeah, I'm going to be ordering pineapple pizza.
Next four days.
The next four days.
And I'm going to get a pineapple, a whole raw pineapple, too.
All right, guys.
I hope you guys have a good night.
We will see you guys.
Oh, Andrew, he's coming back.
He's going to wave goodbye.
Take care.
Good night, guys.
Good night, guys.
▲
Export Selection