You tell me, tell of of us, that walking away and allowing someone to live is the exact moral equivalent as killing that person.

Roger Scruton recalls the exact moment he became a conservative during the 1968 Paris riots: “When I looked down the street and saw all these rowdy students throwing stones at policemen, I just said to myself, ‘Whatever they believe, I believe the opposite.’”

In your opinion, what’s the one piece of Howard’s music that stands above the rest?

The idea that being married automatically makes you an expert on marriage is ridiculous and needs to stop Will Smith is married. Alec Baldwin is married. Haley Bieber is married. Prince Harry is married. Yet all of them are in toxic relationships, and not people you'd want to take marriage advice from In fact, we now live in a world where gay people can get married, and they don't have even have to be gay for each other, like Candace Owens and George Farmer This isn't to say married couples have no wisdom to share, but there is a tendency online to treat a marriage certificate like a rhetorical trump card and it's really toxic, especially if you understand how unhealthy relationships typically work Thing is, people who are happily married don't feel the need to police other people's relationships. They're content with their lifestyle, they know what they agree and disagree on. They praise each other to friends and family, they'll get excited talking about the things they like to do together. But what they don't do is look at people in unhealthy relationships and attack them. They know if their partner treated them that way, they'd want to leave, too. They'll affirm their own happiness, but also acknowledge not every relationship is the same It's actually the people in unhealthy relationships who spend the most time policing other people's relationships and constantly reminding others that their vows make them an authority on marriage A good case study of this is Rachel Wilson (who blocked me, all because I shared this adorable photo of her and Andrew as teenagers, I don't know why she got so offended, I thought it was a lovely photo. Grok worked so hard on it, and she didn't even say thank you) Anyway, I generally try to protect my ears from Rachel Wilson's shrill voice as much as possible, but there was one thing she said on a podcast (I think it was Timcast, if I remember right) where she said she doesn't think emotional abuse is real This made me do a double take, because here's the thing: emotional abuse is the only kind of abuse women actually outpace men in, and are often better at Rachel Wilson spends ungodly amounts of time talking about women being abusive, yet disregards the existence of the form of abuse women are most likely to engage in This is the definition of cognitive dissonance Of course she knows emotional abuse is real; she experiences it all the time Her husband calls her a 6, boasts about how often he tells her to shut up, he's laughed about having sex with her while she sleeps, he degrades her by constantly fetishizing a version of womanhood that she can never live up to due to her past; the mask slips every time they step on a panel Both of them clearly have terrible emotional regulation, constantly devolving into hostility, cussing people out, calling them names - and that's when the cameras are on Rachel then spends her energy acting as his public attack dog, picking fights with anyone who criticizes him, doing whatever it takes to protect his reputation Don't forget the viral video that showed her standing up and screaming at another panelist "KEEP SHAKING" basically ready to get into a fistfight, meanwhile Andrew just sat there laughing This is especially bizarre given how much they lecture everyone about Biblical submission and men leading their wives Notice how Andrew doesn't make any effort to deescalate the situation to try and save her the embarrassment; instead, he watches his wife publicly humiliate herself with a huge grin on his face It shows their entire shtick is a sham - she isn't a meek submitter to a strong patriarch; she's an unhinged enforcer he uses to do his dirty work while he gets a thrill out of the chaos By publicly denying that emotional abuse exists, Rachel normalizes being degraded so she doesn't have to confront what's actually happening at home One thing I learned from being around DV victims is that they're almost always just as volatile and abusive as their husbands, except they take it out on others - not just their kids, but the public in general This obviously doesn't excuse their behavior, nor does it make them in any less need of safety from a guy who's trying to kill them, but it's very eye-opening when you realize abusive relationships tend to be far more grey than Hollywood makes it seem And actual research backs this up: Research from Dr. Murray Straus and decades of sociological data using the Conflict Tactics Scale show that psychological and emotional abuse is largely bidirectional, with women engaging in non-physical aggression at rates equal to or higher than men (and remember, this is the kind of abuse Rachel "advocate-for-men" Wilson denies exists) Research from social psychology on displaced aggression demonstrates that individuals trapped in abusive environments at home frequently project that unaddressed hostility outward because they can't control the abuse in their own household - in other words, Rachel is an overgrown schoolyard bully pushing other girls into the mud to cope with her personal life Research from Evan Stark on coercive control shows that victims of domestic degradation constantly rely on minimization and outright denial to resolve cognitive dissonance, because admitting the abuse is real would shatter their identity, their platform, and their marriage And make no mistake: this isn't a one-way street where Rachel is an innocent victim She's actively participating in this toxic cycle and giving as good as she gets She abuses Andrew right back through constant manipulation and downplaying her own toxic behaviors - like in the interview where she casually described throwing a remote at him and flippantly dismissed it as "being sassy." She tries to save face by spinning it as an example of him setting boundaries with her as a man, but in reality, she clearly didn't learn a damn thing, because throwing a remote at your partner isn't "sassy," it's physical aggression In essence, she uses public enabler-aggression and weaponizes his insecurities as fuel for her online persona Andrew's constant need to publicly humiliate and degrade her is his defensive reaction to being trapped in a mutually abusive nightmare - he takes out his aggression on the public and on her to prove to himself that he's still in control The last thing on earth Andrew Wilson wants to admit is that he's being emotionally abused and dominated by his crazy ass wife behind closed doors, so talking trash about her is his way of getting revenge and saving face Never forget - people who constantly remind the public how happily married they are pretty much always miserable We see it all the time on social media You know the couple They're always posting selfies with heartfelt captions about how deep their love is and hashtagging "army wife" and I'm like yeah, okay, I know you in real life, your husband literally pimps you out to his Army buddies because you're all a bunch of sick freaks, but by all means, go off on the sanctity of marriage, Janet

me when i say “girl or abortion” around the wrong people

How do you guys even want to have sex with a woman who doesn’t want to have sex?

Threatening divorce to gain nonconsensual access to your wife's body is emotional manipulation at best, and coercion at worse The problem with "duty sex" is it gives men permission to ignore their wives' needs in the relationship Men who actually respect their wives see her not being in the mood as a sign to figure out whats going wrong with the relationship But if you can just bully her into it anyways, why bother? Why bother planning a date if you can just threaten divorce to get her to have sex with you? Why bother remembering to get her something for Christmas if you can just threaten divorce instead of having to remember her favorite color? Why bother asking her how her day was when threatening divorce is easier than listening to her problems? Why bother doing some self-reflection on the way you let your family treat her if threatening divorce is easier than setting boundaries with your overbearing and difficult mother? Why bother trying to figure out why the divorce "came out of nowhere" when you were too busy getting your rocks off? The problem with "duty sex" is that's it doesn't help intimacy; it destroys it If a partner feels pressured, coerced, or fearful due to threats of divorce or conflict, the nervous system enters a state of self-protection rather than vulnerability It trains your wife’s body to brace for impact every time you touch her, which is why you often hear divorced women say "he makes my skin crawl" It’s like forcing a plant to grow by beating the soil - you'll get some temporary movement, but you are killing the roots in the process Duty sex locks couples into a miserable loop where one partner feels chronically rejected and the other feels chronically objectified The pursuing partner misinterprets the compliance as a fix, while the retreating partner dissociates during the act, widening the emotional chasm You are trading a living, breathing connection for a compliant ghost, and then act like it's mystery when she becomes numb, checks out, and eventually walks out the door