Ideas Have Consequences Ch 1-3 Discussion

Richard Weaver’s Conservative Realism and the Book’s Central Thesis

We're gonna discuss this book and I have my dad and my brother. So my dad is Scott Harris, and he's a pastor graduated from Master's Seminary and My brother is a school teacher in Tennessee. One of the things that I wanted to bring you into is the discussions growing up my family would have Around the kitchen table usually but we would talk about things that we were reading some sometimes things I would read in school.

Books like this I like ideas of consequences are really I think good for that. Because there's just a lot of material in it. That's Really thought-provoking. In fact, we could probably spend days and days talking about some of the things Richard Weaver brings up and the reason I want to do this is because it's a lot different than what I've been doing on the podcast, which is talking about evangelical elites and where they're messing up sometimes and social justice in particular that issue and It can be really discouraging I think for a lot of people who everywhere they turn it's bad.

There's problems there and we're going to talk about some bad things again today. But I wanted to at least put positive resources in your hands. Instead of doing a lot of book reviews on here's another bad book and let's talk about how bad this book is.

I wanted to start giving you authors and books that are helpful in Certain ways and this is a book that I found helpful and people have often asked me how I started the podcast where I got my understanding of the issues that I'm critiquing and It's hard for me to answer that because there's a whole bunch of authors and influences.

But Richard Weaver is definitely one of them. Weaver is considered a conservative and I want to read for you a Quote from him from a Work that he did called life without prejudice. He says this it is my contention that a conservative is a realist.

He believes that there is a structure of reality independent of his own desire. He believes that there is a creation which was before him which exists now. Not just by his sufferance and which will be here after he's gone.

This structure consists not merely of the great physical world, but also of many laws principles and regulations which control human behavior. Though this reality is independent of the individual. It is not hostile to him.

It is in fact amenable by him in many ways. But it cannot be changed radically or arbitrarily. This is the cardinal point the conservative holds that man in this world cannot make his will his law. Without any regard to limits and to fix the fixed nature of things.

So you see in Weaver's conception of what conservatism is something that I think a lot of modern conservatives. Conservative industry conservative thinkers. They've lost this that it's the permanent things it's.

It's this idea that there is a created order and that we ought to conform ourselves to that. We it's not just that we have practical ideas that are better than the left. Better than those who hate God even it's that we actually are trying to live within the natural world the pattern that God has laid down and so Richard Weaver just a little biography about him.

He was the oldest of four siblings his father died when he was six. His father owned a library stable near Asheville, North Carolina. And after the death of his father's family moved to Lexington, Kentucky so he was a southerner and that's where his mother managed a Millenary business which is hats they made hats.

Weaver became a socialist in college at the University of Kentucky. But but rejected socialism while attending Vanderbilt University. Where he fell in love with the Old South under the tutelage of John Crowe ransom.

And there's a book actually John Crowe ransom. Contributes to call I'll take my stand and we may do one of those. That book or one of those essays in the future for this format, but anyway, that's who he studied under and his dissertation was published in a book called the southern tradition at bay and In that book he praised the besieged virtues of hierarchy chivalry and religiousness that he's found in the Old South.

Weaver received his PhD from Louisiana State University and he taught rhetoric for most of his career at the University of Chicago. He intended to retire and live in his ancestor ancestral land in Weaverville, North Carolina.

But a heart attack in 1963 prevented his plans from becoming reality. Weaver is recognized today as one of the main founders of the traditionalist element of modern conservatism which focused on preserving Western traditions against modern societies technology industrialism and Urbanization.

His prophetic insights ensure his continued relevance through his 20-year career. Weaver published 115 book reviews essays and pamphlets. Eight books are published under his name ideas have consequences in 1948 is his most famous David want you talk about when you first encountered the book and what you thought of it.

I think I'd recommended it, right?

Yeah, yeah, so I think it was probably about five or six years ago and it was um, I think it was before we had gone to that Abbeville conference, but. Or right before or right after maybe it was right after so it's probably like five years ago.

But I read it and then a mutual friend of ours who passed away a few years ago. He read it as well. And we both were really concerned about Weaver's Opinion on jazz because we both enjoyed jazz a lot but there was there was a few.

There was a few lines in particular that kind of hit me like a ton of bricks. So I mean Weaver is good at weaving Different sorry different strains of like sort of big picture and smaller picture. You know aspects of reality and like just the world that we live in and the society that we inhabit.

But the what he really hit me with was And when I was reading through this again It again hit me like a ton of bricks was my own My own position sort of in society in in the economy how I function as an individual and That really comes across.

I know we'll get into specifics but one one particular area that I to me it's probably my Favorite quote in the whole book, but in the third chapter when he talks about The like the development of the modern The modern kind of ideal man and he juxtaposes that to Historic and he talks about kind of what was I what was the ideal like man and What has changed his specialization and so it was ironic because when I first read the book I had been listening to a Conservative talk show host and I was also teaching economics at a high school.

And so I was being really really heavily influenced by like libertarian philosophy and thought Because most of the resources the best resources I could find on economics came from libertarians and when I read ideas have consequences, I realized like this is kind of like empty and It's my What would I think of as an ideal man?

Because of specialization like in my own typically like my own specific career field I think the word he uses is I had it right here in front of me. Well uses the word anxiety a lot, but It's it's it's kind of our emasculation that's the word that he uses he says it's emasculating basically to be a specialized to be in you know in Your career or your place in society to be hyper specialized and I realized like oh This is kind of where I am career-wise.

So I've been kind of pigeonholed into this extremely specific Role that I'm supposed to be the expert on but then when I look around I'm like This isn't fulfilling, you know, right as a teacher I really enjoyed when I was When I was able to you know, teach and interact with a lot of different subjects.

I taught government history economics Geography and then after I went through grad school. I kind of focus on this one particular area and So we were kind of helped me see that That there's more to it than just Your little place that you fit into the puzzle in society and it made me kind of start to strive To want to be a more complete man.

Yeah, I finally figured out how to show the presentation to everyone out there wall. You can see us. So sorry about that there's gonna be some kinks I'm gonna have to work out but. Yeah, thanks for sharing that David.

And since I asked you I might as well ask you dad. So I know that I was the one who introduced you to this. I think a few months ago. But you've read it a few times. So what were your initial impressions?

And why did you think you had to read it again? Because it was thicker. Just no.

Actually, I'm gonna read the very first quote that starts in the book The past shows unvaryingly that when a people's freedom disappear It goes not with a bang but in silence amid the comfort of being cared for.

That is the dire peril the present trend towards statism. If freedom is not found accompanied by willingness to resist and to reject favors rather than to give up what is intangible bit Precarious, but not long be found at all.

That was written in 1962. So right from the beginning I read this I like. As I'm reading through the first reading I had to go back at when did he write this 1948? How is that? How is that possible? I was amazed at the insights this man had of where society was going and it explains a lot about where we are that was the first reading is just more of a Maybe kind of just a shock of a guy that long ago You know foreseeing where it's going.

The second reading has been more Thoughtful trying to understand him and as I did it became very clear his tie into the southern agrarians and you know, I it would be good to take a look at I'll take my stand and Where those thoughts came out interesting change from him from being an avid socialist into the man he became.

He taught rhetoric, but he seems to be more of a philosopher and he ties a whole lot of things. Philosophically and trends going and where we were going because as he looked at the past he could see the trends.

So it's been a very good book to read. It also came out in my second reading as I'm looking at more closely where some of the weaknesses are is because he Tied into southern traditions, which I think he put it as a religiousness or something like that older religiousness.

Yeah. But he himself has a little familiarity with the scriptures, but really not much so he keeps trying to tie things back to something that's More foundational than kind of where we are now is the society and everything's completely transitioning all the time and.

So there is nothing stable. But he doesn't tie it that well into what really a foundation though he gives Some reference to it and actually it's God right and the world that he's created but from a philosophical point.

That is his foundation and why traditions became so important to him and I think even Among the the southern traditionalist now why it's so important that stability. So it's been a very good reading. I really appreciate you.

Introducing to me to him. Here's a summary of the book for everyone. Man's metaphysical dream of the world is fractured because pragmatic concerns in the immediate replace faith and timeless ideals. As a result a subjective Sentimentality characterizes culture.

The only remedy for this is found within the restraints of a harmonized vision. Chapter one. He talks about this vision. He says it's unreachable as long as social hierarchy is rejected in favor of egalitarianism.

Chapter two the specialist is revered above the philosopher. That's that's another barrier to reaching this vision. Chapter three. Egotism if it motivates the craftsman then that's another barrier. He says in chapter four in the absence of a harmonized vision something he calls the great stereoptagon, which will define later induces societal function.

Chapter five. He says salvation becomes the effortless harnessing of nature for temporary physical gratification and. Then in the last chapters, which we probably won't get to today. He says the restoration of a harmonized vision can come through a respect for private property and an exposure to the forms through an education in linguistics and piety and justice so that's Richard Weaver's book in a nutshell and His purpose he said was to account for the loss of standards and values and and we see that in our own society.

He saw in his it's more so now and the challenge. Forces that threatened the found anyone to challenge that and the forces that he believed threatened the foundations of civilization. So the picture he paints is kind of bleak.

His thesis is that the defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture. From this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence. And so he talks about nominalism.

William of Ockham in the medieval era proposing this. What they call it nominalism now, but this this idea that Things aren't really that that the categories that unite things Don't really exist that our sensory perception is really all there is.

I'm oversimplifying, of course but he thinks that that led to a rejection of ideals of absolutes of what he calls the transcendentals and When rejecting these we've lost so much now if we were lived to see what we see today with the loss of even gender.

He would just be he would say yeah. That's exactly you would trace it right back there and say we lost it when we rejected. Really it's Platonism. It's it's a kind of Platonism the slackening hand of Plato has led to.

The the gender issue and all the things that we're seeing where we don't have definitions and language doesn't mean anything anymore. Because we don't believe in a world in which there's order in which there's reality.

So Weaver supports a recovery of intellectual integrity which enables men to perceive the order of goods. So he wants to find a solution to this. So with that we'll start the discussion and I'll just give you a quick run-through chapter one.

And then we'll start talking about chapter one. In the first chapter Weaver Into the title is the unsentimental sentiment. Weaver argues that people necessarily experience feelings of oughtness from a source of clarification before engaging their rational faculties.

So in other words people. People know that there's something there's something they're supposed to do something that's good or bad if you think in moral terms but there's there's a purpose there's a telos and This is how they start out.

This is how we all start out apart from any sensory perception. We know that there's purpose there's design in front of us. Rejecting the existence of these transcendentals means there is no definition of man which erodes notions of sentiment and hierarchy.

The result is the creation of a world where inhibiting expression is wrong and the heroic ideals Disappear. This can only bring about the destruction of society as people fail to recognize obscenity and pursue immediate gratification.

Weaver argues that before imposing ideas that can limit this destruction. They must be harmonized by some vision and so that's his first chapter and Really what he's saying if I could just sum it up for myself in my own words is that if you lose standards if you lose the design and the Willingness the desire to conform yourself to that that ought that we all know is out there.

Then what ends up happening is you crumble into societal chaos you get what we had in 2020 you get riots. Because there is no transcendental anymore. There is there is nothing to bind you to any course of action.

There there's no definition for what man is man's just an animal at that point. So, you know, this means that we can level all the hierarchies. We can we can really we can do what we want because the world is putty in our hands so the question the first question that I thought was He says something interesting in chapter one.

He says the this failure. He's talking about obscenity the failure of having increased obscenity is not connected with the decay of puritanism. I'm page 26. He says this and I was thinking about how a lot of Christians try to combat obscenity and crassness and just the sexual stuff that's out there now and some do this kind of neo-puritan thing, I guess where You could use a different word you don't have to use I mean I'm using the word he uses but they want to imply they want to put more rules in effect.

Essentially and you know keep my kids from being bad, right? And he says that's not the root of this. That's not the problem. It's not like we had a failure in rules. It's not rules went away and no, there's something else bigger that's going on here and that's what the chapter is about and if we don't recognize I think the Underlying cause of why there's so much obscenity why on television or on the internet or otherwise?

Then we won't know how to even do things like raise kids properly because just putting in more barriers and rules is not getting to the heart of it. So I'm gonna just open it up for you guys since I've been talking a while David.

Or dad. I mean, what do you think of that? I mean, do you what would you I mean, obviously dad you raised us. So Do you think what we were talking about in chapter one is Something that you realized in raising children and Teaching people how to raise children that there's they have to have a larger vision than just rules.

Absolutely, you definitely have to have rules. Children need boundaries. Because they're not equipped to go outside those boundaries and deal with the rest of the world. But your goal as a parent is to raise those children.

So there's something in the heart that understands what the world's about where it's going. He's using the term I guess transcendental, but it's that God has a purpose for you being here and your ultimate purpose is to please him.

So you can hear well done now good and faithful servant. When you pass from this life or Christ comes first. So yeah, that's what your mother and I, you know worked real hard at is giving you the moral reasons Why we would do something or not do something so that your Own convictions as you got older would in lead you into whatever situation you got into to make a proper decision.

Based on something more than what was expedient at the moment. Boundaries are not going to work. When you're away from other people What you're you're doing by yourself what boundary you're going to put there there's always a way around it.

Boundaries help they you know keep you on The path, you know where the edges are if You're driving a car when we're teaching you to do that we try to teach you how to steer and be safe and the boundaries were the edge of the road and when you went off the edge you got in trouble because We're all rumbling around and I would holler at you To get back on it.

But we want to train you with the skills to stay on the road and why it's important that way no matter where you were. Whether there was a fence up or not. You knew how to you know, go on the right path.

Map reading the same thing all those things that all end up with a moral Aspect to it. Did you know what you're doing? Why are you doing it? Where you were going? So it was training the heart more than anything else.

Yeah, and that's all Christians should have that it's it's a curious thing to me that so many I don't think do though so many do think that there's a Rule is this sort of imposed external thing that you limit someone's choices by which it is but that's like that's all it is and it's because God says so.

And I Think what we were tapping into here is that there's an order though. There's a there's a goodness to the order that exists in creation. So it's it's even though we have the curse of sin. There's a way that God Initially in Eden did intend for us to live and we're all kind of pre wires.

To know that that exists that there is this thing out there. And it's not in we can't find it inside of us and in his what he keeps critiquing in this nominalism. For those who maybe this will make sense is this notion that you can find the deep truths in yourself.

That it's not out there. It's actually in here and that's what he blames for all the problems that we're having pretty much is it's it's through experience that we.

This is before chapter one, but in the introduction that this is one of the I think one of the best quotes in the entire book but when he says Man is constantly being assured today that he has more power than ever before in history.

But his daily experience is one of powerlessness. Yeah, you know so you you kind of have this that one really it's You kind of I mean we've got Millennials as Millennials, I guess we've been raised with this.

I did this cultural idea that You know the answers are within yourself and then you you know, you get into your 20s and 30s you start to have kids you realize you actually know nothing and And that's that's when the powerlessness really sets in and so what do you see you see like a mass collapse?

He kind of gets into that when he talks about like It's a little later, but when he talks about kind of mass anxiety Of think of a feeling like you have the answers are found within you. But in chapter one when he's talking about obscenity, he says That if you take the the idea that History is moving in the same.

Like in the direction of progress like it's just in this endless march towards progress and then if you combine that with the Failure of obscenity that there really isn't anything obscene then you get I think it's yeah I have it here.

Then you get a virtue of desecration and it's just strange that he wrote that in the 40s because the late 40s because when you think of His time period you tend to think of the idyllic. Of that being the idyllic time in history, that's the most wholesome time that's the time that you know, we wish we could go back to and I would still in many ways I would still hold to that because Compared to the present but He's seeing this kind of start to play out and now we live in that reality and You know that that's the nature.

I mean, I'm a teacher. I work in school. So I'm kind of I'm very familiar with the mass social implications of you know desecration so the question I have a little one now the question I have is like Okay.

So how am I how exactly am I supposed to raise this child in the midst of a culture that? Holds desiccated desecration of. You know Yeah.

I think what you're saying is That it's a worse moral evil to limit someone to put up a barrier and say you can't express yourself your authentic self inside of you then that's what people or I don't know how to how to really phrase it but that that That the experience they have that makes them think that they need to do something sexual or to do something Whatever violent it's it's a worse moral evil to put the barrier up and say you can't do that Than to do it like Whereas I think it weavers time.

It's funny because we what you just said that Society would have wanted that was the Hays Code. I mean they were trying to limit what Hollywood was putting out.

It reads like I know they're trying to live they're trying to direct it toward it would not be something obscene. Destroying the values of the culture. So it was trying to put some guidelines in there because they had Lost their way.

He actually has a really good quote. I think on what you're talking about here page 24 Top the page today over the entire world There are dangerous signs that culture as such as mark for attack because of its formal requirements stand in the way of expression of the natural man.

So what he's really getting at there though, he's not saying that way because he's not theological he's philosophical. It's this is the the sin nature of man and The Hays Code and things like that we're trying to well defining obscenity.

You can't put out pornography all those things. We're trying to keep this expression of Naturalist man simple bent to whatever he wants and thinks it's better For him with some adult guidances that no, it's not this stuff is dangerous to you.

This is this is destroy you and Frankly the under the Hays Codes the movies were a lot better if you look at the the way they could create Ideas without having to be obscene and showing what doesn't need to be seen right me John Doe.

It's a wonderful life. The oxbow incident the searchers.

Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Yeah, thank Frank Capra stuff he he says this on page 26 right after the quote you mentioned Making a virtue of desecration. He says in the 19th century This change came visibly over the world bringing expressions of concern from people who had been brought up in the tradition of proper sentiment.

Propriety like other old-fashioned anchorages was abandoned because it inhibited something. So and he says proud of its shamelessness the new journalism served up in swaggering style matter which Hero for had been veiled indecent and I can't even say that word Tacit ternary ternity I think tacit ternity so it almost reads like Romans 1 he's saying that people were proud of their what they should have been shameful of and and he He roots it though in something.

I think we're not used to rooting it in as People who just grew up in the church and if that's and I'm talking about the evangelical Church in America if all they're ever exposed to is is that teaching and they haven't been exposed to let's say a wider range of philosophy and I think there's a simple explanation That's right that we all have which is that men love evil right and that that could easily explain all this.

But the very mechanism or the justification man's using to promote this evil even without knowing that he's doing this perhaps is Is fascinating to watch play out over centuries and that's what weaver gives us is this time frame does so Chapter two he gets into Hierarchy distinction and hierarchy and to me this chapter two is this is in every chapter really this point because he's always Coming back to hierarchy and how we've abandoned that to our own peril.

He argues that Let me pull this up for everyone to see that everyone can see this. He argues that the elimination of Distinctions in the name of justice produces a society of consumers reduced to their economic interest.

This in turn reduces the role of the state to promoting economic activity. Pragmatism serving comfort just becomes the highest moral Justification and the result is the elimination of public trust and loyalty.

Weaver writes people do not know what to expect of one another. Leaders will not lead and servants will not serve. This creates opportunities for resentment. Weaver teaches that fraternity and aristocracy are necessary for social harmony if you don't have those you don't have harmony.

Equality is not enough in other words. He said today. He says this aristocracy is sought through education so they don't they say they're for equality, but education is the Let the Instrument that Gives us a new elite.

So if you can pay all this money and go into debt and then get you know go to the Ivy Leagues and get into the group of people who are also educated you can that's how you transcend and It's no longer though education focused on perfecting man as a spiritual being but preparing him to live Successfully and this produces an elite class who failed to develop the aristocratic virtues that used to exist.

Weaver again argues that people must regain a metaphysic that expresses purpose beyond the consumption of economic man. This will ensure the possibility of Liberty in the hope of personal Improvement so a lot to unpack in this chapter.

I was gonna ask you David first though because there's so much about education. What did you think. Because I think it's on page? 45 he's got this whole description of what modern schools are like and Do you know where I'm talking about.

He says let's see if I can find the exact. He says they've built new I'll start early. Americans certainly cannot be reproached for failing to invest adequately in the hope that education would prove a redemption.

They have built numberless high schools lavish and equipment only to see them under the prevailing schemes of values. Turned into social centers and institutions for improving the personality where teachers living in fear of constituents Dare not enforce scholarship.

They have built colleges on an equal scale only to see them turned into playgrounds for grown-up children or centers of vocationalism and professionalism. Finally, they have seen pragmatists as if in peculiar spite against the very idea of hierarchy endeavoring to turn classes into democratic Forums where the teacher is only a moderator and no one offends by presuming to speak with superior knowledge.

That's 1948.

You know, how could he possibly have seen this at that point when you're juxtaposing it with with today, but I think he hits the nail on the head when he you know a little bit earlier in the chapter kind of talks about the the replacement of Metaphysical reality of a you know, a sort of a grander vision of the purpose of life.

And we're gonna replace that with education. You know education is a and it's not just replacing it with education. It's replacing it with mass education because you know, I mean I were I live in Tennessee now I work in Tennessee.

There's a lot of differences. There's a lot of cultural differences but yet when you go into the school, there are a lot of Similarities and most things, you know, even in like in my particular field.

All you do is is you just replace some Acronyms, you know, so like in New York my field is called ENL, but in Tennessee, it's called ELL. That's pretty much it other than that. It pretty much follows the same uniform Plan and It's it's it's failed it's it's it's it's a complete failure not not on an individual level I don't I wouldn't say that at all.

There's lots of great teachers and I'd like to think that I'm a decent teacher and I can make somewhat of a difference but if you look at the whole thing in mass that and the failure is two-part one is it's been a failure of actually imparting useful knowledge to Two generations that are coming up.

It's and that's that's really the disease of Of making everything about identity personal identity I think the word he uses later is egotism like being egotist but sort of training that into generations that come up and then the other.

The other failure would just be because of the lack of any reality beyond, you know. We all come in here and we're gonna sort of check our You know our metaphysical realities at the door. So it doesn't matter.

We're all this is democratic. We're all just gonna be you know, we're gonna agree that we don't agree on those things, but we're gonna Where we have this one goal that we're all gonna move toward. It's it's education.

What does that mean? What what? Does that mean anything education towards what and it goes back to what he calls in the introduction the wig theory of history that you are all moving in a Direction of progress, but nobody knows what progress is.

Nobody can define where the the final destination is and when you don't have that you have nothing you have basically Just a crumbling, you know a train that the wheels are slowly rusting and falling apart.

It's gonna eventually it's gonna just run off the rails. You might argue it already has.

But he says progress basically justifies everything in the 40s and nothing's really changed in that regard. We still we don't maybe use the word progress as much but that notion is still there that every innovation that the left wants to foist upon society is justified because This is how we get ahead.

This is the Sometimes progress is used or they'll just say this is because we are moving towards greater equity diversity inclusion so Democracy is another one, right? No, no one can really tell you exactly.

These words are just kind of weaponized and used but they're not. They're not defined not precisely at least so I'd be curious dad what you think because you you've been in ministry for over 30 years you've watched people get married and You know go through counseling situations and just you've seen the changes that have happened and Weaver when he talks about how people do not know what to expect of one another.

I'm thinking it's not just bosses and employees it's Women women and men, you know, how do you go from I like you to I'm going to marry you like that there's so much confusion about that because all the standards that once existed that Organized and facilitated that kind of relationship are gone and So people there's a lot of insecurity I think because of this there's a lot of people are afraid to go on dates.

They're afraid to go in in social situations. They don't know how to because there's no Propriety there's no courtliness. I guess there's you know, they don't even know to open doors for women and that kind of thing.

So, what do you think of that?

Wow. Yeah, don't ask a preacher those kind of questions. You want to keep this short. Thing is several things in there. One of the things that I'm gonna step one step back here He runs through this I think that fits in this is the materialistic idea.

What progress is is as long as you're gaining more and there's more technology and all that. That's part of what progress is and therefore that's superior and therefore Education is to train you to be able to be the cog in the corporate wheels so you can make a lot of money Rather than training you to understand what life is about so that you can make wise decisions.

So as a broad education or at least that used to be so you can understand the world God has made and be able to function and think properly towards things and that then Definitely figures into what you're just talking about is how to males and females even Relate to each other when it comes to dating and then thinking about marriage.

They don't have any idea anymore because they don't know what marriage is about. We've become a sexualized society thinking that it's just about Having some fun or something than realizing there's actually a purpose that God has for it and your marriage is about children and a stability of a family to raise children in the nurse or an admonition Lord of what.

Their purpose of existence is in glorifying him. That there are Guides lines that he's given to us as well as command specific ones on how to treat one another so when you're looking at I Think the confusion you're talking about it exists today.

Weaver seems to have had a be prius and Prius.

Crescent. Yeah, I can't say the word either.

Very prescient toward What is in the commenting and it includes all those things this? Distinction about who you are and a hierarchy within it. We destroyed it and so the men have no idea how to treat a woman.

Because there's one side of society that's saying it's all about you know get her to go to bed with you and the other side is don't you dare treat her as a sex object and Don't you dare say anything that might?

Say that she's a weaker vessel is first. Peter does Don't say anything like that because you're going to destroy you so the guy is left. He doesn't know what to do. So he does nothing. Yeah, so I'm not going to get married and marriage rates you know average age of first marriage keeps going up because the guy doesn't know what to do and the woman's complaining because when she Gets the guy.