 because we believe the good guy, we inherently believe that the good guy is the corny guy. And on top of that, we believe that that good guy is not going to give us good sex. Hmm, let's talk about it. Listen, it's the message right here. Black boy tell me how you really feel. Cause I just wanna build with you. Black girl tell me how you really feel. I wanna keep it real with you. I wanna live better, eat better. I wanna love better, sleep better. Yeah, I wanna feel so aligned. You know, we have this concept of Tupac with PhD. It's like the ideal guy for most women. And, you know, I know people like that. I have been people like that. But I think the problem that men have is like, in life, we have to make compromises. Meaning that even if we don't get everything we want initially, we could say, okay, I can deal with this right now and then get that, get the other thing later on. And it seems like women would rather err on the side of future can become a nuclear physicist as opposed to a nuclear physicist can be fun. That's a great question. That's how that build a man comes about. We take a future without the money, of course. We take a future type. And we want to turn him into that well-rounded guy. Wow. And that's my point because nobody is perfect, right? But where are you starting? Like what are your building blocks? Like even with dudes, would you rather get a beautiful woman and try to mold her into somebody who's also intelligent or a woman who has the potential to be beautiful but is intelligent and then later on, maybe she's skinny, maybe she has kids, now she's thick. And I think that's the issue men are having is that women, number one, aren't thinking with foresight. And because of that, you are prioritizing counterproductive behaviors because, unfortunately, the young boys are seeing this. And they're like, well, if I can go down the future path or the Russell path, but the future path is gonna give me more pussy, I'm going that way, right? And they forego all the shit that Russell builds up along the way, but I've been encouraging women if you start incentivizing Russell behavior because women are builders regardless. They're gonna wanna mold their man. So if you now start trying to make Russell more interesting as opposed to future more stable, we would have more Russells. So why is that not the default action? Like when the girlfriends get together they're discussing these things, like what? Does it come up in the meetings, the delegation meetings? In the group chat. Yeah, right. No, no, absolutely not. Is the nature that powerful? It's funny that you mentioned the women, we do encourage that as well. There's no, I don't think there's any woman that stops their friend from dating the future type guy and say, oh, this is not a good guy for you, you should, because we believe the good guy, we inherently believe that the good guy is the corny guy, and on top of that, we believe that that good guy is not going to give us good sex. Let's talk about it. And we do believe that the good guy is also not going to be the one. To give us an interesting life where you go out and you have fun and you take shots with each other, women have a goal in their mind for their relationships, they want that guy to be their all, they want that guy to be their best friends, their gym partner, their everything. I do agree with you that we should instead pick the Russell, and that's an easier, it is easier, it's easier to pick the Russell type and simply make him more fun. Hey babe, there's a party tonight, let's go out. Say hey babe, hey let's take a shot with each other before we go out tonight, or try to take that, if you're into that anyways, try to take that guy to the strip club and just let loose a little bit together as a couple. That's an easier task. I don't know why we haven't thought about it. I agree that I started to think about it as of late. And that's why maybe I've had success, because I know you can do that with a stable guy. But for some reason, as a woman, we have this idea that we just shut off the good guy. Automatically we can't do this, we can't do that, and maybe if it's that type of woman, she'll cheat on him with the bad boy, right? That's maybe automatically the default. I think the reason that is in my observation, I think the problem is women think the good guys are always gonna be available. Like I can circle back, I can spin the block and come back to him, he's still in my DMs, he's still asking to take me out every two weeks, whereas the bad boy seems like a once in a lifetime opportunity, because he got 10 other bitches he's messing with. And that's attractive to him. And this is why I've been giving the good guys the advice of literally prioritize yourself, prioritize your mission, because when you prioritize a woman, I wish it worked out, but it doesn't. So like, can you shed some more light on why is it that as much as men are told, the good men are told, prioritize a woman that it never actually works out, at least in my observation, it never actually works out when you prioritize it. She takes you for granted, she minimizes your importance in her life, she trivializes your contributions. So why is that? Are we getting deep today? Ha ha ha ha ha. Geez, why doesn't it work out when a man prioritizes? Wow. It works out when we're older and wiser. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. No. Oh man, it does work, but that's when, and that's the whole problem, right? Yeah, all right. Yeah, it does work out when we're older and wiser, just like Dr. Umar says, most women give their good years to the bad boys and then give their later years to the good guy. I would say that since we love talking about biology in this way, I'm going to make the biological argument Talk to me. That it's nature again, that we're attracted to that guy that's not paying us attention or that has other women around him. I think of maybe hunter-gatherer times where it wasn't about love, the women were picking guys for provision and protection. And I think, I believe also that guy wasn't sitting around there mushy-gushing around the woman around that time. And so I believe that to its core is not necessary for us. We desire a strong bravado guy that's going to protect and provide all of the other things we may be able to do without. That's why the future type, he does two things. He protects by maybe he's able to, with his income, let's talk about the future types with the money. He's able to do those two things exactly. He's able to protect by putting those women in a home in a suburb, right, where they feel safe and he's able to provide very well. I don't hear those women complaining, you know. I don't hear them crying on Instagram and making it look like they're having horrible life. You don't see that, right? So at its core, his image says that this is a man that's going to provide and protect. Whereas maybe the Russell type, his image doesn't say that. His outer appearance may not signal that to us, right? It may not signal the protection where he signals obviously the provision like, you know, he's rich, but let's talk about the lower level Russell types where you don't know his bank account. They definitely don't signal that. Whereas the street guy, he's signaled the protection and the woman to her, she's thinking, okay, he can protect me. So let's work on making him the provider now. So that's what it is. It's protect first. Yeah. And then provide. Okay. Yeah. So I will say this though, because I know somebody watching this is probably thinking it. So you're saying that the romance, stuff isn't as important as it's made to seem, right? The mushy gushy stuff is not as important as it is. It's made to seem as a guy who, my default setting is not mushy gushy. I'm Nigerian, right? One of the complaints I get from women is I want you to be more mushy gushy. But then I see how mushy gushy niggas get traded. Right. So it's like, if you're mushy gushy, bad. Yeah. If you're not mushy gushy, it's bad. What, how can you translate it to men in a way, like if, you know, if or when you have a son and he's like, mom, he complains, whatever I do. Yeah. Like how can you translate it in a way that maybe men can better understand of like, what is the balance for us? That mushy gushy stuff has been taught to us. So it's like, if you're not mushy gushy, mushy gushy stuff has been taught to us. So I think that men have no other choice but to adapt. Right. Consumerism is, there's a huge portion of it that's based on that mushy gushy stuff. The flowers, the diamonds, you know, the Chanel bags on a higher level, the Birkins on another level. That's not my level. Jesus Christ. Our level is the flowers, the diamonds, you know, yeah, you know, the mini luxuries, right? Those help the economy. So that's constantly being marketed to us. We won't go back to, but I know that at the core, longevity is dependent on the protection and the provision. If you're able to do that for a woman, I know that will last longer than the mushy gushy guy, you know, who's not doing those things. He's too, if a man is too all up on your, in your face, you're thinking, you know, like, is he a bum? Like why is he always available when I call him? Why is he always spending time with you? Why is he always around me? Real quick, I want you to explain, because I've tried from a male perspective to explain this, but Chloe Bailey, you know, she went viral a while back because she said, I don't want you to pick up every time I call. Now, as somebody who's a little bit more mature in my pimping, I understood what she was saying. But for a lot of dudes, it was like, the fuck you mean? You can say you want me to always be there for you. So I've tried to explain it, but I want you as a woman to explain, because you mentioned it. What is it about a man being always available to you that is red is unattractive? I know I keep making this argument, but I could say that all of this is attributed to our biology. If you're always, like I just said just now, if you're always available, that means you're not making money to provide for me. And I think that's what Chloe means as well. She's an entrepreneur. She's successful. To her, she's not always available for that guy. And as a man, how could you always be available to me? That wouldn't be sexy at all. I understand it. For young men, I believe it's important for them to make themselves busy and going back to what you said, put yourself first, make your career or your goals, your financial goals a priority, as well as balance it out with developing your social skills, because you're going to need it to be successful with relationships. And you're also going to need it to be successful in your career and in your entrepreneurship goals. You need to be a well-rounded social person for just anyone to be attracted to you. For men and female friends, men aren't going to be friends with you either. If you're this boring, corny guy, I don't see a bunch of male bravado guys around them either. So I think for anyone to be attracted to you and for you to be successful in life with anything, you have to develop your social skills. You have to become a well-rounded person. You don't have a choice. So as you're studying to be a nuclear physicist, you need to also study psychology. Psychology of people. Read books on how to have conversations with people, how to have small talk with people. Women love that. Women love a man that can just walk up to them and make small talk just for the sake of it. And at the end, don't ask for her number. Then she'll be wondering, oh my gosh, we just had a great conversation and he didn't even ask me for my number. The devil of those types of skills is to build a mystery in someone and build your confidence. So you don't become this needy guy that needs your woman for validation because that's not attractive to a woman either. All right, okay. So there is a... You talked about marketing and consumerism and capitalism and stuff earlier. And part of the aesthetic that's being pushed is this boss, couple, boss, bae, boss. That's the one I was looking for. What are your thoughts on that? Do you think it's a productive paradigm? Do you think we're missing something? Do two bosses typically get along? I have several ideas on that topic. Okay, firstly, I disagree with the manasphere space or men in general. There's... I see that there's been a rise in men disassociating boss chicks with femininity. If she's a boss chick or career woman, she's not feminine. She's somehow not going to make a good wife. And I don't think that is... Although I know that there are characteristics that are attributed to being masculine that you have to develop to become successful in your career or as an entrepreneur, as a female. You have to increase your disagreeableness character. You have to increase your aggression. You have to increase your competitive nature. And I believe those characters aren't... They don't really fit into the... How we describe femininity. I agree. However, what I disagree with is automatically we are shaming women for being successful, for reaching higher for themselves. We're shaming... I mean, and these are women too... What I disagree with about the argument, because these are women that are in... Let's talk about the entrepreneur type women. A lot of them are in feminine spaces, like eyelash tech. Nail, you know, technician. They're in feminine space. But a guy will say, oh, well, if she's an eyelash tech boss chick, then I don't want to be with her. And that's arrogant. And I believe that's the male ego that needs to come down a notch. I don't believe any of those... I don't believe that a woman striving for higher, especially in this economy where they have to, you know, you typically really don't have a choice, but to have to household income, or if the woman is single, to do something for herself, either outside of her main income, or just have her hustle become her main hustle. I don't think these women have a choice and for them to be shamed and for them to be categorized as being masculine or unable to be in a relationship, and automatically they're no longer wife material. What are we advertising? We're advertising for women to be lazy? Are we advertising for women to become... Then that's that word traditional. Sure. To be a traditional woman, it almost seems like you can't be a boss chick. Those two aren't correlated with each other. Can I try to explain men's side of this? I'll try my best. Yeah, absolutely. So number one, I think what's tough is that women's, or the definition of femininity has evolved a bunch of times, but the definition of masculinity has stayed pretty consistent throughout history. And like you said, nowadays, two incomes of necessary women need to make a living, be educated in the whole nine. I don't think we talk enough about the opportunity cost. So I studied business in school, so I always think about things from that perspective. And the opportunity costs a lot of times to rise the corporate ladder, rise the law firm ladder is that you have to become all those things, the disagreeableness, the machismo, the bravado, the whole nine. And unfortunately, similarly to the men who are out of practice socially, if a woman is out of practice being in her feminine, it's hard to turn on, especially later in life. Especially now she's 35 or 40, and she makes more than 99% of men. And she's leading her law firm, and she's leading her nil-tech or last-tech business typically. She's not somebody who is going to want to get under somebody else's program, or who's going to want to submit to a man. Let's tackle that. Let's talk about it.