The episode starts with a story about a former USAID-funded nonprofit executive who went from a six-figure salary to a retail job making $19/hour, which launches the guys into a debate about fake jobs, NGO status inflation, government patronage, and whether certain parts of the economy are quietly distorting the dating market. Stony argues that overpaid prestige jobs can inflate people's sense of romantic market value. Wes compares the whole thing to The Sopranos "no work" jobs, bloated college administrations, tollbooth patronage, and Army paperwork nightmares.

From there, the conversation turns into a bigger theory of modern male frustration: taxes, housing costs, low agency, and the collapse of ordinary provider status. If a plumber does real work, pays the taxes, and still can't afford the car, house, or date-night life that used to make family formation possible, what happens to dating? Cody frames it as a world where government and institutions have become "the alpha in the room," leaving most men cosplaying control inside a system that can crush them at any time.

Then Wes makes the case for venerating motherhood as one of the highest-value contributions anyone can make to civilization. The guys talk about family parades, functional households, reproductive culture, and why society celebrates almost everything except the thing that actually reproduces society.

The back half zooms back down to the individual level: if the 1950s provider path is gone, what should ben actually do? Cody argues that most problems collapse to volume: do more things, meet more women, try more paths, and let feedback sort the rest. Wes connects the rise of looksmaxing to young men feeling economically blocked and searching for new forms of dating "alpha." Stony pushes back on boomer advice, average effort, and why "just try harder" does not land the same way in a more competitive world.

Finally, the guys get into boomers, non-retirement, career-as-purpose, the sadness of aging rich without family, and the one fronteir solution Cody still believes in: go to Mars, because men need new worlds to conquer.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

First, the fellows unpack a viral lawsuit involving a JP Morgan executive accused of turning a coworker into her "sex slave." The story is lurid, bizarre, and probably not what it first appeared to be, which opens up a bigger conversation about false allegations, trial-by-internet, humiliation fantasies, MeToo reversals, and why some claims become memes before anyone knows what actually happened.

Then the episode turns to high-end matchmaking. Wes and Cody debate whether services like Blaine Anderson's are really matchmaking, or more like expensive introduction services selling hope. Is it wrong to help rich men get dates with beautiful women? Are gold diggers only possible when men are looking only for looks? And how does "B2B SaaS morality" apply to love?

From there, Cody tells the story of how a woman tried to scam him off of Bumble by stripping on FaceTime. The guys break down the economics of sextortion, why the $500 price point feels oddly insulting, and why the coming age of deepfakes may make blackmail easier and less powerful.

Finally, they tackle a classic relationship finance dilemma: should your girlfriend pay rent if she moves into the house you already own? What starts as a Reddit post reaction becomes a deeper discussion about ledgers, gender roles, contribution, provider instincts, household reciprocity, parenting, chores, and why the healthiest relationships don't feel like anyone is keeping score.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

The episode starts with a dialogue on Stony's advanced age and a discussion about aging well, sleep, skincare, Brian Johnson's protocol, and whether drinking more water is the secret to looking younger.

Wes reveals he's using peptides to cut weight and get back into peak shape, which sparks a full debate about fitness, fat distribution, face fat, dating apps, and whether being more attractive actually improves your odds of finding a wife.

From there, the guys explore a deeper framework for self-improvement: should you get 10% better at the thing you're already good at, or fix the thing you actually suck at? Is being fit a big dating advantage, or just another diminishing-return status marker? And if your soulmate only wants you when you have visible abs, was she ever your soulmate?

The back half takes a philosophical turn: Cody lays out his case that the real key to attraction is not optimization, but alignment — owning who you are so fully that you stop performing for approval and start radiating actual magnetism. Wes connects this to self-acceptance, status, and why wanting another person's approval can make you less attractive the moment they sense it. Stony ties it all together with a story about British politeness, American bluntness, and the cost of filtering yourself into a boring carbon copy.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

Before the main event, we talk about the Star Wars sequels for 13 minutes, so skip to 13 minutes if you don't want to hear that. Sorry. 

There are also detours into sex research gone too far, "fun" professors, and other stories.

At the center of it all is a conversation about dating risk: how much weirdness is charming, how much is a red flag, and when a story stops being funny and starts becoming a genuine threat. Cody's date becomes a case study in why bad dating experiences poison trust for everyone else, and why one truly unhinged encounter can make modern dating feel like a minefield.

In this episode:
- Cody's date from hell and the Uber showdown that followed
- What happens when "no chemistry" turns into a full public meltdown
- Police, receipts, and why recording saved the night
- The difference between eccentric, unstable, and actively malicious
- Why boring might be safer but chaos makes better stories
- Star Wars prequels vs. sequels and the death of cinematic sincerity
- What happens when your Big 10 professor brings a Sybian to class

Click here to view the episode transcript.

First: a brutal post-date text exchange. A woman cancels because she wants to explore things with another guy, and the rejected man responds by requesting $250 on Venmo and calling her trash. The guys debate who's really in the wrong, whether men should still pay for dates, what "chivalry" means in a feminist dating market, and why getting angry over rejection almost always makes you look worse.

Then they tackle the eternal question: should you become a bad boy? Stony argues that men have to respond to market feedback. Cody pushes back, saying you shouldn't let the market deform your personality. Wes splits the difference with a practical framework that shows why he is the master: improve the traits everyone values -- fitness, style, confidence, conversation -- without pretending to be someone you're not.

This leads in to a bigger conversation about awkward young men, missed signals, and why so many guys were told the wrong rules. The guys talk about the lost art of approaching women, nonverbal communication, flirting, escalation, and why "just be respectful" often fails to explain what women actually respond to in the real world.

Later, they examine one of the strangest dating-app strategies yet: boosting your profile by changing your orientation settings so the algorithm thinks you're more desirable. Is it genius?

The episode closes with bigger questions: whether attraction grows through repeated exposure, why dating apps are so bad despite being the most common way couples meet, why women increasingly report negative views of men, and a viral red button / blue button thought experiment about altruism, self-interest, and game theory.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

First, Wes, Cody, and Stony break down a scene from Materialists and the kind of dater who treats romance like a prestige shopping list: height, hairline, age, salary, "boxes," and the offense of being rejected by someone you considered beneath you. It turns into a sharp conversation about ego, entitlement, what people think they "deserve," and why dating can become a brutal mirror for your real market value.

Then, one of the guys tells the story of dating a woman who served time in prison for murder — with a whole side discussion about self-defense, prosecutors, prison, and why exposing yourself to unusual people and experiences can teach you more than a safe dinner date.

The back half is a live workshop on Bumble profiles: what women write, what men respond to, why so many profiles are painfully generic, and why leading with your role on the liver and kidney transplant team may be less sexy than you think. The guys debate humor, originality, filtering, visual imagination, and the difference between saying something harmless and saying something memorable.

Finally, the fellow wrap up with a serious argument about Darth Vader, Qui-Gon Jinn, the Star Wars prequels, and whether having a good take on Episode I makes you more attractive to women.

In this episode:
- Why people are furious to be rejected by someone "below" them
- The difference between standards, delusion, and status panic
- What "deserve" does to your dating life
- What it's like to date a murderer
- Why most dating app bios are boring, anodyne, and useless
- How to make your profile more distinctive without being cringe
- Why "kidney" and "liver" might be bad branding
- Did Obi Wan have an arc?

Click here to view the episode transcript.

They kick things off with a viral clip about a woman holding a baby for the first time and suddenly wanting a huge family, which opens up a bigger conversation about why young adults are so disconnected from kids, family life, and motherhood. From there, they move into the rise of dog culture, whether people are displacing parental instincts onto pets, and why modern life seems designed to keep children out of sight.

Then it turns to dating in New York: Wes talks about the fatigue of constant first dates, why dating apps can make romance feel like cold outreach, and how exhausting it is to keep filtering for red flags without becoming cynical.

Later, they explore a deeper question: how do you evaluate someone early on without turning dating into an interview? That leads to ideas like jigsaw-puzzle dates, escape-room compatibility tests, reading character through stress, and why the best partners probably aren't the ones constantly "creating problems" to see how you react.

Finally, they wrap up with a deep discussion about art vs. engineering brains, poetry skepticism, self-sabotage in relationships, horrifying animal stories, and a serious inquiry into whether pre-date masturbation affects outcomes.

In this episode:

•  Why seeing a baby can suddenly rewire your brain toward family 
•  Dogs, childlessness, and the weird emotional economy of modern cities 
•  Why dating apps feel transactional even when they “work” 
•  Jigsaw slow dating, escape-room dating, and other better ways to test compatibility 
•  Why some people keep choosing the exact kind of person who hurts them 
•  Art, sensitivity, and the costs of feeling everything too deeply 
•  The extremely unscientific pre-date masturbation debate

Click here to view the episode transcript.

The spark is a viral clip of a woman listing her “ideal man" checklist: 7-figure salary, full head of hair, tailored suits, Christian but not too Christian, no tattoos (unless it’s an Ivy League secret-society tattoo), no allergies, and preferably a cat person. The guys break down what’s actually wrong with standards like these. Is it the specificity? The sheer number of filters? The kind of traits being optimized for? Or the deeper issue: mistaking fantasy for strategy?

From there, the conversation widens into mate value, leagues, “deserve,” and the brutal economics of the dating market. How do you tell whether your standards are healthy, ambitious, or just totally disconnected from the evidence of your real life? And what happens when founder-style optimism—great for startups—turns into romantic self-destruction?

Then the episode flips to the other side of delusion: staying too long in the wrong relationship. Wes talks through the “fog of war” problem—when things are good 90% of the time, but the 10% that’s broken is something foundational: religion, kids, long-term vision, or basic compatibility. It’s a conversation about two equal and opposite mistakes: holding out forever for the impossible person, or clinging to something that was never built to last.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

They kick things off with a dispatch from the Love Symposium — a real conference where matchmakers, founders, researchers, and rationalists are trying to solve relationship formation from first principles. 

From there, the conversation turns personal: single life vs. partnered life, how age changes friendships and purpose, and why being alone hits differently once everyone starts building families.

Then they dive into the big one: the "hoe phase." Is sleeping around liberating, damaging, necessary, overrated, or some messy combination of all four? The guys unpack a brutal relationship post — "I've had my fun; now I'm ready to settle down" — and explain why that kind of honesty can still be relationship-ending. Along the way, they debate whether sexual history matters, how much culture lies to young people about consequence-free choices, and why "freedom" almost always comes with a bill later.

It's a wide-ranging episode about trade-offs, maturity, intimacy, and the difference between what feels good now and what builds a good life later — with a few very handsome detours along the way.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

Is your job "noble," or are you just keeping the machine running? The fellas break down honor in work, the difference between creating value vs. capturing value, and why even invisible jobs can make the world meaningfully better.

Then it gets personal" beauty, environment, and why modern life makes people feel trapped in politics, status games, and performative identities  — when the real move is building a life you can control.

From there: dating discourse whiplash. A viral "shooting my shot" post (5'5", 147 lbs.) sparks debate and Cody's take that "makeup is immoral."

Finally, they tackle a classic modern dilemma: approaching someone in public. Is following women around in public creepy, romantic, or just socially uncalibrated? You'll hear a full-on argument about truth vs. framing, "plausible deniability," and whether you should ever admit the awkward parts up front  — or save the meet-cute backstory for date six.

They close with a hot take post defending dating apps, and a colder reality check: apps aren't neutral tools  — misaligned incentives change everything.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

Sh*t tests: Are they harmless vetting? Manipulative gotchas? Or just the unavoidable reality of dating rituals? Cody argues for authenticity and "good faith," Wes shrugs, and Stony introduces his "fart test" strategy.

Later, the conversation moves to a very modern first-date trap: politics. Why some people bring it up like an unwinnable test, how "vetting" can turn into fighting, and why the guys think the best move is often to opt out of the whole performative game.

Finally, they dig into the nightmare fuel that is the Tea App and "Are We Dating the Same Guy?"-style communities  — crowdsourced dating reviews where you might have a profile you've never seen, written by someone who didn't like you. Wes tells a story about discovering himself in one of these groups and what happens when you try to "set the record straight."

Prepare to get handsome.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

The fellas break down "radio silence" before a first date, why modern dating feel scriptless, why high-bandwidth communication beats endless texting, and the simple confirmation move that keeps you from getting ghosted.

When a guy asks a woman her weight and calls her "hefty," where's the line between honesty, tact, and being an idiot? Plus: why first impressions can be wildly misleading, the case for giving things a little more runway, and Stony's coin-flip experiment.

Finally, the conversation widens out to the big stuff: money, housing, status, height, and why dating feels harder than it used to. The guys argue for playing Moneyball(s) with your love life  — stop competing where you can't win, lean in to your unique "market alpha," and go where real connection actually happens.

Prepare to get handsome.

Click here to view the episode transcript.

Click here to view the episode transcript.