First, I’d like to say that I appreciate Piers Morgan having Andrew Tate on his show amidst this firestorm of hatred and cancellation directed at Tate. At the same time, let’s not pretend this wasn’t a very successful and intentional ratings grab. It’s what any of us who is intelligent would do if we were in the media right now. That being said, it’s still admirable for Piers to do it at this particular time, so for that I’d like to thank him for standing by his espoused principles of free speech. For those of you who haven’t seen the entire interview yet, it’s available on Piers Morgan Uncensored’s YouTube channel and I suggest you go watch it. Now, let’s get into the reaction.
Overall, I’d say it was a productive and professional interview, and by the end I’d hold both in equal standing in terms of behavior and the quality of their arguments. Tate started out stronger at the beginning, but Piers got him a few times in the end. Piers was his typical self and used some of his favorite tricks such as interrupting (which Tate pointed out and applauded his skill for) and putting words into his guest’s mouth. He did the same tricks the first time he had Ben Shapiro on his show discussing gun control and Ben circumvented those tactics, which was a big part in Shapiro’s rise in popularity.
Unfortunately for Andrew Tate, he began the interview with a bit of a gaffe that Piers would call him out for later. While the two were discussing Tate’s rise in popularity Andrew completely neglected to mention Hustler’s University (his online money-making education school). Part of the school involved an affiliate marketing course in which members would take Tate content, edit short videos and post them across social media sites such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram. This fact has been stated several times by many people across internet and is no secret. Tate himself has mentioned this strategy on his own platforms and while it’s ingenious, it would have been a good idea for him to mention it early so Piers could not use that information later in the interview on his terms. Instead, Tate simply stated that his message is resonating with men across the world. While this is true, it’s somewhat false in this case because the HU affiliate marketers were directly responsible to Tate content being all over the internet and causing Andrew Tate to be the most googled name in the world (even above Donald Trump).
One segment of the interview where Tate performed exceptionally well was when Piers tried to poke a hole in statements Tate said in the past involving a man’s authority over a woman in the context of a relationship or, more specifically, marriage. Tate acknowledged how, without context, a short clip where simply these words are spoken could come of as quite bad and misogynistic. Andrew eloquently explained that firstly, this is his opinion, and he does not and would never suggest that this should be the “law”. Piers seemed to intentionally throw away logic and have selective hearing during this segment in an attempt to get Tate to admit that he is a misogynist, but Andrew held his ground well and explained what he meant when he said those things very well. While watching this part I even came up with some points of my own. The two major quotes of contention were essentially “when a man and a woman are together, she belongs to him” and that “when a man is tasked with protecting a woman, he has some degree of authority over her”. Today, these are very controversial things to say, at least in public. However, this is where we get into a very interesting phenomenon when it comes to the female psyche. It’s also where I think many people get lost and, true, Tate could give a longer explanation for this, but it would take a lot more time. These things do not apply to every single man and woman. Tate is assuming that the man in this scenario is a high value man who is taking care of all his woman’s needs, wants and desires. He’s also assuming that the woman in this example WANTS this kind of man. After all, a woman must consent to being in this kind of relationship. Especially when it comes to marriage a woman has to say “yes” to the proposal. Right out of the gate, there’s an implied consent that’s not literally stated in the example, but it really must be there for it to work. Comparing a marriage in 2022 to slavery in most of the world is simply asinine. Another point Tate could have made is a linguistic one. People all the time refer to their spouses in a possessive form. “My husband”, “my wife”, “mi esposo”, “mi esposa”, “my boyfriend”, “my girlfriend”, pick your term and your language.
Here comes the controversial part. It’s been not only my experience, but also my observation and the vast majority of what I’ve read and heard from many women that many of them WANT their man to be in control. Notice I don’t say “A MAN”. They want their man, the man they choose to be the dominant figure in the relationship. I have a very controversial hypothesis that even dominant and masculine women often have an innate desire that even they may not know or recognize until they come across a man who can “put them in their place” figuratively speaking. Many years ago, I’d have a conversation with a self-professed domme (a female Dominant in the BDSM community). Initially she was probing trying to see if I would submit to her any way, and I simply explained that it’s not something I do because I get no enjoyment out of it physically or mentally. Before I knew it, she’d change the conversation to the possibility of her being dominated by me. SHE CHANGED THE PARAMETERS OF THE CONVERSATION (which didn’t even begin sexual) to that new dynamic solely based upon that fact that I said I was uninterested in her being in control even if it meant the remote possibility of sexual gratification for me. Before you critically state that this is a case of one argument, know that this is simply one example. Another controversial thing I say often is that a typical heterosexual woman will have five different possible responses to any question:
- What she will say in public
- What she will say to her friends
- What she will say to a person likes
- What she will say to someone she doesn’t like
- What she will say to a man she likes
The other controversy during the interview involved Tate’s take of having authority over a woman when a man is responsible for her safety and well-being. Andrew often uses the example of a captain of a ship. The captain has authority over the ship and its crew because he is responsible for it. Many critics say the problem with this example is that it compares a woman to an object, but this is pretty weak because these same people will use a similar metaphor when it’s convenient for them and their argument. It’s just that, a metaphor. Piers Morgan compared it with having authority over a child and said it’s different because Tate has often compared having authority over a woman to having authority over a child. The point Piers either failed to see or intentionally ignored is that authority over a child isn’t necessarily set in stone. There are countless examples of how a parent can lose parental authority over their child, legally or otherwise. The counter argument I wish Tate had made was that Piers is acting as though a man can simply dictate to any woman he chooses, completely missing the point. Andrew Tate is again assuming that the woman is consensually involved with this man and is willingly deferring to his judgement because he is responsible for her safety and well-being. Morgan said repeatedly that a marriage is a 50/50 partnership and I’ll be honest, I don’t really believe that.
I’ve had a relationship where it was pretty much a 50/50 split. We had a false sense of financial security, so we overspent on our home, our car (her car actually. See? It’s already not truly 50/50), and pretty much everything else. Suffice it to say this relationship wasn’t a good one. We even split cooking close to 50/50 and we would both cook and clean the house together, but I worked more hours. Much of our recreation was also not truly a 50/50 split. Sure, I could technically do what I want, but I would hear about it to no end, so it was easier to just go along with what she wanted. Before you think that I’m just bitter, I take full responsibility for this because if I had taken a more dominant role the relationship would have either gotten better or would have ended sooner. I’m betting the latter. However, because of this experience I vowed to never again be dependent on a partner’s income to live. I set myself up in a situation where I had all expenses covered and lived comfortably. My next relationship was probably the best I’ve ever had. We never talked about money outside of who was paying for the occasional meal. The house and mortgage were mine, and they were paid. I paid the utilities, the groceries, the essential things. Because she knew they were taken care of, she typically cooked and did most of the cleaning. We never had a conversation laying out who was responsible for what. It just fell into place. Both of us were happy with it. Again, I worked more hours and worked farther away. I was paying the bills, so she filled the voids that would make my life easier because I’d done the same for her. She made my life tremendously better because I was able to use my time more efficiently because I didn’t have to think about things like food or basic cleaning. She didn’t have to think about paying for the house, making sure she had heat, water, food to make, etc. It was hardly a 50/50 split, but it was a complimentary one that worked well for both parties. The relationship ended but it wasn’t over money or the fact that she cleaned more often. What’s even more hilarious on this point is that there are a lot of women all over social media that acknowledge this in the form of humor. We all know that a joke is funny when there’s a hint of truth. Typically, the format is a woman showing herself in a video saying she’ll never cook or clean for a man (typically with the appropriate sample from Cardi B’ WAP) and then they show a photo of a man they are attracted to, then cutting to them “cooking and cleaning” over a sample of the Nicki Minaj part of “Hey Mama”.
Shifting back onto Tate’s missteps, his views on depression were brought up and this is probably where I have the biggest problem with Andrew Tate. I believe much of what he says is accurate and can be helpful to people. It’s widely acknowledged that platforms like TikTok have caused many, many people to identify with mental illnesses that they simply don’t have. They are not diagnosed and if there were to go see a doctor, they would be told they don’t have their desired disorder and therefore lose their “special status”. Tate also rightly points out that it does not benefit a person to behave as though they have clinical depression (whether they do or not, but especially if they do not). Where Tate’s logic fails can be pointed out in his ghost example. He gives the example of two people staying in a haunted house. One believes in ghosts and the other doesn’t. He goes on to say that each of them hears a noise and the person who believes in ghosts spends the entire night in terror for fear of the ghost hurting them. The non-believer simply shrugs the sound off a wind and goes back to sleep. This example works, but only when the fear in question is of something that literally doesn’t exist. Problems arise if we substitute ghosts with a crocodile. Crocodiles are very real and if you spotted one or even suspected one could be in the area, you would want to at least take precautions, if not get out of there immediately. Seriously Australia, how do you do it? In the depression example, if clinical depression exists, one would first seek out a medial diagnosis. If there truly is a chemical imbalance in a person’s brain it should be treated medically. Tate acknowledges in the interview that he believes in and has observed PTSD, therefore logically clinical depression would at least be a real possibility. I think Tate would be wise to amend his statement to feeling depressed rather than clinical depression. At the same time, I acknowledge part of Tate’s argument is correct in that even if someone does have clinical depression, it does them no good to behave as though they can do nothing about it and just live with the fact that they are depressed. Piers got a resounding victory when Tate gave an example of him helping cure a man’s depression and Morgan called bullshit on it, saying that Tate was simply taking this man at his word and had no idea whether the man had been properly diagnosed or not and had likely not been.
Yet another uncomfortable truth came up when Piers asked Tate about when he’d essentially said that men prefer 18-19 year old women compared to 25-26 year old women essentially because they had less partners. Firstly, Tate is making a generalization, but I believe he’s trying to gloss over the fact that men are generally attracted to women younger than they are. There’s a very interesting double standard Tate could have touched on here. It’s the fact that men are often ridiculed for being attracted to women who are relatively younger than they are (we are assuming everyone is of legal adult age here), and yet so many women are openly attracted to men that are relatively older than they are. It’s been my observation that most women tend to be most attracted to men that are about 10-12 years their senior, at least based on what I’ve read and observed. This double standard seems to stem from older women who are jealous of their younger competition in the dating an sexual marketplace, at least as far as I can tell.
Probably the most startling moment was when Piers Morgan said, “Voluntary authority isn’t authority”. I’d like to remind him how a democracy works. I believe this was just his attempt to disagree with Tate without really thinking about what he’s saying. In fact, in most cases authority is granted. If authority is forced it often lead to rebellion.
Overall I think Andrew Tate did a phenomenal job during this interview. He never lost his cool and didn’t really fall for any of Piers Morgan’s traps. Tate’s only large flaws in the interview were his own flawed logic which he’d previously stated on other platforms. I was pleased to hear that Piers wasn’t in favor of Andrew Tate being censored, but some of his logic was a little flawed as well. He did rightly point out that he doesn’t believe people like Andrew Tate or Donald Trump should be de-platformed when people like the Ayatollah of Iran are allowed to stay on the platforms. If you haven’t seen the interview yet, again, I highly suggest that you go watch it. In fact, here’s a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWGcESPltM
