Everything Is Content - Everything In Conversation: Is Being Straight Great Actually?

Episode Date: June 10, 2026

Hello EIChihuahuas, happy Pride month! The NYT chose violence this Pride with an op-ed on why being straight is great, actually. They quickly changed the title to "There's Nothing Wrong With Wanting Men" – a possible response to rising criticism. Naturally, we (and you) had a few thoughts on the topic...Thank you for your amazing thoughts and for listening to us <3 love O, R, B xxx------There’s Nothing Wrong With Wanting MenChanté's TikTok Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I'm Beth. I'm Ruchera. And this is Everything in Conversation. The discourse pre-drinks before we get to the club of content on Friday. We would love for you to take part in these conversations, whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with us, we want to hear from you. And you can share your takes by following us on Instagram

at Everything is Content Pod. That is where we decide on topics and invite you, nay, insist that you get involved. Obviously, Anoni is sadly missing from today's episode. but don't worry, she's having a lovely time at a wedding while we record this, and she'll be back for Friday's episode. Happy Pride Month! To celebrate, the New York Times released an article on the eve of June titled, Being Straight is Great Actually, by Magdalene J. Taylor, not long after the title was amended to, There's nothing wrong with wanting men, but not before the internet noticed and the discourse began.

In the piece, Magdalene argues that things have gotten a little out of hand, vis-a-vis relationship, between men and women, and perhaps what straight women actually need is a bit of an attitude adjustment. She writes, quote, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it, there's never been a better time in human history to happily and successfully pursue heterosexuality, if that is your thing, as it is mine. As straight Americans, we're in the midst of a period of an all but unprecedented sexual, social, and romantic liberty. We have greater freedom than ever before to become whom we want and to date whom we want. And with that, should calm and optimism strong enough to render the gender wars irrelevant.

Heteropessimism is, at bottom, little more than a bad mood about the state of being straight. Heterpessimism, or heterophatilism, as it's since been amended to, is a phrase coined by the writer Asis Saracen. In a 2019 piece for the new inquiry, she wrote, quote, "'Hetropessimism consists of performative disaffiliations with heterosexuality, usually expressed in the form of regret, embarrassment or hopelessness about straight experience. Heter pessimism generally has a heavy focus on men as the root of its problem. And last August, the three of us discussed this phenomenon in the wake of another New York Times piece. This one called The Trouble with Wanting Men.

In the article, Jean Garnett discusses her frustrations with dating straight men, their fears of commitment, causing them to come on strong and their vanish, the unfair allocation of emotional and domestic labour, their tendency to over-promise and under-deliver, and the constant niggling fear that the men we want and prioritise are not seeing us fully and maybe don't even want to. But Taylor sees it differently. She writes,

In the past year or so, heteropessimism has become a different beast. essay after essay has chronicled the trouble with wanting men and men's retreat from intimacy. Last October, Shanté Joseph wrote in vogue about how having a boyfriend is socially embarrassing. Why would men want to be with women who don't want them? I propose something new. Hetero optimism, in which one does not shy away from the ills, real and imagined, of heterosexuality,

but considers our own potential for navigating them, still believing that some hope for our romantic future exists. So, Ritura, you alerted me to this piece and ensuring backlash. Having read the piece and watched all of that unfold, what is your take on the article and is the writer getting an unfairly hard time because of it? So I think the piece is not very nuanced and it's not very balanced at all. I've brought Magdalene's work to the podcast before and I have really enjoyed her writing. And I just am kind of confused by the piece. It does feel in line with something she said before,

but I also feel like it's lacking the nuance that I really have loved in her writing previously. And I think the ridiculousness and the absurdity is her going into this piece and then then couching at the end that she's been in a 10-year relationship and is due to marry her partner of 10 years who she met at university. Look, having a long-term partner does not remove your ability to have interesting and incisive opinions about dating and relationships if you are able to understand the points of view of single people around you. But it just, it felt like this piece didn't understand a single point from the discussions around heterophatilism and hetero-pessimism. It kind of felt like calling it a bad mood, I found quite sinister because there were like some very

serious points that people have raised and some really big concerns about the state of play between genders at the moment and the right wing agendas that are very quickly getting pushed through men's point of view about relationships with women. And I think calling it a bad mood left quite a sour taste in my mouth because I could feel the anger and the defensiveness rising up within me like a beast to try and talk to her and like kind of have an argument about it. I've only seen a few discussions in the kind of Diet Prada post that reposted what had happened about this whole story and her piece.

I've not seen anything on the likes of X or TikTok about this. I have seen Shantay's response, which I thought was very good, and we'll put in the show notes. So dare I ask you what has been the backlash to this and what your thoughts are on the piece as well? I would say that X being what it is now, which is not a place for nuanced discussion, actually I don't think this has really made a huge splash. People are too busy kind of arguing about what to do with a nook in someone's house or spore or just really base things. So I think this is thankfully for the writer, I think flown over the heads. I did see that she had posted it. People responded

positively and people saying, well, this is stupid, but you would expect that on anything, you know. Interesting, I went back and I did listen to our episode about the trouble with wanting men and heteropessimism. And it is in the episode that you recommend Magalind Day Taylor because she had said something on the subject of gender relations that actually was quite nuanced. She was commenting on the launch of that app in America called T, where I think it was for women to share red flags anonymously about men they were dating and seek advice. And she wrote, the goal isn't even to find love, but to foster ammunition against one another. It's not about safety. It's about avoiding humiliation. Avoiding embarrassment is, of course, a natural instinct, but we're forgetting

that embarrassment is in itself a natural part of human interaction, especially romantic. So I thought one that was quite funny that literally we had quoted her long before she had even been, you She'd even written the response piece to the piece that we were talking about. But two, she obviously does walk the walk. This is something that she believes and she's a champion of human connection, romance, love, living, laughing, loving. And I love that. And I do think what she said about tea was correct.

But as a thesis, it just does not stretch to cover the entirety of this piece, that there is genuinely a stronger case for hetero optimism or heteropessimism or even that we need hetero optimism in a world that is already, basically, hetero, nothing has changed in the state of affairs, the norm is still, and we've got messages to this effect that say it much better than I have, the norm is still be straight, marry a man, have his children, be together as long as possible. And it just does not make that case particularly well. And I did, you know, I gave it the time I read it through. It does not put me off her writing, but I do think in this case, it was just, it just didn't have what it needed to have. It did not make a robust enough argument that I thought, there's a reason

I'm reading this, because the world is still hetero, hetero, hetero. Yeah, totally, totally, totally. And I think it's funny positioning straightness as a marginalized community that needs protecting. That's the thing I have to laugh because it's so ridiculous. Heterfatalism and heteropessimism, the point of it is the dominant culture is to be coupled up. So if you are experiencing these kind of like French beliefs, that's still not the dominant belief. That's why people are talking about it and raising such a big profile, because it's not like most women are in the trenches. really struggling. It's that they're looking around and people are coupled up because that's a

dominant culture and they don't feel they can align with it, which is why movements like this have been born. So then to position that as the dominant culture to say that all women hate men, it's a bad mood about relationships with men that's stinking up the room. And we really need to be a bit happier and put a smile on our face. I think it's a bit, it's a conflating the fringe groups of heterophatism into being every woman or most women when it's just not. It's frankly not. And then also suggesting that coupled up people need to be protected and need to have their happiness safeguarded because it's at risk from all of this stinking fatalism around the room. And I think the scale of it is all wrong.

And I also think it's frankly just ignoring the fact that something like what I'm doing in my life, marrying a man this year is the most unchallenging, obvious thing I could do in my life. There is nothing provocative. There's nothing challenging, nothing subversive in the slightest about it. and that is a fact. Yeah, it does feel like it's this like need for validation from people that have been validated, straight people validated really in every single avenue since the minute they emerged probably into a heterosexual parenting situation. How much validation do you need?

I think they need to take use from other groups who forge ahead regardless because it just suggests a real fragility that a slight pushback, like you say, a fringe movement to say, you know what, this actually hasn't been all that fun, could rattle them this much they are already writing these long, long think pieces. It does feel like, what is going on? Am I being thick? Like, have I landed on another planet where being straight is somehow not the norm? I don't think so. We had so many messages and Charlie said the sad reality is that most of my experiences with men have been damaging, hence the pessimism.

And Fiona said, being straight in pride season, yuck. And as a bisexual woman, I completely agree with you, Fiona. this is the period where I pretend that I'm not marrying a man. I know, well, I just simply cannot believe that they would do this on the eve of Pride Month. So kind of to piggyback on what Charlie said about how like it's pessimism for a reason, hence the pessimism, it's been negative. Why else would I not feel a bit pessimistic? It kind of just feels like in any other situation. Like if you left your house and kept getting bitten by dogs, you'd be like, I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about the dog situation, whereas if you're dating men and it's always

rubbish. I think it's kind of at least very understandable to be pessimistic. Something that Maglin writes in the piece is our society is atomizing, becoming less connected. There's a sex recession on after all. What we needed then and need now is a renewed cultural emphasis on human connection, including sex, and love, those are social goods. The beauty of contemporary heterosexuality is that women have the option to engage with it or not. We are forgetting that pessimism is an attitude. It may have a material origin, but it is not itself reality. This too is another one of the liberties we are able to enjoy.

we can choose to eschew pessimism in favour of optimism. I had to read that a few times because I thought she sort of peppers in these really common sense, but also very well written and argued things about human connection. I'm like, yes, you are correct. They are social goods to be close and connected, especially in this very digital age and very atomized age. But then she goes, she leads to that to something. It's like pessimism is an attitude.

We can just kind of choose to be optimistic. Yay. And I went, wait, no, hang on, hang on a minute. Switch up reverse it. What do you mean by that? because someone having a better attitude will not materially affect it might make them have a slightly nicer time maybe that's what she's arguing it will keep them from the depths of despair but it will not furnish the world and their dating options with better men men that have done the work men that

are really matching them in terms of what they're looking for and emotional labour and not abuse them and whatever else and it will not wipe the insults from the earth it will not roll back rights so i was just a bit confused on that argument it felt a little bit spurious and I was really wrong-footed by parts of it that did suggest we just need an attitude adjustment because that is not the problem. The problem is the lived reality, the material reality that she says is immaterial. It's not. It's very real.

Totally. And it just reminds me of so many things in our modern world, such as productivity culture, diet culture, all of these things, all of these kind of systems that put the owners back on the individual for not being successful at what they want to do, whether that's losing weight, whether that's being a CEO, when really the world is built with structures at play that stop, you know, working class people accessing the same level of education, the same level of networking, opportunities. It, you know, fat phobia is rampant in our modern society, all of these structures that stop people from having an equal opportunity. And I think it's the same thing. She's putting

the owners back on the individual, which is like, well, if you're going to be negative, you know, that will be a problem. You will be an atomized individual who struggles to find connection. And it's really ignoring the structural problems, which A, have built a whole movement of women feeling like they cannot connect with the people they want to. And B, the things that are happening on reverse when it comes to men that women are engaging with and then feeling misogyny, sexism, a disparity of emotional connection. I don't think it's an attitude problem. I think it's very real structures at play and very real societal changes and shifts that have led us here. And I think putting the owners back on people is doing them a disson. really about what is going on and treating it with any kind of nuance and seriousness.

There was also a part that I wanted to read out, which is, she writes, many women blame male egos for relationship strife. Some men certainly still wish to be breadwinners and patriarchs, even as society changes. But do most men really want that? More married couples than ever report earning about the same amount in income, and although full equality remains elusive, she said that she cites some data that indicates that men are doing more household labor than ever before, despite what you'll hear on social media, relationships are becoming more equal, not less. Okay, great. So what she's saying is the relationships that do exist between men and women, a lot of them are a lot more equal. So that's the point. That's the problem with people wanting to enter into

heterosexual relationships. That's the bar that they have. They want them to be equal, which is why there's such a problem, why there's such a big pool of people who are single, who are struggling to get into relationships when they want to because their bar is higher and because the people who are successfully in relationships have managed to find partners, many of them, not everyone, but a lot of them, she's saying, according to data, that can meet that bar. That's the problem. It's not proof that relationships are better. It's proof that people have higher standards, which means that people who are now engaging in relationships manage to keep those standards if that's what they want. But a lot of people can't meet those standards, which is why there's such a big pool of people

who are struggling to connect with people, who are struggling to enter into long-term monogamy, if that's what they want. I don't know. I just thought that point wasn't proving what she thought it was. I think it's proving that it's harder than ever to achieve the kind of relationship that you want. Yeah, that sounds so selective. And it's also, it's that idea,

well, they're doing more housework than they used to do or more than ever. And you go, well, yeah, 60 years ago, your granddad, like, no offence to everyone's granddad, but he didn't know which way up the Hoover plugged in, like could not have done a bit of ironing. You know, more than that is not difficult to achieve. And I imagine it's more because also men are living

alone longer is by they have to learn to do a bit of housework before they meet their partner slightly later and then perhaps traditional roles kick in, perhaps not. I just think that is a bit of data that, again, I'm not entirely sure it does, like you say, prove what it proves. And I also wonder, it just feels a little bit like, are you not happy yet? You're not satisfied yet, women of the world. Look, he's done, you know, he can fold a shirt or he can do this very basic. And it's like, well, no, it's obviously more than that for the women that are speaking out and the women who are unsatisfied, even though many of these unsatisfied women are still absolutely participating in heterosexual dating. So it's like, give them a break. It does feel a little bit like,

oh, cheer up. And I, just because there has been this reorganising of women's priorities in the last 50 years, that's a good thing. I think it's a very good thing that there is this narrative emerging when people are saying, I do want more and I will fight for more and I will be disappointed if I don't get it because it does invite other women, especially young women, to say, yeah, me too, actually. I really, my dissatisfying. My dissatisfying. action is not because I'm picky, it is because it's actually not very satisfying to date a man who is not my equal. And I think it's not a disaster that women in the last 50 years have decided to marry later, because they are still typically getting married at very high rates. They're just doing it

in their late 30s instead of the early 20s. That is a good thing. It's very in line with women's rights, economic freedoms, choice, birth control, things like that. We don't need to go back. I think we can go forward to a place of optimism, but it has to actually be optimistic. Otherwise, it's, I think it's just a very shoddy bargain. And those of us who were in relationship, especially 10-year relationships, like I feel like she's never been boots on the ground dating. We probably cannot preach from that place of privilege about the state of dating. Like, I think that's quite offensive. I was reading Shantay's comments under one of Shanty's two videos on TikTok, which again, we all link both of these. They're very, very good. Someone said she's writing about

how it's not bad to live on Mars, but she's lived on earth her entire life. And I thought, that's sort of it. You know, like I'm in this relationship now. I've done the dating. But at a certain point, if I stay in this, you know, I won't know. And I will have to hang up my hat and I will have to defer to people that actually know what it's like. And it does, that was a little bit. Like when you read those articles and people like, I saved, you know, I bought a house at 21. And then you read the piece and it's like, oh, your parents gave you £80,000. Or your parents gave me the deposit. It's a little bit like, you've buried the lead slightly there. I agree. I fully, fully agree with you. And Anoni made a really good point, which I want to

quote her from Portugal. I hope she's listening in the Algarve. She said in the wake of Shantay's incredibly incisive viral piece, having a boyfriend is embarrassing now. She thinks that lots of media organisations are trying to get a slice of that virality and that kind of conversation starting discourse. So they will come up with a headline that is very provocative and maybe retrofit the piece. And I do wonder if that is the case because that original headline is so provocative. Being straight is great actually and does have the kind of pacing of having a boyfriend is embarrassing now. So I really think that is the take, to be honest. I wonder if that is it, because this doesn't feel like the writing that I have brought to the podcast from this writer

before. And I know every writer myself included is one piece away from a bad take, quite frankly. But it is confusing. It is very confusing why this piece has come out. I don't think opinion pieces need to defend being straight really. No. I mean, I do feel like Chante is keeping the lights on at a lot of, a lot of these places need to send her a Christmas cake because she has done With her piece and her thoughts and her continued wisdom on this, she is giving these rebuttal pieces a churning the clicks, and that is all down to her. We had quite a few messages from people who spoke about the very real experience

of feeling heteropessistic, whilst also dating and really struggling between having to kind of push through and feel the hope of the optimism. So we had a message from Carmen who said, this is hard. I've been seeing a man who was very good on paper, attentive, attractive, suite, but I'm afraid because I fundamentally don't trust male dating, which is hard as a bisexual woman with a typically male preference. And if we're going to kind of put the piece to one side, I think there's a very real, very difficult process, which is having possibly had a ton of horrendous experiences dating men, and then arriving at something that for all intents and purposes

seems like it's going well, and then view everything through the lens of lack of safety, lack of stability, just kind of bringing those prior experiences, or the kind of world we're living in and the stories that are coming out all the time of people having a rubbish time and bring that into something that might be a good thing. And I think that is really difficult. And I wonder what you think, because with your agony on history on you, I feel like you'd have some good thoughts on this. The messages were betraying this, the conflict within people who are romantic and do want love

and do want to be also people who want to be really fair to men, but cannot, like we talked about at the top of the episode, like your body will tell you that something is not right. And we did also get a message from an anonymous listener who said, I've been a man hater for a long time and I'm now in a happy relationship with a lovely, lovely man, but still finding it hard to get past my feelings around. Man thinks he does, for example, him not thinking about every tiny detail because he hasn't been socialised to do that.

Like women have. I'm unsure how to not get bitter about this and take my frustration out on him, because, to be fair to him, he definitely pulls his weight. I think the man hating memes and reals exacerbate my anger and make me think all men are automatically useless instead of being open-minded. And we got a few messages from people saying, we have to be fair to men. And actually at a certain point, I think if you do want to be in a relationship with a man, you must take manhood in as it currently exists, how men are socialised, how we are socialised, and take it from that point instead of being like, why are you not magically better? Decide what you can tolerate. Decide the way, because it's the frustrating truth of assigning or lessening your own mental load and sharing it with a partner, often after years of automatically taking on and saying, no, it has to stop. It does then take a lot of mental load to explain to them the mental load and have them take half. It is work and it is frustrating. I think you have to give yourself permission to be frustrated, to be pissed off, but also not to go into meme mode and

go, it's because men are trash. Because actually, even if it is frustrating and very imbalanced, you can't really have a good loving relationship with someone that you do think is trash. So I do think there's a much more interesting conversation to be had about the memeification of imbalanced labour, the way that memes and content actually do drive our inner monologues and do shape our worldview, you know, that kind of like, boys, this many, girl's a perfect kind of thing, not being as useful. They are cathartic, but they're not that useful and they don't provide anything more than cheap analysis. I think that is an angle. If I don't want to write that piece about how we can actually date men and how we continue to

date men, while also not betraying ourselves what we know we deserve and also the fact that we are probably doing a lot of the labour. I would love to read that. I don't even have to end up being super optimistic. I just have to feel maybe neutral. But yeah, I do think it's very hard. And I do think the people in our DMs are talking to a very real, speaking to a very real friction and anxiety of, I love you, but I can see how the patriarchy has its junks out of you. But I also do think we have to be able to say that, like a fair partner will go, I didn't even know that, you know, and I think a lot of us reckoned with this, a lot of white people, when our friends of colour were saying, and do you know what, this is because you have been raised as

the default race that you have been raised in a white supremacist society. You can't do nothing but say yes, agreed, and a good partner, I think a good male partner will do the same. That's my clumsy take on it. No, that was really good. Thank you. The other thing that I was going to bring up is she cites a 2025 UGov survey to basically say that younger men were more likely to hold progressive gender attitudes than their older peers. And that was given as evidence of the fact that, you know, this perception of young men being really right-wing, very pro-Andrew Tate, isn't actually the truth. And I went on the U-Gov survey and it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, younger men by a few percentile points believe that women do have a harder time in society than men. So basically,

I think it was something like in the high 70s, boomer men and older men than that believed that women don't have a tougher time in society than men. And actually it's just a few percentile points difference. So yes, technically it is more Gen Z men are progressive than their older counterparts. But it's not significant. The changes between generations are not as significant, I think, to use that as evidence. I just think what that actually proves is these things are very sticky and there's a very gendered perception and a very inaccurate perception of feminism, women's role in society and having men as allies, obviously hashtag not all men. But I just think we have to be careful when using data to suggest these big congenerational shifts

because it's not as easy as to use that as evidence. Yeah, it does kind of smack of cherry picking. And it's like if you saw that on a curve, you'd be like, oh, that curve is not really curvy. Whereas if you say more than, it is the language that suggests an increase. I just think that's not the greatest use of that data and it's not the most honest writing. So we did get a longer message from Sophie, who is sort of more on the side of we need, you know, dating's hard for everyone. We should be nicer to meant. So I'll read that out. So if you said, I was a serial data for most of my early twenties and experienced the absolute trenches of the London dating scene. Oh, me too. But I am now in a very happy and healthy relationship

with a lovely man. I realised that when I was dating, I was coming from a place of bitterness, anger and self-protection, often fuelled by quite toxic online dating content on TikTok and Instagram, which leans quite heavily into gender essentialism at times, which is best speaking again. I agree with that a lot. That men, I was going into dates, already angry on some subconscious level with how I believed I was going to be treated by men because I was a woman and often ended up being less forgiving than I normally would be. Obviously, there are men that will treat you poorly as a result of misogy. But in retrospect, I think a lot of the way men were behaving, particularly in the early stages of dating,

was just down to them being nervous and inexperienced. Me and my friends often use the example of are not asking questions. If we take a kind of view of this, and then the classic, men are self-obsessed and don't care about women. I think often this is actually due to nerves and wanting to be seen to be interesting and driving the conversation

and not fully acting the way they would in a normal conversation. Petri Fatalism relies on us taking a less understanding and often quite cruel view on men who are in the same boat as us, looking for connection, acceptance and love, which is an incredibly daunting thing to do regardless of your gender, which I do think is very fair. And actually, if that, to me, reads as hetero-optimism, heteronutrient, whatever,

it's very realistic, but it's also on the hopeful side, which I think if you're dating longer term, you'll have that, but you'll also have moments where you're like, this is awful. And I think it's natural to just follow those ebbs and flows. I think some really good points in that about how TikTok and Instagram content does drive those beliefs, which is sort of what I was saying earlier. But I think it's quite nice to give people a second. chance, especially when it's someone like talking too much, not asking enough questions, go on a second date if that is the only thing, and you will probably see that they are really

curious. They were just nervous. But it gets kind of annoying that it's on women to accommodate rather than men to adjust and to recognize being on a first date to make a woman feel comfortable and seen, just ask her some questions, you know? So I can't tell of mine being a bit petty there, but I did think that was a really excellent and fair message, and I do love that attitude. So we had a message from a friend of the podcast, Sarah Monavis, who said, I think the argument that heteropessimism is somehow the norm because of the widespread cultural discussion about it. Rather than a fringe belief compared to the actual state of our politics and culture is something we're seeing a lot lately to quash countercultural movements.

It's what I argued in 2023 when I wrote about how the romanticised your life trend was pushing a surprisingly conservative lifestyle of heteronormative relationships where young women were valorised for living restrained, routineed lives. This lifestyle was also positioned as countercultural online. A quote from the piece. Heteranormative conventional lifestyles have long been regarded as more socially acceptable than straying from this path, but conventionality has now been granted a pious, aspirational elements, as if this isn't how people have been encouraged to live their lives for centuries.

This is exactly what's happening here. This is back to Sarah, present day. It shows how insecure conservative culture is right now, where we literally have a woman in a 10-year-straight relationship feeling the need to defend her marriage, as though it's somehow, in 2026, the transatlpture. transgressive state rather than the overwhelmingly encouraged norm. I will say this as someone who has been in a heterosexual monogamous relationship since 2016. It's both an absurd suggestion and one that I think is politically important we call absurd.

It's a reactionary wolf and sheep's clothing. I thought that was great and I also remember listening to a diabolical lies episode recently where they had some quotes from Charlie Kirk and Erica Kirk from before he was murdered. from one of the turning point conferences, these mass conferences, and it was positioned to women who were wondering what to do with their lives. And the way they talk about being a straight woman as subjugation in 2026 and how wanting a husband is this, you know, defiant thing for a woman to want in this liberal, crazy world where being single is the dominant culture.

It's so bizarre, it's so gaslighting of the reality at play. when really rights for LGBT people are actively getting rolled back across the world, especially now in the West, in a way that we haven't seen before. Our episode on Wednesday last week goes into this in much more detail, thanks to Maxine and her amazing insight on it. But it is bizarre the reframing of the very fact that being straight is the least transgressive thing you can do in this world. And I think it's interesting that now somebody like Magdalene who I wouldn't have classed as aligning with those values. is kind of suggesting the same things. I think it's a very bizarre narrative. Yeah, I think if I ever say something

and you've heard Erica Kirk say something similar, you must take me out back and shoot me because that would be my worst nightmare. Thank you so much for listening. And for all of your opinions and takes on this topic, we generally read every single one of us. They guide our discussions. And if we could read them all out, we would.

So please do keep sending them. Please also follow us on Instagram and TikTok and everything is content pod. And you know what? say if you could also leave us a review wherever you listen that would be the best thing that's happened to me all month thank you we will see you as always on friday bye