Is Ethical Heterosexual Sex Possible Under (Late) Patriarchy?

NOTE:  This article is written primarily for a male audience.

One of the common "straw feminist" arguments often weaponized by anti-feminist and "manosphere" types to try to discredit feminism in general is one that only the most truly extreme fringe ultra-radical feminists (a vanishingly tiny few, nearly all from the second wave in the 1970s and early 1980s) have ever actually put forth with a straight face:  some flavor of "under patriarchy, all (heterosexual) sex is rape".  That statement is, of course, quite easy to refute, as it completely denies Women any agency at all over their own bodies and minds, and is thus infantilizing and demeaning to Women.  And I don't go anywhere near arguments like that, so you will never hear anything like that from me.

Such patronizing and paternalistic nonsense really serves only to discredit feminism and Women in general, trivialize rape, throw out the baby with the bathwater, and put men in a reverse double bind (i.e. a duty to refuse sex, but no right to refuse)* as well, thus it has no place in the 21st century. 

But what if there were a kernel of truth to such an extreme and absolutist argument?  That is, not that it is necessarily rape, which a truly egregious violation of a Woman's bodily integrity and a desecration of the Sacred Feminine, but more like there is "no ethical heterosexual sex under patriarchy", much like the argument that there is "no ethical consumption under capitalism" (which is true, but obviously doesn't stop either gender from going shopping).  Could a more nuanced case be made in that regard?

Well, I hate to be a buzzkill, fellas, but just like consumption under capitalism, heterosexual sex can never be perfectly ethical as long as patriarchy still exists.  Sorry.  The problem is systemic, and goes very, very deep.  And unfortunately, just like we are living under "late capitalism", we are still living under some flavor of "late patriarchy", even in the most progressive, social democratic, and (relatively) gender-equal countries.  (And certainly still in the USA!)  But again, that doesn't stop either gender from going shopping, so is it possible for men to have sexual relations with Women while maintaining a (relatively) clear conscience?

The good news is it's a qualified yes, albeit imperfectly, provided that certain rules are followed.  ("Wait, what?  There's rules?  I thought we dispensed with such stuffiness like so much bric-a-brac decades ago!  Boooooo!")  Relax, fellas.  These rules are hardly oppressive, and actually tend to make sex better for both Women and men.  Such rules may reduce the quantity and frequency of sex, but will more than make up for that in terms of the quality of sex.  Plus, you actually get to LIVE with yourself, sleep well at night, and not have to constantly worry that you are literally playing Russian Roulette with your soul (!) in that regard.  Here they are:

1. First and foremost, be sure to obtain enthusiastic consent before proceeding, each and every time, and at each stage of escalation or changing to a different act.  When in doubt, check in and make sure.  In other words, if it's not a "HELL YEAH!", it's a "HELL NO!"  Period.
2. Always take NO for an answer.  Period.  Do NOT force, coerce, pressure, or manipulate anyone into sex.
3. Do NOT objectify or degrade Women (or men).  Always think in terms of "I and Thou", never "I and It".  Or as Immanuel Kant would say, "Always treat humanity as an end in itself, never solely as a means to an end".  (Contrary to the antisexual Kant, though, attraction per se does NOT automatically imply objectification.)
4. Avoid anything one-sided or "selfish in bed," as it should always be mutual.  After all, Women are human beings, NOT sex dolls or masturbation machines.
5. Whoever has the yoni makes the rules.  She is taking way more of a risk than you are, thus she is extending to you a much larger grace than you are to her.  Look up to her, not down on her.  Be sure to prioritize her pleasure!
6. No cruelty, violence, or abuse of any kind.  That should go without saying, before, during, and after.
7. Do not be a deceiver.  Honesty is always the best policy.
8. Practice radical empathy.  Try to actually see things from her perspective for a change. 
9. As Gabrielle Blair would say, "Ejaculate Responsibly".  If you feel you must have penetrative intercourse, USE A CONDOM as "standard operating procedure", with any exception requiring serious justification. 
10. And above all, DO NOT abuse, violate, or desecrate children in any way, shape, or form!  There is a special place in the Lake of Fire for those who do.  Same goes for those who abuse animals in any way as well.

Otherwise, have fun, fellas!  

(Mic drop)

(*Bonus points for anyone who recognized that statement with an asterisk as simply the mirror image of the double bind that Women have been forced into for millennia.)

P.S.  Contrary to what Maoists (and reactionaries, in an example of Horseshoe Theory) tend to claim, marriage is NOT necessarily "the least oppressive form of sexuality under [patriarchal] imperialism" for Women.  It is still, at base, a patriarchal institution, regardless of any attempts (with varying degrees of success) to re-purpose it for a post-patriarchal world to come, and is still all too often rigged in men's favor.  Thus, at a minimum, the same ethical sex rules listed above should still apply whether married or not.

And it should also go without saying, on the other side of the coin, that the same rules apply even if, or rather especially if, the sexual activity in question falls under the category of "casual".  Remember, "casual" in that regard simply means uncommitted or intended to be short-term.  It does NOT mean meaningless, disrespectful, or treat your partner like garbage.  The human dignity floor of mutual respect must still remain in place regardless of how the sex is labeled. 

The 4B Movement Goes (Relatively) Mainstream

Looks like the famous 4B Movement is spreading beyond South Korea to the USA now in the wake of Trump winning the presidential election.  Basically, it is like a Lysistrata-style strike by Women, but broader, to essentially "boycott men" completely.  To quote the NPR article:

Following President-elect Trump’s victory — which was fueled by male voters and to many looked like a referendum on reproductive rights — some young American women are talking about boycotting men.

The idea comes from the South Korean movement known as 4B, or the 4 No’s (bi means “not” in Korean). It calls for the refusal of dating men (biyeonae), sexual relationships with men (bisekseu), heterosexual marriage (bihon) and childbirth (bichulsan).

It is apparently trending quite a bit in recent days on social media, and even in mainstream legacy media.  Whether the movement is limited to a sliver of the Female population, or ultimately ends up achieving critical mass, is not yet clear, but the message sure is clear as day.  Men really need to answer the "clue phone", as it is ringing louder than ever now.  

The fact that so many men were willing to throw Women under the bus during this election, because reasons, is more than justification enough for Women to go on strike.  To call such an act of betrayal "the straw that broke the camel's back" is truly the understatement of the century!

I have often half-joked that Women could take over the world in a matter of weeks if not sooner, if they all (or enough of them) did something like this at the same time.  After all, in economic terms, men's demand for sex in particular, let alone everything else, is very "inelastic", at least in the short run, while Women's demand for sex is far more "elastic".  Despite Women actually having a higher sex drive overall than men (a fact that was famously well-known by everyone long before the Victorians attempted to erase and invert it), for men it is still more urgent and linear.  Thus, men will hand over the "keys to the kingdom" in order to desperately end the strike.  

(Men's demand for marriage is similarly "inelastic" as well, but with the important caveat that that is true only if it is rigged in their favor.  It is at base a patriarchal institution, after all.  The moment it ceases to be rigged in their favor, their demand for marriage then becomes much more "elastic".)

Whether one sees it as a sprint or a marathon (and a case can be made for both, in fact), the more Women lean heavily into it at the beginning, the more effective it will be.  Men can thus be "broken like wild horses" fairly quickly (if temporarily), at least long enough for Women's demands to be met.

It's too soon to tell at this point, but this development may very well be a silver lining of the otherwise horrible national (and global) calamity of Trump winning, namely, that we become that much closer to Matriarchy if this movement gains enough traction, God willing.  Only time will tell.

P.S.  All the fellas (including myself) who are at least tempted to reflexively say some flavor of, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kamala!" (which I of course did) in response to this, are really missing the point, and that is just as tone-deaf and chutzpah as saying "Not ALL men!" as a typical canned response to Women's concerns about male violence against Women.  Expecting kudos for merely meeting the bare minimum standards of a decent human being truly reeks of privilege.

Adam Throws Eve Under The Bus. AGAIN.

Well, it's official.  Trump won the 2024 presidential election.  Again.  And this time, we can't blame it on the Electoral College or Russian interference or anything other than We the People.  Or rather, about half of us.  And the half of us that voted for Trump is overwhelmingly male, unsurprisingly.  If only men's votes were counted, Trump won by a landslide.  If only Women's votes were counted, Kamala Harris would have won by (almost) a landslide.  Very much like 2016.

Only this time around, literally everyone knew what he was all about, and so many still voted for him.  So literally NO ONE can credibly claim naivety or ignorance (unless truly willful) this time.  They had an easy out, and yet they chose to go right back to Trump.  They are NOT victims, they are volunteers, often very eager ones, which makes them complicit with the oppressors.  In fact, in the two weeks leading up to Election Day, Trump deliberately darkened his already vile rhetoric even more to get more undecided or apathetic folks off of their couches to go to the polls.

And the gender gap was surprisingly wide for younger (Gen Z) voters as well.  And Trump/Vance clearly went out of their way to court the "bro vote", as they like to call it.

And it wasn't even the usual "deplorables" and "alt-right" and adjacent guys that were the biggest disappointment.  Rather, it was the perfidious squishy-center, middle-of-the-road, fauxgressive, "educated", and "cool" types of guys who apparently thought so little of the better half of humanity (or could care less about them), that in an election where Women's human rights were literally at stake, they blithely and casually threw Women under the bus by voting for Trump.  They literally chose the rapist, racist, misogynistic, convicted felon, lunatic, and insurrectionist candidate over the highly accomplished Woman of color candidate, because reasons.  Or they simply didn't vote at all, or they voted third party, because they chose to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and we all ultimately got neither as a result. 

Women, and the men who genuinely love them, will NOT forget such perfidy!

And yes, plenty of Women (particularly white ones) were also apparently self-hating misogynistic (and/or gilded-caged and privileged) enough to betray their own gender too by voting for Trump, but that is a topic for another conversation. 

Of course, this is sadly NOT the first time the fellas have done such a thing.  It's been going on since Adam threw Eve under the bus after they both got caught eating the forbidden fruit.  And to those fellas who apparently see nothing wrong (or at least nothing worth opposing) with the Republican Project 2025 agenda essentially forcing Women to be brood mares, remember that that would also make men....WORK HORSES.  After all, the punishment for Eve was to "increase the pains of childbirth", while for Adam, he would have to "work for every crumb" going forward.  Sounds like the authors of that story readily anticipated the 2024 election and its aftermath!

They had ONE job this time, and that was to simply get off the damn couch and cast a secret ballot for Kamala, the only person really standing in the way of Trump, and no one would ever have to know.  And they couldn't even do that!  And now that they have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind!

Unfortunately, ALL of us will.

America is basically dead and done now.  And it would truly take a miracle of miracles to transcend this madness and make it out the other side in one piece.

One may recall an article from late 2016, titled "Kali Takes America, I'm With Her".  Basically, Trump's first term was predicted to be a "dark night of the soul" for America, in other words.  Apparently, America learned NOTHING from that ordeal, and thus we end up repeating it again, and likely worse and darker this time around.  And it seems an even darker analogy is called for now.

The 2015 song "The Vengeful One" by Disturbed (and its excellent video) comes to mind as to what is called for in times like this:  "I'm the Hand of God, I'm the Dark Messiah, I'm the Vengeful One".  Sounds just like what the doctor ordered!  The dark, messianic figure in the song is male, of course.  But what if that figure was a Woman instead?  Well, I thought of a somewhat esoteric idea, getting back to the overall general theme of this article.

Enter Adam's first wife, from well before Eve even existed.  Or more accurately, his first lover, as the patriarchal institution of marriage hadn't even been invented yet, and it's safe to say she wasn't exactly the marrying kind.  In fact, their fairly brief relationship had failed precisely because she refused to submit to Adam.  She was almost entirely erased from both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, leaving only very subtle traces behind, and only explicitly mentioned elsewhere in Jewish and Mesopotamian folklore.  And she was predictably (and quite literally!) demonized by the patriarchs, as they have often done to Goddesses of the Matriarchal religions they have appropriated, co-opted, and perverted for themselves.  While more recently, Sarah McLachlan famously called her "the first feminist", and thus named her Women's music festival after her.  So who is she? 

Lilith is her name.  You may or may not have heard of her explicitly, but the general concept of her can be found practically everywhere one is willing to look.  Contrary to those who demonize her, she is not actually evil, but rather she is best described as "beyond good and evil", which is of course a reference to Nietzsche.  That said, it's probably NOT a wise idea to piss her off!  So if there were ever a Woman candidate for "Dark Messiah", it would have to be Lilith.

In fact, 20 years ago in 2004, author Alex Gordon even wrote a book about Lilith called Nine Deadly Venoms, a part autobiographical, part self-help book about the nine most important obstacles and challenges that one needs to personally conquer in order to truly stay alive in the 21st century.  In this book, she is portrayed as a Matriarchal Age warrior priestess, who is supposedly planning a second coming, in order to cleanse the world of evil and establish a new Matriarchal Age once again.

Again, that's really just what the doctor ordered in times like these!  And her rage is a rage that truly belongs to every Woman, and always has, especially now.  After all, contrary to what one may believe, Feminine energy is not always "love and light", as it can also be very, very dark at times.

(I haven't read the actual book itself, but I recall reading his old website about the book back then after stumbling upon in serendipitously, which was one of several things over the years that piqued my interest in Matriarchy in general.)

And in fact, like practically every other Goddess that has a name, one could even consider Lilith to be yet another facet of the very multifaceted Mother God Herself.

And perhaps Mother God allowed all of this to happen for a reason, such as to trick the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy to fatally overdose on capital, and ultimately usher in post-capitalism and Matriarchy sooner rather than later.  That is, if Trump doesn't get us all killed in the meantime, of course, which is sadly a very real possibility. 

So as the darkness settles in once again, we need to keep all of this in mind.  And once again, we all must #RESIST tyranny of any kind.  If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. 

Gynocentrism Is Beautiful

The word "gynocentrism" has been tossed around a lot in recent years, most notably by the "manosphere" (MRAs, PUAs, MGTOW, Red Pill Movement, and many tradcons as well), who claim it is a Very Bad Thing, because reasons.  In fact, in the  "manosphere bingo" memes, it is one of the most prominent spaces on the chart. 

Per Wikipedia, its definition is:

Gynocentrism is a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice. Anything can be gynocentric when it is considered exclusively with a female or feminist point of view in mind. The opposite practice, placing the masculine point of view at the centre, is androcentrism.

Thus, gynocentrism is centering, and thus prioritizing, Women and their perspectives.  And that is somehow a bad thing because? 

News flash, our species, that is the entire human race, is a gynocentric species.  It is literally baked into the DNA of both primary genders.  In psychology, it is called the "Women are wonderful" effect, which is consistently observed in both Women and men, often implicitly and subconsciously, no matter how much the patriarchy has tried to stamp it out.  It is NOT the result of some shadowy conspiracy per the Red Pill movement or whatever, but rather simply what Mother Nature wants, and for the most prosaic of reasons:  to better ensure the survival of the species.  Think about it.  Women are the limiting factor in reproduction.  As the saying goes, "eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap", as true now as it always was, even if men's pop-culture hot takes (like the book by the same name) get it at least largely wrong.  Thus, prioritizing Women would obviously lead to far greater Darwinian reproductive success than prioritizing men.

That's not to say that the patriarchy hasn't also historically (and also currently) weaponized gynocentrism as well against Women.  Since men obviously cannot stamp it out entirely, try as they may, they have taken to pervert it into "benevolent sexism", which is the velvet glove to hostile sexism's iron fist.  Granted.  But that weaponization should really be seen as the perversion that it is, not as gynocentrism per se.

And since gynocentrism is a built-in feature of both genders, prioritizing Women actually promotes better intergender bonding, and thus better gender relations overall.  (If nothing else, we can bond over that.) Androcentrism, on the other hand, can only drive a wedge between Women and men.

Remember, fellas, it's in your best interest as well.  Female happiness is highly contagious.  And so too is their misery. 

Thus, we should all reclaim gynocentrism as a Very Good Thing.  After all, it is what Mother Nature wants.  Shout if from the rootfops:  "Gynocentrism is beautiful!"

Excellent Article By Celeste Davis

An excellent new article by the ever-insightful Celeste Davis is certainly worth a read.  Titled "Do you not like sex, or do you just not like patriarchal sex?", it explains well the crucial differences between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality.  Spoiler alert: male-defined sexuality is rather one-sided, and Women generally do not like it one-sided.  Female-defined sexuality, on the other hand, is mutually beneficial for both genders.  Thus it makes far more sense to center Women in sex than it does to center men.  

In other news, water is wet, and the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, of course.  But far too many people still don't seem to fully dig that.  And Davis explains it brilliantly.

Excellent Article by Dr. Kirti Patel

Check out this excellent article by Dr. Kirti Patel about Matriarchy (or as she calls it, Gynarchy):

https://buymeacoffee.com/matriarchytimes/exploring-gynarchy-dr-kirti-patel-on-creating-future-beyond-patriarchy

She really makes some excellent points indeed.

Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Yesterday (Updated Re-Post)

I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic protopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all.  (Note that the "U" itself also stands for "Unconditional", which is VERY important.)  At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely.  And while the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns are behind us, their grisly social and economic aftermath tends to linger, and thus it is still more crucial now than before 2020, and will still be for quite some time as well.  

To wit:

1. First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women".  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.  As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.  And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown.  And they are still continuing (and will continue) to suffer from the aftermath long after the lockdowns are behind us.  Lockdown was patriarchy on crack, basically.
2. Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women.  When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  And this will only increase in the near future.  This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later.  Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions:  1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money.  Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.  Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
3. A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy.  No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God.  It's simply a basic human right, period.  And it would be far less costly in the long run.
4. As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology.  And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you.  And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.  The fact that human beings, unlike literally every other species on Earth, somehow must PAY to merely LIVE on the planet on which they were born is now totally contrived and socially constructed, and is in fact an egregious Crime Against Nature.
5. Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem.  And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
6. We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
7. With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
8. Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.  Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way. 
9. Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve.  This is over and above the effects of poverty alone.  And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty.  (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
10. We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to.  Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like.  A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.  As Marco Fioretti notes, the laws of physics ultimately demand UBI from a limits-to-growth perspective.
11. According to the ever-insightful Marco Fioretti, UBI is essentially the logical conclusion of Catholic Social Doctrine.  And at the same time, the ever-insightful Rodger Malcolm Mitchell also makes some great arguments from a more secular perspective as well.
12. As sociology professor Jessica Calarco notes, neoliberalism has broken the social safety net, forced and conditioned society to accept precarity, and made Women bear the brunt of that precarity via their often invisible labor in place of the social safety net.  And I believe that is yet another argument for UBI.
13. And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts".  What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard.   And that needs to change. Yesterday.  The exchange economy of capitalist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place.  A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be.  (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)

Perhaps Bucky's other prediction, that Women would take over the world, is a prerequisite for his vision to be fulfilled?   Honestly, it can't happen soon enough!

In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top.  So why aren't we doing this yesterday?  Because that would make far too much sense.  To quote Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate."  And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life.  Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless.  Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.  And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.  

(See also the TSAP's Q&A page, "Why UBI".)

Of course, for UBI to work properly, it would have to be totally unconditional with NO strings attached, period.  The Davos gang's (per)version of same, in contrast, will have plenty of strings attached, and will likely utilize Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) instead of cash, and tied to CCP-style "social credit scoring", and a critical mass of people will fall for it absent any alternative, so we need to beat them to it with a genuine cash UBI with no strings attached BEFORE they do it.  They will NOT own us, and they will NOT be happy!

So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!

(Mic drop)