Should You Ever Chase Someone? Matthew Hussey Takes Pushback From His Own Producer
Matthew Hussey
In this episode of the Love Life podcast, the usual co-hosts Audrey and Stephen are absent. Instead, Matthew Hussey sits down one-on-one with David Kirk, who produces the show behind the scenes and reads through its comment sections. Kirk arrives with questions and viewer comments Hussey hasn't seen in advance, and some of them are meant to challenge him. The central challenge is to one of the most repeated pieces of modern dating advice, "don't chase." Kirk argues that it leaves people too comfortable. Hussey agrees persistence can work, but says it only becomes attractive when it comes from confidence and is paired with a standard. The conversation then moves to whether finding love is harder now than ever, where Hussey's affinity with women comes from, and how to answer men in the comments who have concluded that "it's always about money."
Why a producer-led episode
Kirk explains that he wanted a more concentrated, one-on-one format. It lets him get more of Hussey's views on specific topics. It also lets him raise things he has been noticing in the comments, which he reads regularly and can often recall from memory, and ask questions he hasn't personally heard Hussey answer before. Hussey says he likes the idea because Kirk can go beyond what audiences want to hear and challenge him "in ways that portions of the audience" would want. He describes himself as Kirk's "hostage for the next hour."
"The three of them agree on everything"
Kirk opens with a comment he admits he partly agrees with. A viewer named Driver Surf Camp wrote that the podcast "would benefit so much from having a person with a different perspective," because the three hosts agree on everything. Kirk notes the comment had about 190 likes and appeared under a recent episode on why women are giving up on men, which was about gender dynamics.
Hussey first says he'd like to ask the commenter directly what they mean. His guess is that they feel the hosts all sit on one side of gender dynamics. He doesn't think that's entirely true, but he concedes part of the criticism. He says that in the past the show hasn't always given men "a fair shake." In his account this was never intentional. It came from spending so long "in the trenches" with women's challenges that his thinking became wired toward them, and in the process he could lose touch with what men were struggling with. When men have made this criticism, he says, "there have been times where they've had a point."
He is less sure what the commenter actually wants. He speculates they may want someone who talks about how bad women can be, or perhaps someone with different politics. Kirk jokes about whether they want Audrey to slam her fist on the table and tell Matthew he's wrong. Hussey suggests that anyone who wants the show to argue a fundamentally opposite position may really want "a different podcast," not a different co-host.
He says he'd be very interested to know how many of those 190 likers are women. If the likes were split between men and women, he says, he would seriously wonder what the show isn't representing. His suspicion is that they are mostly or entirely men, and possibly a certain type of man, though he stops himself from assuming. He invites anyone who agrees with the comment to email the show and say specifically which opinions aren't being aired. He says he enjoys debating ideas and would like to hear valid points that aren't being made.
Kirk's case against "don't chase"
Kirk says he has listened to the show for about a year and a half. In his view, a lot of the advice genuinely works and bears repeating, and that is partly why nobody at the table pushes back: they have all integrated it into their lives. But he has one area where he "pretty harshly" disagrees. That is the message, from Hussey and across YouTube and social media generally, of "don't chase."
Kirk describes himself as "a tryer." By chasing, he says, he has felt embarrassed and has probably pushed some people away. But he doesn't regret it, because he put himself out there, got rejected, and felt stronger for it. He also says that the person he ended up with was someone he chased at a certain point, and that "it all came back around at the end."
His concern is psychological. People would love to hear "don't chase," because it can be heard as "don't try, it's not going to work anyway." That gives them permission to relax and stop putting themselves out there. So he asks whether the pendulum has swung too far, and whether the nuance has been lost that there are times when pursuing someone works.
What actually made persistence work
Hussey suggests "persistence" as a better word and asks Kirk why it worked in the cases where it did. Kirk says it was because he felt he gave each situation a fair shake and left nothing on the table. He established himself as someone who would "shamelessly" send the extra text or reach out again. He acknowledges he may have seemed a little desperate, or like a romantic. But he believes that because he had no shame about it, people stopped pitying or judging him for it; it was just who he was.
When it didn't work, Kirk says, he felt "terrible" and embarrassed for a while. Then he told himself it was part of the game. He decided not to change his behavior, because the right person wouldn't be turned off by being pursued. The nuance he would add to the advice is that operating this way requires "a short memory" for rejection.
Hussey then offers his own read of what was going on, and explicitly asks Kirk to tell him if he's wrong rather than give him the benefit of the doubt. He suspects "a cocktail" of two ingredients. The first is a feeling that people don't always see what's great about Kirk right away, so giving himself a fair chance might mean continuing a bit further. The second, already implied in the first, is a kind of confidence: I do know I have something. You may not know it yet, and you may never know it, but the more persistent I am, the more chance you have of finding out. Hussey says he'd find it hard to believe Kirk chased solely out of insecurity and need.
Kirk says it resonates, though he adds that there were times when need really was the driver, because it was "all that I knew how to do." He agrees there was also a confidence that what he was saying was good, funny, or interesting, and that if the other person just kept interacting, more of those moments would come. He calls this "a bit of hubris." He adds that at some point you simply have to pursue even when you're not sure, or you never put your belief to the test.
Why persistence comes more easily to some people
Hussey offers two reasons why this kind of persistence is easier for some people than others.
The first is gender conditioning. He believes society values persistence romantically more in men than in women. A persistent man is often seen as attractive or chivalrous, while a woman who "endlessly pursues" gets called crazy. In his view, that imprint serves men more than women.
The second is ego and identity. He describes people who were told from high school onward that they were the best-looking or most popular person in the room, and who built an identity on that. For them chasing is very hard, because being rejected, or even seeing themselves as chasing, threatens the whole identity they've decided is their value. People who never attached themselves to such a "stifling identity" are freer to make mistakes and get rejected, because their identity doesn't depend on never being rejected.
Persistence becomes attractive when paired with a standard
The crucial ingredient, Hussey argues, is that persistence has to be paired with a standard. Pursuing someone indefinitely, with no point at which you conclude if you don't see what's valuable about me, you don't deserve for me to keep pursuing you, doesn't work. When persistence does come with that limit, he says, it can be very attractive. The other person may eventually say, "I get it about you."
He also connects this to how relationships last. If the persistent person turns out to have standards about how they want to be treated once the relationship begins, the partner experiences them very differently from someone who chased and then, once in the relationship, never feels good enough and effectively says, "I'll let you walk all over me, just please don't go anywhere." Hussey says you won't hold on to the latter kind of partner for long. He says he doesn't know Kirk's relationship history but knows something about the relationship Kirk is in now. His guess is that it has lasted because, even if Kirk persisted at the start, the person his partner discovered "was a person who actually did have standards." Kirk agrees, joking that this risks proving the "same perspective" complaint right.
Is it becoming attractive for women to pursue?
Kirk does disagree on one point. He believes it is becoming more attractive for women to be persistent. He acknowledges this may be anecdotal and just his own perspective. He links it to an earlier podcast discussion about changing economics: women increasingly feel they can go after what they want. He sees nothing wrong with a woman who knows what she wants and says so. For men, he argues, being attracted to women who pursue them widens their pool. He also finds it "kind of cool" not to be the only one who does things.
Hussey says Kirk isn't wrong and that it comes down to the source of the chasing. If the core is "I need you," there's a problem. If the core is closer to "I'm doing this because you're wrong," there's "something sexy about that." The other person senses that this person is trying harder, won't do it forever, isn't coming from a weak or needy place, and seems to be onto something.
He uses Audrey as an example. She was persistent, he says, but in a way that communicated: I know I have something, I know we have something, you're wrong and I'm right, while not giving him the benefit of the doubt indefinitely if he failed to see it. There were times, he says, when she tried harder than he did "100%."
The scale between pride and proactivity
Hussey frames the issue as a scale between pride and proactivity, and says it's important to be self-critical about where you fall on it. At the extreme of proactivity, a person becomes "a masochist" who always chases, gets taken advantage of, and gets hurt. At the extreme of pride, a person can die saying "I never got rejected, good for me," but never really lived, never took risks, and never saw how many relationships could have been available. He says many people sit too far toward one end or the other.
He ties this to a concept he values, robustness. He attributes a phrasing of it to David Whyte: your ability "to meet the world and survive the encounter." That might mean asking someone out, playing a sport and losing, or trying a business and failing. Hussey treats robustness as a measure of confidence. People so proud that they never try are low on it. Kirk's willingness to push and be persistent, he says, was also a sign of robustness.
He argues that people who fixate on never double-texting, or on the "tit for tat" of who is giving more, are revealing their insecurity through that focus. His own experience is that the more confident he has become, the more willing he is to be the one who puts in more effort for a while. He is also now confident enough to recognize when that effort has become unrewarding and to stop.
He applies this to friendships too. He used to avoid texting someone to suggest coffee for fear of looking like he wanted the friendship more than they did. Today he says he is "far more proactive over prideful" in relationships generally. It has served him well, because relationships have opened up to him that wouldn't have when he was less persistent. On that point, he tells Kirk, "you're right."
Is this an unprecedented era of difficulty in dating?
Kirk raises a cynicism he sees in dating culture, one he thinks has seeped into some of the show's own content, and asks whether this really is an unprecedented era of difficulty in finding love.
Hussey thinks it is harder, and says the trend has been building since people became addicted to their phones. He believes social skills have been eroded to varying degrees. Many people now feel genuinely odd standing in a coffee line without their phone, or sitting alone at a restaurant table for a few minutes while a friend is in the bathroom.
Kirk pushes back. A hundred years ago, people faced major economic pressures, and many lacked the basic freedom to choose whom they loved. He asks whether it's "almost arrogant" to insist things have now gotten uniquely bad. Hussey grants that earlier eras had their own problems. He quips that a century ago the equivalent of reaching for your phone would have been lighting a cigarette.
But he argues that one problem is particular to this time: overstimulation from an almost infinite "buffet" of people on dating apps and Instagram, a "conveyor belt" that seems to endlessly produce new people who each might have something the last one didn't. This, he says, produces a decision paralysis that didn't exist in the same way before, because humans aren't designed to see so many options.
He adds a second point about trust. In the past you saw the people in your town in real life, so you had a reliable sense of how attracted you were to them. Now people meet filtered versions of each other. He describes a date years ago where he couldn't find the woman he was meeting at a coffee shop. She was there the whole time, and he walked past her a couple of times because she looked so different from her photos. He stresses that this isn't only something women do. Men do it too, and everyone does it to some extent, some far more than others. AI adds another layer, he says, because you can no longer tell from someone's writing whether they wrote it themselves. His conclusion is that trust is at "peak levels" of distrust. Until you meet someone in person, "our trust levels are on the floor," in dating and in life generally.
Where Hussey's affinity with women comes from
Kirk observes that Hussey projects trust and empathy toward his audience, much of which is women, and asks whether some person or event gave him that resonance.
Hussey first describes how he was branded early on. At 21 he was dubbed something like "the man whisperer," a guy who knows men and can explain them to women. He says he found it a tacky angle even then, though it was useful for getting through the door when he lacked decades of life experience. Today he calls the concept "silly." Kirk agrees that it doesn't represent him. In Kirk's view, Hussey isn't constantly identifying with "the dude," and has a genuine connection with people of a different gender that many people lack.
The real source, Hussey says, is his family. He describes coming from "really strong stock" when it comes to women. His great-grandmother lived to 98, had a large anchor tattoo on her arm, and was "the toughest woman around." She raised a tough daughter, his grandmother, who in turn had twins, his mother and his aunt. He respects all of them for their ability to "weather the storm." He also sees them as women who weren't taught the right lessons about men and weren't given the opportunities they should have had.
In his family, which comes from the East End of London, the men were away all day and the women raised the children. The women hosted the Friday sleepovers and led the weekend adventures. So, he says, when he sees women having a hard time, it's easy for him to relate it back to the women who raised him. He says he has been angry many times in his career about how women are treated, how men talk about them, and what men feel entitled to with them. He "doesn't have to dig deep" for that anger. He believes it has served him well because it came from "a raw place" rather than a virtue-signaling decision to jump on a bandwagon.
"It's always about money": responding to angry male commenters
Kirk connects that anger to a type of comment the show sees often. Under an episode about men's fear that women only care about money, a commenter named Dmitri 3876 wrote: "It's always about money. No matter how sophisticated tales women make it, stable future, safety," followed by a smiley face. Kirk says comments like this frustrate him. They seem to reflect a desire to stay in distrust, and in a reality worse than the actual one, in which women are nuanced, diverse, and varied. He wants to draw such men in and show them things could be better, but the anger behind the comments makes it hard to respond with anything but revulsion. He asks Hussey how the show should engage with them.
Hussey says anyone can arrive at that level of frustration and disillusionment, and that the same thing happens in reverse: women who conclude that with men it's always about looks, or always about age. He sympathizes, but says that's not someone who has had healthy mentors. In his view, much of what men believe about women comes from childhood, from watching their mothers or absorbing what their fathers and other male role models told them. If you're angry that it's all about money, he suggests, there's a good chance money is a trigger or an insecurity for you, an area where you never feel good enough.
He does not deny the evidence. There are women who care too much about money and who will leave one man for a richer one, and anyone looking for examples will find them. The problem, he argues, is becoming convinced that this is the only reality. He mentions his wife's sister, who had been staying with them that week. She is in a happy relationship, is ambitious, is "a top lawyer," and has a long list of wonderful qualities. According to Hussey, money barely registers in her values beyond having enough to live comfortably. He says he doesn't have to look far to find women who don't choose partners based on money, and suspects Kirk doesn't either. So he wonders who these men are who lack any counterexamples. Either they have embedded themselves in a social world he'd like to pull them out of, or they are "willfully ignoring" evidence that contradicts what they've decided to believe.
A listener who earns three times what her boyfriend does
Kirk reads one of several emails women sent in response to that episode offering counterexamples. The writer says she earns $150,000 in a major Texas city, about three times what her boyfriend earned when they met. At the time he was living with his grandmother, while she owned her home. She says she deliberately chose to "see the person, not the circumstance." She describes being deeply in love with someone attractive who shares her values and cares for her "in a way that's rare." She also writes that navigating love, gender expectations, and money at the same time has been more complex than she expected.
Hussey reads this as maturity. She doesn't pretend there are no dynamics, but she knows her "north star," and it isn't finding someone with equal or greater earnings at any cost. If a man resents a woman for even acknowledging such dynamics, he argues, that cuts both ways. He compares it to a woman resenting a man for ever being attracted to younger women, when he has consciously chosen a partner his own age or older because of their connection. People make choices because they decide some things matter more, he says. Someone else might be richer or might have had a different initial sex appeal, but "this is who I want a life with." Being angry that people even have those thoughts, he says, amounts to being "mad at life."
Rising standards require evolution on both sides
Hussey also turns a critical eye on women. He describes recent changes, including more women than men graduating from university, women's earning power rising sharply, and many women out-earning men, as "nothing but positive." But he says they require evolution on both sides.
He recalls a film set, he thinks, in the 1970s in the East End of London. During an argument, the husband asks what's so bad about their relationship, since he puts food on the table and has never raised a hand to her. She replies that never raising a hand to her is simply how it should be. If women's standards have risen to the point where earning a paycheck and not being abusive are no longer enough, Hussey says, "good."
That shift leaves many men realizing that their usual ways of impressing someone, such as a decent job and being a generally decent person, carry less weight. Women who don't need a man for a paycheck have a different level of freedom and will naturally look for more. Men, he says, "have a long way to go" in getting comfortable with this. But women who are rewriting what they want also have "soul-searching" to do. If a woman says she wants a man who earns what she earns, she should ask why, and whether it is really as important as she once decided. With the ability to choose, he says, comes the responsibility to choose.
Kirk takes this back to the commenter. We can trust that such choices may be made for good reasons, he says. He would rather believe in a world where, even with all the options available, people value you for your connection and for being in touch with what makes you special, than one where people always choose "the best thing" once they have a choice. He says he is glad such comments appear, because they create an opening to invite those men to believe in a better alternative, on both sides.
Taking responsibility for the world you date in
Hussey adds a harder point. If everyone you choose cares most about money, at some point that says something about your choices. You are "playing in a certain world" with a certain kind of person. Rather than condemning all women, or all men, you may need to ask why you keep being drawn to people who value only one thing. He also suggests asking whether you hold some contempt for the other people who exist, contempt that keeps you from ever considering them.
He draws on his own history. He says he has been hurt, heartbroken, and dumped for someone who looked the part, someone who seemed to be "everything that I didn't feel like I was." He says people sometimes talk as if nobody else knows that kind of pain. At that point, he says, you choose. You can spend your life chasing the person who dumped you "with another face and another name," or you can recognize there's a game being played that you don't want to join again and look for a different kind of person.
If you move toward different people and notice contempt for them, perhaps because they weren't the cheerleader or the football captain, "now you're on to something," he says. The question becomes why you're so determined to win over people who treat you badly and keep deciding you're not rich enough or tall enough. "They're just not the only people that exist," he says, "and if you think they are, you're not paying attention."
A lighter ending: pie and mash
The episode closes on a joke. Kirk asks whether Hussey worries that Kirk has become the new favorite son of Hussey's mother, Pauline, who greets Kirk with "Oh, how are you, love?" and a kiss on the cheek. Hussey says the real threat is that Kirk enjoyed pie and mash on a team retreat to England. Hussey describes it as a very regional, old East End dish rather than a national one: a meat pie with mash, covered in "liquor," a thick green parsley sauce that has nothing to do with alcohol. Kirk even knew the lingo. Hussey explains that you order by numbers, such as "a two and one" for two pies and one mash, and that the shops take cash only. Kirk managed just one pie. Hussey concedes there is little left he can offer his mother that Kirk can't: "My mom loves a good eater."
Because this was the first episode in this format, Hussey and Kirk end by asking listeners whether they'd like it repeated every few weeks or monthly. They invite anyone with a challenge for Hussey, or a comment they'd like Kirk to read out, to email the show.
Welcome back to the Love Life podcast. We're doing something different today. We don't have Audrey. We don't have Stephen. We just have me, Matthew Hussey, and you, David Kirk.
Hello.
Why did you want to do this kind of an episode to shake things up?
I produce the podcast in the background, and it was more just, I think by consolidating just one-on-one, that I could get some more volume of what you think about certain things, and also stuff that I'm seeing that's going around in my head about what's happening with the podcast. What people are saying, what comments are saying. I make a habit of looking through them, and sometimes I can just remember them off the top of my head. And so I wanted to field them as they come. Also, I'm just curious to know more about you. There's some stuff that I'm going to ask you that I haven't personally heard you asked before, and that might just be because I've missed it, but I want to know.
Well, I'm excited about this because I haven't seen a single question that you're going to ask me. I haven't read a single comment that you're deciding to bring me from the audience. And I like the fact that this is a chance for you to not just talk about things people want to hear about, but also challenge me in ways that portions of the audience, people in the audience, would love you to challenge me on. So it's going to be fun. And if you enjoy this format and this episode, let us know at the end of it: podcast@matthewhussey.com.
So with that, I will be your hostage for the next hour. Let's do it.
I'll be honest. I think I agree with this sometimes. Driver Surf Camp says, "This podcast would benefit so much from having a person with a different perspective. The three of them agree on everything." What do you think about that?
I'm curious. I'd love to have that person on the line and ask them. I suppose it's obvious what they mean, that maybe they feel we're all on one side when it comes to gender dynamics. I don't even think that's true. I do think that in the past we haven't always given men enough of a fair shake. And that's not ever been an intentional thing. I think that's been a result of spending so much time thinking about and dealing in the trenches with the challenges of women that naturally your brain becomes wired for that, and in the process you can lose connection with some of the things that men are struggling with at the same time. So I actually think when people have leveled that criticism, when men have leveled that criticism, there have been times where they've had a point.
So, you agree with them?
Well, I suppose.
And just for the record, I agree with you.
I don't agreement.
I don't.
I don't know if what they want is for someone to come along. I'm assuming they mean they want someone who's more talking about how bad women can be. But I don't know if that's true. Maybe they mean politically. I'm not sure.
Yeah. Is there a moment that they want Audrey to slam her fist down on the table?
Yeah.
Like, "Matt, you're wrong."
"And your idea is bad."
And then Stephen wants someone who comes along and talks about how women should have less rights and women should, like we're pandering too much and this, that. I don't know. But it's probably what you want is not someone with a different opinion on the podcast. What you probably want, if you're saying that, is a different podcast.
It has 190. I'm just looking at this now. It has 190 likes on it, which—
Which episode was it on?
I think it was the most recent one about why women are giving up on men, which I felt was an interesting one.
Probably was about gender dynamics.
It was about gender dynamics. But not that likes mean everything, but—
No, but that's a decent number of people.
Decent number of people. I have to imagine some of our audience is liking that comment. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
I'd be really interested to know how many, if any, of those 190 people are women.
Yeah.
I would love to know whether that's just overwhelmingly men who agree with that statement.
Yeah.
In which case, and I mean this sincerely, I want to invite whoever—the person who wrote that may not be listening now, but whoever is here that agrees with that statement—I would invite you to email us, podcast@matthewhussey.com, and let us know specifically what opinions you don't think are being aired or represented. Because I'm happy. I enjoy playing with ideas. I enjoy debating ideas. So if there's something that you feel has no airtime and you want to give it airtime, tell us, email us and let us know.
But I'd be very curious. If that was split between men and women, then I'd really be like, whoa, what are we not representing here? But my suspicion is that that is heavily, if not all, men.
And yeah, and—
And a certain type of man maybe too. But again, I don't want to assume. It might be that there are men in there who have really valid points that they feel are not being made on the podcast. And I'd love to hear them.
Yeah. I think what is desired is that we—I've listened to you for a year and a half over there, and there's really good advice that you need to hear over and over again. And it works. And sometimes that means that you have a lot of people around a table discussing the benefits from it, and no one's like, "Oh, that doesn't work." It's because they've integrated it into their life and it works. I do think there's some things where we could push back a little bit. So I have one for you, one that I've listened to for a while where I'm like, I actually think there's another side to this.
So there is a kind of—not just you, all through YouTube, social media—don't chase.
Don't chase. Don't chase. Don't chase.
I disagree. I actually pretty harshly disagree because in my life I'm a trier. I'm a bit of a trier. And I've felt embarrassed from chasing. I've probably pushed some people away by chasing. But I've not regretted my actions to do that because I put myself out there. I got rejected. It didn't work out. And I felt like I was stronger for it. And the person that I did end up with, I chased at a certain point, and it all came back around at the end.
And I think that this rhetoric online can leave people in a more comfortable place because it's like the activation, people would love to hear don't chase.
Don't try.
Don't try because it's actually not going to work. And you're like, "Ah, okay, cool. I can chill. I don't need to chase. I don't need to try. I don't need to put myself out there." Psychologically, it reinforces that. So I'm curious, do you think we've gone far in the pendulum of don't chase, and we actually haven't added the nuance back in that there are times where it's effective to—
Well, let me ask you this. Why do you think, looking back, that your—and I maybe would shift the word in the context you're using it to persistence.
Mhm.
But why did your persistence work for you, do you think, in the times that it did work?
In the times that it did work, it worked because I felt that I gave a fair shake to each of the situations that I went into, and I didn't feel like I left anything on the table. I felt like I established myself as a person who shamelessly will send the extra text, will send the extra thing, will try to reach out. Yeah, maybe I appear a little bit desperate, and maybe I'm a bit of a romantic, but I also felt like that reputation ended up helping me in the end. Because I didn't have any shame around it, people started to not pity me or judge me for it. It was just who I was.
And when things—I didn't even second-guess that it was a problem. And there are times where it didn't work out and that it actually was counterproductive, but it was—
And how did it affect you in those moments when it didn't work out?
Didn't work out? Oh, I felt terrible.
You did?
Yeah. I felt terrible for a while, and I felt embarrassed for a while. And then I told myself, I was like, "Yeah, this is part of the game, right? This is part of it. This is part of it. I'm not going to change my behavior for next time because I think the person who I'm with, me chasing them isn't going to be this psychological thing that turns them off from me. I'm going to pursue the things that I want. And if it doesn't work out, then I just have to let it go." And that's the nuance that I would add into it, is that you really have to know and have a short memory when it comes to rejection and that kind of stuff when you operate that way.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that there is, for you, some aspect of that persistence. There were two things going on. Please tell me if I'm wrong because I don't want you to give me the benefit of the doubt.
No. Yeah.
I suspect that there was a cocktail of two different things happening. One was maybe a little bit of a feeling that David had that people don't always fully understand what's awesome about me straight away. That it might take time, and in order to truly give myself the chance that I deserve, I might have to continue a little further.
And that the other side of that, the other ingredient in that cocktail, which by the way is already implied, is there's something awesome about me. I suspect that part of that persistence actually was derived from a kind of confidence that I actually do know that I have something. And you may not know that yet, and you may never know that, but I do have a sense of that. And that the more persistent I am, the more I actually have a chance of you finding that out. And maybe I even slightly back myself for you to find that out. Now, I don't know that to be true, but I'm curious to know if that resonates with you.
Yeah. Yeah. I think it does. I think—
I would find it hard to believe if you told me you were chasing solely from a place of insecurity and need, and like, I just got to keep going no matter what.
There were times where actually that was the case because it was all that I knew, I think, how to do at a certain level.
So I feel like that was your power, to keep going.
That was to keep going. But you're right. There was a certain level of confidence that I had when I was texting someone or talking with someone, that the things that I'm saying are good or funny or interesting, and that all that person had to do was interact with me and more of those moments would come. Which is a bit of hubris, but I do think that there was that. But I think that at a certain point too, you just have to do it. You just have to send. You just have to chase. You have to pursue even when you don't think that. Otherwise you're never going to put that to the test.
I think that in some ways that's easier for a man to do because I think that we value those qualities in men romantically more than, as a society, we value those qualities in women. I do think there is a societal conditioning that says if a guy is persistent, there is something attractive and chivalrous about that. If a woman endlessly pursues, she's crazy. And I think that that imprint does serve men more than it serves women.
I also think that, firstly, people who don't have—and you'll know the spirit in which I mean this—but people who don't have the burden of ego, of thinking, whoever decides they're the best-looking person in the room in life, maybe that started in high school. They got really popular. They got told they were the best-looking all the time. That person, it's really hard for them to chase because they have an ego to maintain in that department, where they're holding on for dear life to this idea they have of themselves that they've decided is their value. So for that person, it's really hard for them to be seen to be chasing, even by themselves, because God forbid they get rejected. It calls into question this entire identity they have for themselves.
And there's something that happens for a lot of people where they've never attached themselves to a very stifling identity like that, and they're a lot freer as a result. They can go out and make mistakes and get rejected because their whole identity doesn't ride on the idea that I never get rejected. So once you don't have that identity, you are naturally a lot freer. But the part that turns chasing—or again, I think persistence is a better word—but the part that turns that into something that winds up being attractive is when it ultimately does get paired with a standard.
Because if you did it indefinitely and it never, ever came with a kind of standard of, at the end of the day, if you don't see what's valuable about me, then no, you don't deserve for me to keep pursuing you. And as long as you meet that point somewhere along the way, it actually does become very attractive. It can be very attractive when you persist. You persist in going after someone, and eventually they do see, oh, I get it about you. There is something about you. And then, by the way, in that relationship, what they feel is that this person who did persist is also someone who has standards about the way they want to be treated now that you're in a relationship together.
Whereas someone who persists and persists and persists, and now that you get them in the relationship, never feels good enough and always feels like, "I'll let you walk all over me. Just please don't go anywhere," you're not going to hold on to that person for very long. And I suspect that, again, the reason that you have been successful in having a long-term relationship—and I don't know your relationship history before, but I know something about your relationship today—I think the reason that that has lasted is because even if you did persist in the beginning, the person they discovered at the end was a person who actually did have standards.
Yeah. At the risk of having the same perspective, I agree with that. I agree with that. I think the one thing I do disagree with a little bit is that I think it's becoming more attractive for women to be persistent. Maybe it's my perspective and it's anecdotal, but I don't see anything wrong, and probably you don't either, with someone who is being persistent, a woman that knows what she wants and will tell you that.
And I have to believe, I actually do believe, I think that that's changing because I think there is, with earlier what we talked about on the podcast with changing econom—like that comes with a level of, oh, well, I can actually get what I want. And I think men have to—a lot of men that are in a situation where they're finding that if I am attracted to that, that actually could be my benefit. If I'm attracted to somebody that is pursuing me, and I don't find that unattractive, that widens my pool. And also, it's kind of cool that women are able to—I don't have to be the only one who does things. And maybe it's just a feeling. It could totally be an anecdotal feeling, but I think that it's changing.
No, I think you're not wrong. I think so much of it comes down to
What's the source of that chasing? What's the core of it? If the core of it is, "I need you," then we have a problem. If the core of it is, "I'm doing this because you're wrong."
Yeah.
There's something sexy about that. There's something—that's the kind of energy that you realize, okay, this person's trying harder than I am. They're not going to do it forever. I can sense that because they're not coming from a weak, needy place. And they seem to really think they're onto something. And I'm starting to think they're onto something.
Yeah.
Audrey wasn't not persistent.
Yeah.
Audrey was persistent, but she was persistent in a way that said, "I know I have something. I know we have something. You're wrong. I'm right, but I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt in being a who doesn't figure that out forever."
Yeah.
And there were times where she tried harder than I did, 100%. And I think, to me, what this always comes down to is a scale between pride and proactivity. And I think that scale is very, very important. And it's very important to be self-critical about where you fall on that scale.
Because if you go all the way to the end of the scale on proactivity, you're someone who becomes a masochist who gets taken advantage of and walked all over and always chases and gets hurt. If you're on the other end of the scale, at the very end of the spectrum on pride, you are someone who will die being able to say, "I never got rejected. Good for me." But you never lived. You never put yourself in any risk. You couldn't have even begun to see how many relationships could have been available to you. You just spent a life in full protection mode. And there are so many people who are too far on one side or the other.
And I think that I've talked about this many times, that I really value this word robustness, which is a measure of your ability. I think David Whyte puts it something like your ability to meet the world and survive the encounter. And whether that's reaching out to someone you like and asking them out, whether it's getting involved in a sport and losing, whether it's whatever, trying a business and failing, can you meet the world and survive the encounter? And robustness is a measure of confidence.
How can you go out there and get hurt or try something and it fail and survive the encounter? Well, people who have so much pride they never try are very low on the robustness scale. I would say that your ability to go out there and push and try and be persistent is also a measure of your robustness, which I see as a measure of confidence in itself.
And I think anyone who spends too much time avoiding sending the text—"I'd never double text. I would never do that"—anyone who spends so much time obsessing over the tit-for-tat nature of who gave more, who's doing more, did I give more than they did or what, is actually betraying their insecurity in how much they focus on those things. Because I know the more confident I've become in life, the more I'm willing, for a time, to be the one who puts in more effort. But I also have the confidence today to know when that has become unrewarding and therefore to stop my efforts.
But even in friendships today, I used to be someone who was very like, "Well, I don't want to be looking like I'm trying to be friends with them more than they're trying to be friends with me. And so I don't want to send that text and ask them to coffee, and they might not..." I wouldn't have done that in the past. These days I'm far more proactive over prideful in trying in relationships, and it's served me very well because relationships have become available to me that never would have been available to me in times where I was less persistent. So to that extent, I think you're right.
It strikes me, everyone listening, that this is a really good opportunity to mention Matthew AI because one of the things that Matthew AI is really, really great at is giving practical advice for specific situations. And if you are anything like me and you've had a realization in your life that you could stand to be more proactive than you have been, even by five or 10%, and you feel like maybe you've gone through life missing out on a lot of opportunities because you don't put yourself out there enough. Maybe you're a little too afraid of rejection. Maybe you feel like you don't even know really what putting yourself out there more looks like. Maybe you overthink your texts, or maybe you feel very sensitive when you try to get a bit more proactive and it doesn't go to plan.
Matthew AI is really fantastic at giving practical, contextual advice for these situations. If you haven't tried it, go check it out now at askmh.com. You get a few free questions anyway, so you can just try it out and see what it does for you. People have their minds blown routinely by how good this tool is. And if you sign up for it, it remembers your conversations. You get your own dedicated number so you can text or call me or WhatsApp me anytime you want and get answers to your questions. So if you have not tried it yet and you know that you're not creating enough opportunity in your love life, this is my invitation to you to go and try Matthew AI at askmh.com.
There's a kind of cynicism, I think, that is in dating right now, relationships in general, and we've even, to an extent, allowed that to pervade our podcasts or some of the stuff that we make. I'm curious if you think that we are in a truly unprecedented era of it being difficult to find love, and that just the culture, the mechanics, the things that put us in proximity to each other are causing true dysfunction when it comes to finding someone.
I think we are. It's been happening for a while. It's been happening since we got addicted to our phones. That has made things more difficult. It's true that our social skills, to some extent, to greater or lesser degrees depending on the person, have been eroded. A lot of people now are simply not comfortable being anywhere without this device to pick up and look at.
You only have to just imagine standing in line for a coffee. Many people just feel genuinely odd standing there now without being able to pick up their phone. You only have to imagine your friend going to the bathroom at dinner in a restaurant and you don't have your phone on you, and just sitting there and feeling deeply uncomfortable at the idea of just sitting there for a few minutes while you wait for your friend to come back.
Do you think, though, that we're kind of overemphasizing that challenge, I think, a little bit, in that if you look at a hundred years ago, what were the challenges that people were facing to find love? There were major economic influences, and the general freedom for people to choose who they love wasn't there. Why are we so obsessed that now, "Oh, now it's really gotten bad"? And it seems almost arrogant. I don't know what you think about that.
By the way, I think that a hundred years ago, the version of someone going to the bathroom and you not knowing what to do, it would have been lighting up a cigarette.
Yes.
That was the way you looked like you had something to do.
Yeah.
There were other issues a hundred years ago.
Mhm.
But the particular problem of our time, I think, is this overstimulation that happens when we are able to look at, on our phones, an infinite buffet of people, whether you're seeing them on a dating app or on Instagram. That conveyor belt just seems like it's endlessly producing new human beings that could be right for us, with each one maybe having something that the other one didn't. And so there is a kind of decision paralysis that I think happens today that did not exist before in the way that it does. I don't think we're designed to see this many options.
And by the way, to add to that, not just to see—I think of, okay, if we take the hundred years ago example, we're in our town, wherever we grew up, and we have access to whoever happens to be geographically where we live, and we get used to the faces of those people we see. We're seeing those people in real life. So however attracted you may be, you probably have a pretty good gauge of how attracted you are, because whoever you saw at the local shop today, it's them that you saw.
Now we're not seeing them. We're seeing however that person is filtering themselves on Instagram. And everyone who's out there dating right now knows that experience, that lived experience of, "I wonder what they actually look like in real life. I wonder how..." And this was going back many years now, but even many years ago, I had the experience of going on a date, going to a coffee shop and not being able to find the person that I was supposed to be meeting for the date. I literally couldn't find this person. And it turns out she was in the coffee shop the whole time. I just walked past her a couple of times before realizing it was her because she looked so different in her pictures online.
And I'm not saying that as a female-only thing. Men are doing it too. Everyone, to some extent, is doing it, some far more than others. But we are at peak levels of distrust. And even, by the way, now throw AI into that, and it's a whole different ball game because now you don't even know from someone's writing who they are, because you have no concept of whether they have written that themselves.
So until you meet someone in person, our trust levels are on the floor in dating right now and in life in general.
Guys, one of the most challenging things about modern dating is not just finding someone that we like, which can be challenging all by itself, but even once we have and we find someone who likes us back, it still feels so difficult to get to the point of actually having a real committed relationship with that person. That's because of something called the investment gap. It is the time in early dating where we are willing to give and invest and commit more than the other person is.
I have put together a free training called From Casual to Committed where I talk about how to overcome the investment gap. It is one of the most common things in the world right now. And I show you very specific things that you can do and say that actually start to progress the relationship in an intentional way that leads to real commitment.
And I know of what I speak in this area, not just because I've been coaching people in this area for two decades of my life, but also because in the beginning of my relationship with my wife Audrey, I was the one who was having some fears around commitment. And some of the things I talk about in this training are things that she literally said and did with me that made all the difference to my ability to commit. It's amazing what the right language and the right actions can do in creating a relationship that actually goes the distance. I want to show you what they are in Casual to Committed, which you can watch for free right now at getcommitment.com. That link again is getcommitment.com.
I have to tell you about something brand new that has never been possible before and is going to be a completely new way of finding love. It is called Sync. I said I would never create a dating app, and I haven't. What I have created is something I am far more excited about. It is an AI-driven matchmaking app that talks to you, gets to know you, understands you and what you want in your love life better than you even know yourself, and then recommends you matches based on knowing you at that deep level.
And the matches that Sync recommends for you are people with whom it has decided you are likely to have deep compatibility. It has been trained by me as well as a ton of research on compatibility science, attraction, and personality science to get you results that actually make people you meet worth your time. And we are even measuring success differently at Sync by measuring our success not in the number of swipes, but in the number of second offline dates we create and five-year anniversaries.
If you want to be one of the first people to try Sync, we are going to be testing it in New York coming soon. And there is a wait list at talktosync.com. Sync is spelled sens. talktosync.com. And if you're not in New York, but you want to be on the wait list anyway, don't worry. Once we've tested in New York, we will be looking to roll out to other cities so that you can try it too. Get on the wait list now at talktosync.com and join what is a completely new way of finding love.
You have an ability to project some trust onto your audience and women. And I'm curious, can you nail down a source of—maybe it was in your past or it was a moment where you felt that you had a connection to certain people's viewpoints that, in this case, generated your audience, women. And I'm just curious if maybe it's someone in your life or if it was an event in your life, but where you felt like you had a resonance to women.
And it gave me that resonance, or I started to notice that I...?
You started to notice it. You started to notice that you had a kind of resonance.
God, I don't know. When I first started out, I was dubbed the man whisperer or some version of that nonsense. That was the interesting thing about... But to be fair, at 21 years old doing this, I needed something that was interesting about me because it was hardly going to be decades and decades of life experience that I didn't have. So the PR angle that I didn't even court, but it came to me, was this, "Oh, he's a guy and he knows men, and how interesting that he..." And even at the time I thought that was a tacky angle, but it was, in a way, a useful angle to get me through the door. But that seems so stupid now, that concept of, "I'm a guy, so I know men, and I'm going to tell you about men," and whatever. It's just silly.
Because I think, in fact, it's not really very representative of who I've known, right? Where you're not constantly identifying with the dude. You have many masculine traits about you, and we can connect on that level, but there's a genuine, I think, connection with your audience that a lot of people lack. A lot of people lack empathy with people that maybe are, gender-wise, different from them. And you have that, and I'm just curious if—so that was how you started, that was what you were branded as. So then was it after that that actually—and do you agree with that, by the way, what I'm positing about you?
Yeah. I think I come from a family of really amazing women. I come from really strong stock when it comes to women. Going back to my great-grandmother, she was alive while I was. She died at 98, and she was the toughest woman around. She had a giant anchor tattoo on her arm, and people could be afraid of her. She was tough, really, really tough. And then she birthed this incredibly tough woman in my grandmother. And then she birthed these twins in the form of my mom and my aunt. And they're tough.
They're all women who I really respect in their ability to weather the storm in life. But they're also people who I identify with as people who weren't taught the right things, and they weren't given the opportunities that they should have been given. And they weren't taught the right lessons when it came to men.
And so I think I've been able to get angry plenty of times in my career about what I see happening with women and to women, and the way men talk about women or what they feel entitled to with women. I don't have to dig deep for anger. And that anger, I think, has served me very well because it's not come from a place of deciding one day, from a kind of virtue-signaling place, that I'm a feminist, and then enjoying the bandwagon of being that person who's fighting for women.
And it came from a much more raw place in my life of being raised—I was raised by women. For me, my background and my family, they're all from the East End. The men did not raise the kids. The men were somewhere all day, and the women raised the kids. And on Friday night, the sleepovers were at our house or my cousin's house, and the women were the ones making the sleepovers happen. And the weekends, the adventures were the women taking us for our adventures.
And so I was raised by women, and when I then see women like the women that raised me having a hard go of it, it's not hard for me to relate that back to my own life. And that's where that comes from for me. So it's never been hard for me to relate to women in that way.
Speaking of that anger, and kind of tying it back to where we started this, the conflict between men and women that I think we've even been exploring as a topic on this podcast, there's a comment that I saw earlier today. And there's tons of these. We've seen these, and I kind of want to talk to you about breaking it down. I have a little bit of a theory or a lead-in on it, but—
Okay.
From Dmitri 3876. This is from the episode, "What's Behind the Male Fear That Women Only Care About Money?" Dmitri 3876 says, "It's always about money. No matter how sophisticated tales women make it, stable future, safety, smiley face."
So staying in that zone of anger, when it's not difficult for you to get angry about people mistreating people, I get kind of frustrated when I see comments like this. Not because there's a kind of desire to remain in this distrust and remain in a reality that's worse than the reality that women actually are very nuanced and diverse and have many interests, and that there are many different types of people in the world. No, it is just about this.
We are kind of, I think, trying to engage with men more. When you see a comment like this, it's kind of interesting. I don't know if you have the same feeling. I kind of want to bring them in and say, "Hey, you know what? That's not the reality. The reality could be much better." But also just the brusqueness and the anger that's behind it makes it difficult to do anything but revile.
Can we talk about these guys in our comments? It's interesting that they're there, and what do we say to them? How do we interact with them?
Look, I think anyone is capable of arriving at that place of pure, just such frustration and disillusionment at the state of things and what they perceive to be that universal truth that you kind of give up, or you want nothing to do with the whole thing. You can find examples of this everywhere, really. You can find the female example: with men, it's always about looks, or it's always about age, or it's always—
Totally. We see that all the time.
Yeah. You can find—and I really, I sympath—
I don't think that that's someone with healthy mentors. Because so much of what men end up believing came from their own childhood. Whether it's watching their mom and the way their mom behaved, or whether it's everything that their dad or the male role models in their lives told them their whole lives, truths about women and what women are like. And that gets carried over.
And at a certain point, if you're mad that it's all about money, there's a good chance that money is a trigger for you. There's a good chance that money is an insecurity for you, and that it's an area where you never quite feel good enough. And unfortunately, yes, it gets validated. If you want to find evidence of women caring too much about money, you will find it. There's plenty of it. And there's plenty of women who will leave this guy to get with that guy who has more money. Those women are out there.
But when you've become convinced that that's the only reality that exists, and that there's not also an entirely different reality of women whose value system does not revolve around money. I can tell you, my wife's sister has been in town with us for the last week. She's awesome, and she's in a happy relationship, and she's strong. She's ambitious herself. She's a top lawyer. She has a long list of wonderful qualities.
I can tell you right now, this is not someone where money factors anywhere near the top of the list in their value system. It does not register. This is someone who believes in having enough to live a comfortable life and beyond that does not care.
And I always wonder, I don't have to look far in my life to find women who are not making decisions based on who has the most money. I don't have to go far at all. I suspect you don't either. I suspect Harrison doesn't either. Who are these men who are lacking any examples of the opposite of what they're talking about?
That's what I think. They have either truly embedded themselves in a world of people that I want nothing more than to grab them by the hand and pull them into a different social circle and a different network of people and say, "Look," or they are willfully ignoring the examples that would be antithetical to everything that they've decided to believe.
And here's even more. We got a couple emails from that episode of women who were coming to us to say, "Hey, look, this is my story of how it's not true." I think that this one is very interesting. "Hey Matthew, Audrey, and team, this episode really resonated with me, though I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum. I make 150K in a major Texas city, about three times what my boyfriend earns. When we first met, he was living with his grandmother while I owned my own home, and I made the deliberate choice to look beyond those differences and see the person, not the circumstance."
She goes on to kind of talk about this life where she makes much more than her counterpart, and she says that she's found someone that she's deeply in love with. "He's attractive. We share the same values and care for each other in a way that's rare. It's just that navigating love, gender expectations, and money at the same time is more complex than I ever imagined." So she kind of is talking about those navigations are there, but the rare love is the important part about that.
And that speaks to her maturity, that she's not saying, as you say, there are no dynamics. There are some dynamics that she's learning to navigate or has learned to navigate. But that sounds like a mature, healthy person who understands what her north star is. And her north star isn't, "I must at any cost find someone who has the same earning power, the same lifestyle as I do or more." That's clearly not the way she's making decisions.
And if you want to be a guy and resent someone for even acknowledging that there are some dynamics to figure out, well, that cuts both ways. There are always dynamics, certain things that you make peace with, that you decide, okay. It's like a woman saying, "I resent a guy for being attracted to a younger woman," but acknowledging that he's with me and he's made a conscious choice to choose someone who's his age or older when the option maybe was there for him to date someone younger. But he chose, "No, I'm choosing someone who I have an incredible connection with, someone who I think is attractive, but yes, is not 10 years younger."
And we decide certain things in life because we go, "This is more important." It's not like, yes, this person might have more money, and there might be something fun about that, or it might make life easier in some way. This person might be more attractive, and initially there might have been a different kind of sex appeal that I felt initially with it. But you know what? This is who I want a life with. And if you're mad at people for even having those thoughts, then you're kind of just mad at life because people have those thoughts.
And I do think, to almost in a way shine some light on women too, I do think that the changes that have happened in recent decades, where women are more educated, more women coming out of universities than men, where the earning power of women has gone way up, and there's many, many women out-earning men, all of these changes, which I see as nothing but positive, require evolution on both sides. Because you naturally have women whose standards have gone up, which they should have.
I remember watching a movie about the East End of London, where all my family is from. And I remember in this movie, I want to say it was set in the '70s, but the guy says to the wife, they're having a big argument and she's frustrated about something in their relationship, and he's like, "What's so bad about our relationship? I put food on the table. I've never raised a hand to you." And she says to him, "You never raised a hand to me? That's how it should be." And it's like, if we've evolved to the point where women's standards have gotten to the point where now it's not enough that a guy just earns a paycheck and isn't abusive, good.
Yeah.
But that doesn't just leave men wondering, okay, some of my regular ways of impressing someone are no longer as valuable. I have a decent job, for example. I'm a generally decent human being. That's not enough anymore. I'm sorry, or rather, it's not even that it's not enough. It's that women who don't need you for a paycheck and have a completely different level of freedom naturally are going to be saying, "Well, I'm looking for more." So men have a long way to go in getting comfortable with that.
But women also have some soul-searching to do, or at least the women who are now completely rewriting what it is they want in relation to themselves. They have some soul-searching to do because you're going to have to get really clear when you say, "I want a guy who earns what I earn." Why? Why is that so important? Is it as important as you once decided it is? You have to get clear on what you're actually looking for.
Now that you have the ability to decide, you have the responsibility to decide as well. And I think that what is interesting, to kind of take it to this guy who commented, is that we can trust that choice. We can believe that that choice could be made from very good reasons. And it's like, I want to choose to be in a world where someone is going to value me even with all the choices in the world. Like you were already saying, all the choices in the world, they're going to value me if I have a connection with them. They're going to value me if I am in touch with who I am, what makes me special. And I don't want to live in a world where it's, now that people have a choice, they're always going to choose the best thing, if that makes sense.
And yeah, I'm glad that there are people in the comments that are expressing this in a way, because I would like to invite them, and I'm sure you would too, to believe in that better alternative on both sides. And I think people have to recognize that it might at a certain point say something about the choices you're making that everyone you're choosing cares the most about money.
Yeah. At some point you have to take some responsibility for that because you are, whether you admit it or not, if that's your truth every time you date, you are playing in a certain world. You are playing with a certain kind of individual. And rather than shaming all of women, or frankly all of men, because the choices you're making keep bringing up people who only value X, you might have to take some responsibility for why you keep being drawn to people like that. Because other people exist. And is there something about those other people that you have some kind of contempt for that means that you're never entertaining them?
I could have gone through my whole life getting steamrolled if I wanted to. I could have gone through my whole life. I've been hurt. I've been heartbroken. I've been broken up with for somebody who more looked the part or was the part or whatever. I think sometimes people talk as if no one else knows any pain. And the reality is I've been through the heartbreak of feeling like not only did I get dumped, but I got dumped for someone who was everything that I didn't feel like I was. And it sucks. But at those points you kind of make a choice.
Am I gonna spend the rest of my life trying to get the person who dumped me in another form, like that person but just with another face and another name? Or am I going to realize that there is a game being played here that I actually don't want to participate in again, and I want to participate in a different kind of game with a different kind of human being?
And when you do that, you have to check yourself and your own judgments and your own hidden contempt for this group of people over here who are playing a very different game, who maybe at one point or another you decided were uncool. They weren't the cheerleader or the football captain or the this or the that or whatever. If you start going towards another direction, a different kind of human being, and you start finding some contempt there, then now you're onto something. Why is it you have such contempt for the— And why is it you are so hell-bent on getting these people over here that apparently treat you so badly and decide every time that you're not rich enough or tall enough or this enough or whatever? Because they're just not the only people that exist. And if you think they are, you're not paying attention.
Yeah. Yeah, 100%. Earlier we spoke about the women in your life. Your mom, Pauline, is one of the most lovely people in the entire world. I've had the pleasure of meeting her and interacting with her over the last year. Every time that she comes in through the door, like, "Oh, how are you, love?" Gives me a kiss on my cheek. And I'm just curious from your point of view, this is something I've been wanting to ask you for a while. Are you concerned that I'm now her new favorite son?
Well, the problem is you also enjoy— So there's this English dish, for everyone listening, called pie and mash. It's not even the kind of dish that you could ask people in England if they knew about it, because it's not even a nationwide treasured dish. It's a local East End of London kind of dish that is very, very regional, and it's like old Dickensian food.
The liquor.
Pie and mash and liquor. See, you even know the lingo. By the way, it's not
It's like a meat pie and a side of mash, and you pour over it what's called liquor, which doesn't mean alcohol. It means this sort—
Parsley sauce.
Yeah, this glutinous, thick, stodgy parsley green sauce. The whole thing looks like something that belongs in a Dr. Seuss cartoon.
Yeah.
And it's a problem that you even got taken for pie and mash when you were in England for our team retreat.
Yeah.
And you really enjoyed it, and you cleaned your plate.
I did. I couldn't do the two pie, two mash. It was too much for me that day. I think I did one pie.
Two pie. When you go into a pie and mash shop, you say you want a two and two or a two and a one or a three and a one or a three and a two, and that basically equates to how many pies, how many mash, and they only take cash.
Yeah.
So now I could be replaced because even you could go home to mom, she'd take you for pie and mash.
And we'd been talking about it for months.
There's very little at this point that I can offer that you can't.
Well, I'm glad that you're—
You're a good eater. My mom loves a good eater.
Yeah. Well, I'm glad that you're coming to terms with that.
If you have enjoyed this episode and you'd like to see us do maybe one of these every few weeks, once a month, maybe something like that, let us know. podcast@matthewhussey.com. And if you were listening to this going, "I've got something I'd like to challenge Matthew on, and I'd like to use David as my vehicle."
I'm your vessel.
Then email us, podcast@matthewhussey.com.
And by the way, even if you just have comments that you want to make that you'd like David to read out, email us. We'd love to hear from you, and let us know if you enjoyed this because it's a first time doing it and we want your feedback. Thank you so much. We'll see you next time.
Article published · Updated