When I wrote my piece on Nick Fuentes which drew a direct line from his misogyny and the fact that he was a 27–year old virgin it is fair to say I received some ‘pushback’ from a cohort of angry readers and subscribers, and indeed one or two colleagues. That anger deserves a response.
And so, after some careful reflection, consideration and ponderings, I’ve come to a realisation: I’ve decided I’m still right. I’m 100% correct. I agree with me.
It was I’ll admit a surprise to be called ‘woke’ by someone, somewhere. I’ll just say this now: I’m not woke. None of my writings in the last 15 years would suggest that I’m woke. Nor am I a misogynist, internalised or otherwise.
A few preliminaries: Some readers of that piece thought I was some kind of Piers Morgan fan girl, which is hilarious. Like thousands of others I’m blocked by Morgan, I do not care for most of his views or much of his politics. He was one of the most pro-lockdown commentators in Britain with a huge platform on morning TV, which he used to terrorise the general population. Morgan directly influenced British government policy on the matter of whether people should be allowed to leave their own homes and go to work or school and whatnot – which I criticised heavily at the time.
Second, commenting on someone’s sexuality or sexual experience is not something I would normally do – but here we are. I did it because on this occasion it is relevant, as I’ll explain below.
Third, it is true to say that I have not watched hours and hours of Fuentes commentary, so if you are going to tell me actually he is a lovely chap, your dream son–in–law then we are arguing past each other.
But let’s be clear as to what he did say in his interview with Morgan. Morgan asked “are you actually attracted to women?”
“I am attracted to women,” Fuentes confirmed. “You’re not gay?” Morgan went on.
“No, but I will say that women are very difficult to be around, so there’s that,” Fuentes replied.
Previously, in 2024, on the Hodge Twins podcast, Fuentes said, “Well, I’m Catholic, so I’m waiting for marriage. Also, you know, I’m kind of like an autistic guy”.
“I’m kind of an antisocial person. I think to do what I do, you kind of have to, ’cause I have been to—you know, not to not to be totally self-righteous or whatever—but I am totally ostracized because of my views.”
Many commentators seemed to believe that Fuentes virginial state has been maintained because he is practicing the virtue of chastity – which can be practiced both before and after marriage. This is taking his case at its highest. This is a very sympathetic reading of a man who believes that “women want to have the sh*t beaten out of them.” (At 1 hour 27 mins of the relevant Hodgetwins interview.) In fact it is deluded. He has elsewhere stated that “women want to be raped”. But sure, let’s believe he’s all about the Christian virtues.
That is not my reading of it. I believe – because he said on live TV – that Fuentes is a virgin because he doesn’t like women, as women. He is attracted to them, in his telling, which is more a primal urge you cannot help but does he actually like them? No. He says, quite clearly, ‘they are very difficult to be around.’ I take him at his word.
Two things on this: First, if the conservative and/or Christian movement thinks they can build the great Christian revival of marriage and having children within marriage with young men ‘who don’t like to be around women’ and call women bitches then I suggest you will struggle with this. If this is the foundation for your Christian revival, you can count me out.
Nor is there any actual virtue to what Fuentes is doing. If you are not sleeping with women because you don’t like them that doesn’t sound like much of a sacrifice to me. It’s a bit like me saying “oh I’m not going to watch the rugby match that’s on today”. That’s not hard for me as I don’t like rugby. To coin a phrase, I find it difficult to be around.
Fuentes twists and poisons the virtue of chastity turning it in the process into a vice. He explicitly says, ‘women are hard to be around’ and he has made various other statements denigrating women. I think this is the reason for his virginity – he doesn’t like women. Which is the very opposite of the point of chastity – namely to ‘save yourself’ for the woman you love and want to marry. If you are practicing the virtue properly, you are not having a sexual relationship with a woman despite the fact you are very attracted to her and/or love her. This is the sacrifice. If you don’t like any of these women in the first place then it’s not that hard to be chaste now is it?
Now it may be the case that Fuentes is socially awkward and so on. He calls himself an incel. I have sympathy with him if this is the case. What I do not appreciate and should not be praised by conservatives or Christians is that Fuentes is dripping poison into the ears of millions of young men and teenage boys, who are perhaps also socially awkward and telling them that women are bitches, hard to be around and want to be physically abused.
As for those who have practiced chastity before marriage and are now married and fathers – well good for you. Why you’d think Fuentes has anything to do with your situation I don’t know. He is NOT married with children, that’s the point.
Fuentes is concerned that white folk are being replaced by the pesky foreigners – yet there he sits at the ripe old age of 27, as childfree and loving it as any allegedly immoral liberal woman. Please excuse me while I prepare a meal for my four children.
Further, there is the naivety of some. It you think that Fuentes and his followers who have ‘never had sexual relations’ with women are just reading their CS Lewis at night while drinking their hot chocolate and saying a few Hail Marys before bed then I have news for you. They are not.
Many – not all, but many – will be consuming huge amounts of pornography of the really disgusting kind. This further fuels their misogyny. I am not judging them – this stuff is highly addictive. This is the realistic alternative. If the choice for my sons was that they are in a relationship with a normal woman having normal sexual relations or being at home watching porn and Fuentes I’d take the relationship every time, thank you very much. And so should you.
There is also the argument that the youth can be in a relationship and remain chaste. Sure, that’s the calling – nearly always honoured in the breach. They are chaste. Mostly. Just like Laura had a great Lent when she gave up Dunne’s brand rich tea biscuits. But only the Dunne’s brand rich tea biscuits. I indulged in everything else, the triple chocolate biscuits, the cookies, the penguin bars, the black forest cake, the swiss rolls etc. But sure – I had a great Lent, like most couples over the age of 25 are chaste.
And what kind of woman could steal the hearts of young Fuentes? Ah yes – the 16 year old untouched, unspoiled virgin. Someone like my daughter. This is what I really object to; the poison he drips into the ears of young men, the misogyny he encourages in them and the hint that they should prey on young girls like my daughter.
Fuentes has explicitly stated that women should not be allowed to vote. Fuentes believes men should have control over women’s bodily autonomy. He advocates for a 1950s-style structure where women stay at home, are subordinate to men, and are not in positions of authority. But then what you would expect from a man who believes that “women want to have the sh*t beaten out of them.”
Despite all this Fuentes encourages his followers to get married and be head of the household. Not him mind, just his followers. So what you have here is a very influential young man poisoning the minds of already vulnerable young men, who after years of discrimination (which I have spoken out against repeatedly) are ripe for radicalization, turning them into misogynists and then urging them to marry young, very young, women. In other words – get married and physically and emotionally abuse your wife. Is this what you want for your daughter?
Most people I assume are not pro–physical abuse of their wives, even if she is an ‘annoying fat, ‘b*tch.’ But emotional abuse in marriages, from both men and women, is very common and widespread if unseen. It crosses class, racial and sexuality lines. It does not need any further encouragement from the likes of Fuentes and I absolutely believe this is what he is doing.
Interesting isn’t it that they like ‘em young? This is not about a husband who after careful consideration and respectful discussion and debate with his wife of a similar education and life experience being granted a very final say, a veto over a very big decision for the family. That is often the default position in many marriages.
What Fuentes is talking about is physical abuse and coercive control. How good a husband do you think a man will be who believes ‘that women want to have the sh*t beaten out of them,” doesn’t like to be around women, finds them annoying and doesn’t respect them? A man who says “we are going back to the stone age”. You dear reader, can go back there with him if you wish. But I’m staying firmly in 2025 – 2026.
My husband is a divorce lawyer and I like to keep abreast of the relationship world, the Mumsnet and the problem pages etc. There are enough dickheads out there, men and women, the narcissists, the controllers, the physically and emotionally abusive pricks. We don’t need any more of them. You have a choice in life, particularly the public life. You can either increase the common good or degrade it. Fuentes is in the business of degrading it. The problem is he is taking otherwise decent people down with him.
Fuentes racism and antisemitism is bad enough. But the fact that some people are willing to excuse this because of his chastity is ridiculous. He isn’t even doing this right, and he is worsening conditions for young men and young women to find a suitable non – abusive spouse and settle down. That was, and remains, my point.
So yes, I’ve thought about it. And I’m still right. Sorry about that.