Being attracted to oneself pretending to be a woman is not an orientation- it's a paraphilia, or a kink. Turning up publicly in your fetish gear and subjecting everybody to it, is gross and highly disrespectful to other people.

An important takeaway from this conversation is that AGPs know perfectly well that they are not women, and know they are interlopers into women's spaces. The idea that AGPs are in any way vulnerable or marginalised is a massive lie.

If a gay man removes all of his clothing, he is still attracted to men. If an autogynephile removes all his clothing and adornments, is he still attracted to himself? If his attraction *requires* those things, to me, this doesn't sound like an orientation.

AGP is not a sexual orientation.

Obsessing over your identity in any form is a special kind of narcissism MOST of us don’t have the luxury of indulging in. Honestly, I’m starting to think these are just “privileged” people problems. If you were trying to build a shelter to live in, find food to eat and trying not to die from the elements this garbage would be the least of your priorities.

I think the alarm against agp by trans is because so many of them are agp and DO NOT want it known.

I would like to make it clear no one has told this man hes not allowed to wear dresses, he is allowed to wear dresses. Im allowed to say its gross when a man wears dresses while promoting his book about how that turns him on. He wants to be a creep and not have any criticism for it.

The only possible reason for practicing your paraphillia in public is attention. Keep it in your own home.

Creep being creepy doesn’t want you to bring up your morals & ethics in a conversation about why others are upset about their creepy behavior. Imagine that.

Rudy saying Phil's look is giving Buffalo Bill vibes is dead-on. I feel like Phil has been emboldened in how he presents himself now more and more since he was given a platform. I have listened to him quite a bit and now I am creeped out by him

“I don’t like to put a lot of thought into what I wear.” Are. You. Serious.😂😂😂

Just don't say the wives "have to at least try out" sex role play. It is presented to us as as our obligation. We get hurt physically & psychologically. I have data from 54 trans widows. Our stories are not told in any kind of representative way, in which the collateral damage is recognized. This damages women, who are mothers.

When a guy writes an “edgy” book and then acts out publicly to create a controversy around the subject matter of said book I’d say it’s more of a GRIFT than an orientation !

Rudy is so right that women would not approach Phil if they feel uncomfortable. I think what i don't like is that it is not about the clothing itself , it is the fact that it is specifically for women that makes me uncomfortable. Men wearing kaftans that can look exactly like dresses , and men wearing unisex clothing however brightly coloured or 'feminine ' do not bother me , but it feels different when the clothing is specifically made for women, because it is not then about the clothing it is about the fact that it is a fetishization of women.

But I'm with Rudy, this guy is bathing himself in self-stimulation, and the rest of us are supposed to just carry on like it's perfectly normal

I thought it was a debate? Why is it 2 vs. 1? Next time I’d be happy to team up with Rudy, if you want a fair 2 v 2

"I think you are speaking too much truth here Rudy so Im going to tell you that you are basically confused...to try to manipulate you into letting me have my way..." ANY survivor of narc abuse can spot this IMMEDIATELY....

No one would be stupid enough to let someone who's admitted to being a pedophile hang around little kids, even if said pedo isn't rock hard at that exact moment. Even if said pedophile genuinely just loves to innocently play with the kids 99% of the time. That 1% is still too much. Phil is trying to act like him not being turned on 24/7 by his sexual fixation suddenly makes it ok for him to openly display it, when it's not. I don't want the "non-offending" AGP to be normalized the same as I don't want "non-offending" pedos to be normalized. Phil admitted to being more turned on by the clothes in the beginning, then he got desensitized to it to where it feels more mundane to him. That follows the evergrowing nature of fetish and paraphilia where the person constantly have to push further and further to get their hit. Seems a bit like when a porn addicted person mindlessly watches "vanilla" porn while feeling nothing anymore. Still doesn't make it ok for the person to openly watch porn among other people, despite the fact that he's not even turned on by it anymore. Phil says he would feel uncomfortable in men's clothes, so he chooses to instead to push the uncomfort onto all the women around him by wearing women's clothes and being open about it being sexual for him. He still (at least in this video) seems to have no interest at all in finding the cause of his own discomfort to fix it, he's happy to just push it onto others instead. He's already picking his own comfort over the comfort of the vast majority of women, so why should women trust him to be a safe person? Rudy was right when he said Phil seems unable to even imagine a man could wear anything feminine and not be an AGP, becuase he's so hyperfocused on his own sexual fixation. Or perhaps he is only pretending to think that to further his own case, who knows. I partly think buying into "gender" does that to you - suddenly you have to accept that every little action a person does is to express a feminine or masculine role/gender, when in reality most people aren't hyperfocused on the stereotypes of the sexes and they just exist in a neutral state. I think Benjamin has bought into gender too from what I've heard him say before, hence why he seems like he's mostly on Phil's side this episode.

Quite comical really, three men trying to have a serious debate on how women feel around blokes with sexual perversions, fetishes & general sexual deviance. Rudy had a good go at it whilst that Phil appears to have tin ear. Just because women opt for self preservation rather than speaking their mind to his face doesn't actually mean acceptance.

I'm a woman and I wouldn't be seen dead in any of the shite Phil wears! 😂

RUDY! Good on you for doing this.

women don't confront because of the danger these men pose

Not a fashion conversation, it is an appropriate attire conversation. Also, bringing it to peoples attention that, oh yeah, this is also sexually arousing for me , is problematic.

I wonder where Autogynephilia fits on the Narcissist spectrum.

Whatever happened to the concept of the "dirty old man" a phrase we all used to use and was widely understood to be a creepy bloke acting sexually inappropriately in public. Thats all Phil is trying to wrap it up in academic jargon. He cant stop people recognising what hes about and telling him we dont want to be involved- like women did when they spotted him at Genspect. Young people get warned about sleezy men like this when theyre growing up and then go on to warn next generation.

By Phil's logic every woman who dresses in dungarees, sweats, and sports jerseys is actually just an AAP and does not realize it.

Loved Rudy's facial expressions 😊 teamRudy all the way in this!

“It’s giving very much Buffalo Bill”. I’m dead ☠️

This discussion considers how female strangers will feel about an AGP, but I would have liked to see some consideration of the impact on people close to the AGP. Is Phil's mother also supposed to "deal with her emotions"?

I think AGPs need to realize that most people have no issue with sexualized cross dressing. Doing it in PUBLIC or crossing boundaries into women’s spaces to feel aroused is predatory. It’s not cool. It’s harming the perception of actual trans people and it’s wrong.

I'd love to see Phil discuss this with a woman!

My question for Phil would be how would he fulfill his sexual orientation if he was on an island with men and women with no material things around?Having sex with a woman while thinking of himself as one? Or just masturbating to the fantasy of himself being a woman? Does he enjoy the idea of other people seeing him as female? Or simply imagining himself as one? It gets into fetish territory if he requires a third party to validate him, IMO. This is what most trans-woman/AGPs seem to be like and what is inherently wrong to force other people into. I don’t think he’s being harmful by wearing a dress, I think people need to judge him by his actions. I appreciate that he doesn’t ask other people to think of him as a female. There’s no way to regulate what gender clothes people wear. But I do think he’s wrong that it is just like a regular orientation. Orientation is inherently about what sexual traits you are attracted to in other real life people, not figments of your imagination.

Transvesticism isn't an orientation; it's a "philia". I have no problem with Phil's dress or where he wears it. I do have an issue with his push to have AGP or any philia labeled as a sexual orientation because that gains protected status in almost every jurisdiction in the US. We open the door for other philias to be considered orientations thus protected. Should pedophilia also gain protection as a sexual orientation? I think this dangerous.

Benjamin, your introduction of this debate was biased towards Phil, and trivializing of the actual issue. It’s not about “performing femininity”, and it’s not just women who are grossed out by Genspect. It’s this man acting out his fetish in public- and if you doubt that dressing up is a fetish, never fear- he wrote an entire book (or AI wrote it, as it seems to be the case) CONFIRMING that the clothes are integral to his fetish.

3 MEN talking about something that only effects women.

I don’t think Phil “infringed” on females rights or consent or whatever, that’s a stretch. It’s more about why did a conference about safeguarding of gender confused children and detransitioners, promote the book of an agp about living within the fetish instead of overcoming it. Would you buy a book on how to get sober by someone who still drinks?

I love what Jonathon Pageau said about "fringe". He points out there's been a certain amount of tolerance society has for it. In some cases in it's right time and place when we even celebrate it. Once a year we have Halloween and express ourselves in ways that are fun or scary. In the Jewish religion there's a holiday called Purim where people let loose and have absurd plays and even get the green light to over drink. Cathedrals have gargoyles up on the steeple that have the purpose of scaring bad spirits away. However, we do not invite those gargoyles into the sanctuary! We can allow for a certain amount of fringe when we have strong boundaries and standards. In this day and age... we find the fringe demanding to be within those societal boundaries and it's not easy to know where the hard line must be drawn. The "inner self" with its wants and desires has become very powerful in today's world.

Ben this was by far your most unbalanced conversation.

I’m sorry but it is true that women in general will immediately read someone dressed like Phil as a pervert. maybe it’s because you’re all men, but to pretend that’s not the case is just…wrong.

I feel uncomfortable with men in dresses. It's instinctual. Feels weird and I'd avoid.

Phil's entire 'understanding' of his perversion is simply a set of logical arguments he has come up with to excuse his behaviour. So of course he doesn't care what other people think, or what societal norms are and the social contract of boundaries. Rudy you were brilliant, Benjamin you need to have a think!

Love Rudy standing up to the sexual deviant.

I tried to just listen and did for awhile. Just creepy vibes from the guy in the dress. I’ve got sons his age and it just made me feel pity for him. It doesn’t change the fact that I would stop in my tracks if he or anyone like him was in a public women’s space when I was. My understanding is that mental health has pulled back on really treating this disorder and a few others the past few years. No one wants accused of and charged with conversion therapy. Lots of factors here but I do think porn is a huge culprit.

The idea of being attracted to yourself as the opposite sex will narcissistic and creepy.

Portland does have worse problems, true, but that allows people like this to go deeper into their creepiness in public. We need to bring common decency and higher standards of public behavior.

It’s just like furries. If you’re turned on by the idea of you being in a fur suite, you should not have that on in public. It’s not the item, it’s the intention plus the knowledge provided. We wouldn’t know that this was a form of sexual gratification for you if you did not express that to everyone. That is why it is unacceptable in public. You’re including everyone in on your kink vs. it just being fashion. Ben, arguing you getting turned on by a woman in public with yoga pants on that just happens to pass by is a false equivalence. A more accurate comparison would be you knowing that yoga pants on women is a turn on for you, so you sign up for yoga classes with the INTENTION of seeing women in yoga pants, as it is sexually gratifying to you. It’s not a simple life pleasure; it’s a sexual pleasure. It’s a societal violation.

Rudy feeling the need to apologise at the end was deeply saddening. Boyce and Phil's enforcement of word soup and #bekind was complete in making a man feel shit about defending his sexual orientation and women from a paraphilic, sociopathic buffalo bill. A horrible watch.

Separation anxiety leads to fetishization of the mother. Some fetishize breasts, some legs (in nylon stockings), some skirts, some feet..... When the fear of separation is intensified, there is a narcissistic reflection of this fetishization on oneself. In puberty, the sexualization of shame occurs, and in order to cope, men create this pseudo-personality, which has a dual role of reducing anxiety (which is essentially separation) and feeding the brain with dopamine through autosexuality. The problem is that it's a rabbit hole, and that's why people have the need to turn this wrong perception into a sexual orientation or even a religion such as a trans cult. In a simple sense, this term could be interpreted as an Oedipus complex without castration fear. Thus, narcissistic men have the problem of viewing women both as a mother and as an "object" of sexual desire, and then, due to an increased fear of separation, they cannot bear this duality of the female figure, which in the case of an "ordinary" heterosexual does not go beyond the fact that he is attracted to breasts, buttocks, feet or what not. And the biggest problem is that Western culture is so materialistic that it glorifies sexuality so much that it is difficult for a person with agp maladaptiveness to even understand the mother-sexual object paradox, because the mother part does not have a deeper spiritual-psychological context. Agp as a sexual orientation is ontologically wrong. I overcame my agp, honestly and without hesitation to admit that I had this problem, but in order for someone to be treated for it, which is not easy, he must first admit that he is sick. Or he doesn't have to, so he tries to make quasi-theories so that other people can confirm him. The same thing is with the tran cult, because the root of the problem is the same.

So my question is why is a gay man speaking for women?

As an grandmother it appears to me that Phil is receiving loads of gratification, sexual or otherwise, for his attention grabbing fashion choices. There is a huge amount of payoff for him. I do suggest he stay in Oregon. The big world would not be kind to him.

why does benjamin not get this isn't like him being attracted to females and around females... this is at minimum like wearing a bdsm collar or fetish gear or vibrator in public. it doesn't matter that he thinks it's oriented "towards himself" he's oriented towards an object (clothes/gender stereotype items) and thinks because he is self obsessed and thinks of the objects on himself that makes it special. it's like if someone who is into masochism thought they could be masochistic in public as long as its enacted towards themselves. whats worse is at least the masochist doesn't necessarily have a layer of their fetish that includes getting off on the reactions of others (gender euphoria), phils does. to bring it back around to benjamins misunderstanding this would be like if a dominatrix wore her gear and torturing tools in public and specifically around men so she could see their disgust and anxiety about her (obviously ball crushing) tools and then pretended like it wasn't voyeuristic and was just an "orientation" and needed to be accomodated as an "identity" that revolved around her own perception/euphoria of herself as a dominatrix.

“In sexology” 🥴 these fake, self Important fields kill me

Is attention-seeking a sexual orientation? This is obviously the reason why he dresses like a woman in public. Why he does it in private is not the issue...

There is a reason why bedrooms have a door, keep it shut. Society is shouting that acting out on sexual fetishes in public is not tolerated. Phil is a classic narcissist, this is all about power and control. He's his own god, just look at the difference in camera angles between the three of them. Benjamin was on board with an AGP's comfort level and that that's more important regardless if the vast majority of women have an instinctual fear for their safety and the safety of their children around those who are acting out sexual fetishes in public. I've felt this fear many times. This was a two against one 'conversation'. Benjamin, the moment that you agreed with Phil and said AGP is an orientation, I unsubscribed, you are an imminent danger to all women. Thank you Rudy!

Boyce is giving GAMP, the way he is so unwilling to hear Rudy, and how blindly he seems to defend Philly. Also, next time turn off your mic, Boyce, so we aren’t hearing your sighs.

It's funny how men who dress in women's clothing always choose the most stereotypical women's clothing. It's funny how Phil chooses dresses in his wardrobe rotation and then claims they don't have anything to do with his AGP. Edited to add: Phil's wardrobe here looks like a costume.

Phil: "and then you want to embody it, it doesn't mean you hate the category of thing that your embodying " Women are the "thing" he is referencing. This attempt to legitimize a porn induced fetish as a legitimate sexual orientation, and the idea that it is unreasonable for people to be expected to keep their fetish out of public life is a position I wouldn't have expected here.

Integration of one's cross sex ideation into healthy acceptance of the reality of one's sex, and gender non conformity, is very different than what Phil is doing. By not recognizing the difference between paraphillia and sexual orientation, he is denying that paraphillia are aquired, not inborn. This also ignores any acknowledgement of the underlying causes, and much better treatment options than indulging the paraphillia which takes over ones life and nearly always destroys the person effected.

I think women, in general, & by majority, shy away from public sexual displays from men. Rudy accurately describes Phil's dress as a public display of his sexuality. So, our immediate response to Phil's dress would be discomfort & it would take getting to know him a bit to understand his reasoning for the dress & not feel threat. Most of us aren't going to go to those lengths unless we need to for some reason. Reasonable women will be polite, but we'll likely instinctually avoid him. The reaction he is getting online is women verbalizing the discomfort they feel, and no, Phil doesn't have to change because of those feelings but he'd probably sell more books if he took it into consideration.

Thank you for this conversation. Just jumping in the comments to say great seeing you wearing that ring. Stellar couple. Humanity needs more people like you building a quality life together. Cheers!

Makes much more sense to call AGP a sexual inclination, rather than a sexual orientation.

"Heterosexuality directed at yourself"? How is sexual attraction to yourself not a fetish? How is not just self-absorbed male creepiness?

A peacock’s plumage isn’t a gender expression. Cutting it off doesn’t make him a peahen and gluing it onto a peahen doesn’t make her a peacock.

Thank you for this conversation, these ideas are stretching and challenging. I would like to be able to say 'dress how you please' but I realise that i am uncomfortable with that . I don't want to see men in fetish gear, and it is difficult for liberals to admit to not being as liberal as they would like to be. I also dislike seeing young teenage girls in skimpy clothes - usually because I think they look cold, and because I know that the focus from men towards them is on what they look like not who they are - that saddens me. I think Rudy makes some very good points about it not being just about being a danger to women, it is also about making women feel uncomfortable. I do not like to see men in corsets and mini skirts , and definitely the Lolita vibe Rudy describes is disturbing. Phil makes me uncomfortable because he understands the reaction that his clothing will provoke - that it will make women uncomfortable , but he still does it anyway. At times i would say ok, that is fair enough, he has a right not to accept the conventional dress codes, but there are contexts where it is inappropriate Even the most liberal of people have limits of what is comfortable , but we don't usually know what they are until we are directly faced with them. For example the teacher in Canada with the massive fake tits was thought to be unacceptable by most people, because it was so obviously sexual and insulting - but what size of fake breast is ok for men to wear? because the same people who would think it is ok for a man to wear an average size of fake tits would object to the massive fake tits .

I wouldn't want him around my daughter

Dress however you want, love whoever will have you etc has met a wall here in the fact that seeing a man in a frock clearly causes some raised eyebrows. I have watched this unfold on X and can see why people are pissed off. We have eyes and yes, we can see who is sexually motivated by what they wear It’s like the ‘how do you know the good transwoman from the bad man scenario How do you know who is the pantomime dame and who is mentally getting off Something is off here and regardless of the mental gymnastics from Phil and Benjamin, I think most people know it

I like Rudy, but his consent arguement is dogshite. Sexual orientation doesn't require consent from others to exist - it just does. He's referring to the engagement of fetishism. That's just sloppy communication.

First there was Buffalo Bill. Now we see Buffalo Phil.

Boyce's pandering to Phil and his paraphilia is truly painful to watch.

again?

My thing is, if AGP really is a sexual orientation, just one where the person is sexually satisfied by something turned inward instead of outward, why does he need to do it outside his home? I mean, the vast majority of us aren't wearing sexy clothes when we get dressed for the day if we don't leave the house and no one else is there, because there's no one to see it and be attracted by it. We want to attract others, whether same sex or opposite sex or both and they are outside our home, so we find situations where we can get dressed up and go out to meet people. But an AGP can just do that at home. They don't need to involved the rest of us if it's an orientation, because they've already found their 'spouse,' themselves. But if it is a fetish, one that involves being SEEN by others as sexual in certain presentations, then it makes sense they have to go out looking like a stripper even though they aren't even going to an event where a woman actually seeking a male partner would dress like that.

As Benjamin says, 'how can we tell the difference between a fashion choice ( man in dress) and a guy who is getting off in front of us without our consent and often is predatory in intent. We can't. So keep out of women only spaces primarily for our safety, but also for our privacy and dignity. Aside of that, I love to explore the human experience and so interested in the conversation with hopefully as open mind as possible

I am a gender-conforming gay man and I am not consenting to Rudy's gay voice.

Most of what Phil says regarding his respect for sex segregated spaces, and not denying his sex, and gnc attire for both sexes is reasonable. Where there is disagreement is his assertion that any man or woman who expresses themselves in a culturally gnc manner, has some degree of agp/aap, and not just people who recognize their sex encompases aspects of the other and so express that. It's also the denial of it as a paraphillia, which is symptomatically related to other underlying mental health issues, means there is no consideration given to how feeding into this sexuality may not lead to the best outcomes for ppl that have this type of sexuality, as it does not address the often serious mental illnesses, trauma, personality and developmental disorders which underpin it, so they continue to go untreated and unhealed.

Apparently, this man Phil, can completely change the definitions of what orientations, fetishes, and paraphilias are because he has the qualification of having a paraphilia??? Is that all it takes? I guess smoking no longer causes cancer because i smoke! I'm the expert! 🙄

These men aren't well-matched for a debate. Rudy is unfamiliar with social science and humanities approaches, methods and terms (can't for example differentiate descriptive and prescriptive) whereas Phil is. They can only talk past each other.

Rudy’s face when Phil says that being into another species is a sexual orientation! Poor guy couldn’t believe what he was hearing.

If an adult male has a 'baby' fetish wearing baby clothing eg diaper..would that be appropriate to wear in public? Where is the acceptable standard in public? That would be creepy assss.

AGP and sado masochism are interlinked. AGPs have females as the subordinate gender category, hence sissy porn. When he turns up to a potentially hostile audience of GC women and men, it’s because he is getting off on the power play, the S and M experience. The women and men at the conference weren’t there to give him a thrill. You need to get Genevieve Gluck on to explain what he is getting out of this.

Are we supposed to congratulate a man for "knowing he's a man?" The bar is on the ground.

Was there anything resolved? Probably not. Was this a necessary conversation? For sure! Thank you to Benjamin and his guests for taking the time to discuss, debate, and keep it as civil as possible regardless of their personal stance.

Live and let live. It is always actions not intentions which matter. How is Phil hurting anyone? What does it matter what he wears? It is what is in a person's heart that matters. I appreciate the tone of the discussion. It was interesting and informative.

Omg so happy to see Rudy and hear you speak! Xox from nz ❤️‍🔥

Getting so sick of this stuff.

I’m a women and I’m definitely not offended by Phill. As long as he stays out of my female only spaces, I’m good.

I very much appreciate Phil for not entering female spaces, not identifying as female, and not using female pronouns.

Why is it that there is literally nothing else feminine about Phil whosoever, and yet that's supposedly how he wishes to present himself? And why do you, Benjamin, keep conflating para-phylias with orientation?

Since its been established that this is a paraphilia, at what point is it unhealthy? How should we address this within psychology and society? When should we intervene? How should it be treated? If one is unhappy with it, or is hurting others/self how should we help those people? How should it be prevented?

There is no point in arguing with these people as the entire basis of their belief is 'me,me,me'.

What a legend Rudy is 🔥

"Gender" has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the line, when he has laid out how carefully he juusssttt pushes up against it; then feigning confusion when called out. And it is UNCOMFORTABLE to call someone out...and he simply dismisses it. Creep, creepy, that is what that is.

I like Rudy but I'm not sure he was maybe the best person to have this discussion. Heather Heying would have been a far better bet and also maybe we'd hear more about Phil's interesting ideas than just about his mode of dress. Can't help wondering about Benjamin's process choosing Phil's 'opponent'!! :P

Can anybody explain to me what issue did that man have with AGP men and consent? How exactly are they behaving in non-consensual way? Is that any different than heterosexual man having sexual thoughts about random women they see on the street? Because as a woman, I don't think I ever gave a consent to such thoughts either. Am I supposed to be offended that he wears clothes designed for women? Because I am not. Sorry but I find it especially distasteful when a member of a sexual minority tries to feel morally superior to a member of a different sexual minority, when it comes to a fetish that doesn't break anyone's consent. He acted as if having a paraphilia automatically meant behaving in a non-consensual way which is an abysmally ignorant opinion. Did he just compare transvestism to bestiality? That's outrageous. And no, paraphilia is not sexual orientation and I wouldn't necessarily see AGP as a malignant fetish either. All depends on how honest are the ones who have it with their potential partners.

Why are some mental disorders or paraphilias treated with intention to help the person heal, while others are completely indulged in? If you know you have a paraphilia, why wouldn't you want to heal it instead of playing it out in public?

I’m confused… if he is aroused by himself then how is that a threat to others. Who cares how he dresses, he knows he is a man and it a world of confused men wanting to be called woman, I appreciate that he knows he is a man and respects woman’s spaces

I’m so sad this guy is getting a platform. Benjamin definitely took a side here & that makes me question his motives.

A woman could have been sexually abused by a man in a mustache, but another man with a mustache should not have to shave his mustache to make her comfortable. She's responsible for her own triggers and healing.

So great to have two people arguing and it not to be shut down so we can hear both sides - well done Benjamin for being such a great moderator and seeing the bigger picture at all times❤

With things like this, I like to strip away 'modernity,' then play it out in my mind how this might manifest without modern day luxuries. I don't think this exists outside the world of affluence. I can't place my finger on it but, there's something so "sociologically artificial" about this behavior. And I don't even really know what that means. Sex roles are nearly a human universal. Human beings really prefer what is familiar to them. If you are going to step outside that box, you really ought to have something worthwhile to bring to the world. And I think you bare the responsibility to ensure the meek are not unduly influenced by your sub-optimal behavior. We all oppress ourselves in one fashion or another to fit in. It's what keeps the peace. 🐿