Incel-ebrity: Andrew Wilson, the Red-Pillers' Favorite Debate Bro
By Reese Villella
Content Warning & Disclaimer: This piece contains frequent and direct references to sexual assault and other sensitive topics. Censorship (e.g., using terms like “SA,” “grape,” or “unalive”) is intentionally avoided. This choice is not made to sensationalize the content, but to accurately represent the rhetoric being discussed and to emphasize the gravity of the language used. Euphemistic or pseudo-censored terms do not soften the harm caused by such rhetoric. Wherever possible, I have quoted speakers verbatim, but in instances where they used euphemisms, I have replaced them with their plain-language equivalents to maintain clarity and context.
Red-pillers, rejoice! I know your favorite rapists/misogynists/MRAs/pick-up artists/incels have been deplatformed, jailed, or banned from Twitch, but don’t worry, for the manosphere is bountiful and constantly platforming real-life supervillains.
Image Sourced through Pinterest
If you don’t get pussy, you might be familiar with the Whatever Podcast, a “relationship/dating podcast” hosted by Brian Atlas. A typical Whatever episode features Brian and a panel of guests. The female guests are often college students picked off the street, “radical” feminists (by their definition), OF models, and influencers. The male guests are often seasoned debaters, political activists, and commentators.
I honestly have few qualms with Atlas. Of course, I have my reservations about the way the show functions and the obviously intentional imbalance of debate skills between the feminists and sexists, but that’s hardly the crux of the issue. I understand the design here—to make women look uneducated because they are inexperienced in debates. I don’t think these women are unintelligent; I think they come onto the podcast expecting to talk about sex and relationships, then are bombarded with outrageous hypotheticals and a bunch of dudes telling them they belong in the kitchen. They think they’re about to be on Walmart Call Her Daddy, but instead they’re on Walmart Fresh and Fit.
Atlas himself is rather uninteresting, and I don’t even say that to be insulting. From what I can tell, he mostly keeps to himself and lets his guests do the talking. Of course, due to the nature of the conversations on his podcast, I can only imagine that his views align with the more red-pilled perspective, but, of course, how would I know? He barely talks. I will say that each of his videos includes the following statement in the description: “The views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the Whatever channel.” This disclaimer can only go so far until you realize that the same conversations are happening over and over again.
A recurring guest who does do the talking, however, is Andrew Wilson. Not much is available about Wilson online due to his sharing a name with Owen Wilson’s brother, so I found it difficult to find details on his upbringing, education, and pre-podcast career. However, it is certainly not difficult to find details about his opinions.
Wilson first came on my radar during a video where he insinuated that some women enjoy sexual assault. This clip comes from a podcast episode that is six excruciating hours long. I have not watched the whole episode, but I have viewed the context/lead-up to the sexual assault conversation.
Wilson presents his debate opponent, Oliver Niehaus, with statistics, saying that people who save themselves for marriage are generally happier and therefore, a celibate lifestyle should be promoted. Niehaus responds with the (accurate) claim that just because a lifestyle benefits certain people does not mean that it necessarily needs to be “promoted” by organizations, the government, etc.
In a totally grounded and totally reasonable response, Wilson says, “Well, I guess you can make the case that rape is bad for certain people.” He goes on to insinuate that because some women orgasm during sexual assault, that sexual assault therefore benefits those women. I understand the argument he’s poorly trying to make: that an outlier is not representative of an entire group or experience. A very small portion of sexual assault victims climax during the assault. However, the implication that orgasm therefore negates the violent assault is absolutely absurd.
A physiological response to physical sensations is not indicative of consent or enjoyment. To give him the undeserving benefit of the doubt, I don’t necessarily believe that Wilson was attempting to make the case for rape, though his comments about orgasm and enjoyment suggest to me that he believes some of the implications of his argument.
In another video titled “Andrew Wilson Is ACCUSED Of S Attacking His Wife By Radical Feminist,” Wilson discusses having sex with his wife while she is asleep. This clip, too, comes from a longer podcast episode, which runs at just over seven hours. Jesus Christ.
Wilson asks his debate opponent, Ms. Kenzie, if the following scenario is considered rape: a man wakes up with an erection and begins to have sex with his wife while she’s sleeping. She explains that this scenario would be considered rape because there is no express consent. Wilson reveals that he has had sex with his wife while she is asleep and that his wife has done the same to him, and proceeds to say the following:
“She rapes me sometimes, I rape her sometimes.”
“There is an implied consent when you get married.”
“And I enjoy it. I enjoy raping her. I enjoy it.”
He uses intentionally inflammatory language in what I assume is an attempt to throw off or upset Ms. Kenzie. He obviously does not believe that he is raping his wife; therefore, he uses her language with a smug smile on his face while describing how much he loves raping his wife.
I think the scenario is missing some context, which is, of course, that if this is an agreed-upon practice in their marriage, which it seems to be, then this would technically be consensual, despite not being consented to by both parties in the moment. I was not a participant in this conversation and therefore couldn’t ask necessary clarifying questions like: is this something the two of you have had a conversation about in advance, or did you start doing it to one another without open communication and express consent?
I can only assume that “waking up to sex” is a common practice in their relationship that they are both on board with, though I am hesitant to assume that Wilson is capable of mature conversations around consent. What bothers me, however, about his claims is when he says consent is implied because they are married, which is famously not how consent works.
I don’t know if Wilson has ever explicitly discussed the topic of marital rape, but considering the above statement, it certainly seems like he would believe there is no such thing. I am not going to sit here and explain what marital rape is because I’m pretty sure all people of conscience understand that rape is rape, regardless of relationship status.
Andrew Wilson isn’t just some random guy who spews outrageous stuff on an unreasonably long-winded podcast; he’s someone whose views have been viewed by millions. He is a symptom of something much larger: the manosphere. A network of podcasts, influencers, and online (*cough cough* Reddit) forums, the manosphere sells itself as a space for male empowerment, but it operates primarily on anti-feminist backlash, manufactured grievances, and weaponized misogyny. These platforms thrive on the same ecosystem of controversy, outrage, and self-victimization disguised as intellectualism.
Whatever dresses up its misogyny in awkward group discussions and faux-debate formats. It’s the soft launch of red-pill radicalization: just “debating ideas” and “asking questions” on a “dating podcast.” But what’s actually happening is a rehearsed spectacle: men who are prepped, practiced, and platformed confronting women who are intentionally out of their depth.
Wilson, despite his smug delivery, isn't some mastermind. He’s a middle-tier manosphere actor whose value lies in how effectively he can package deeply harmful ideas in the language of reason. He can disguise his grating laughter as confidence all he wants, but that doesn’t make his viewpoints any stronger. He’s not always yelling or screaming like Andrew Tate; he’s just calmly telling you that rape might be good for some people. This is what makes figures like him so dangerous: they present violent, regressive beliefs in a tone that sounds rational, or even intellectual.
Whatever promotes a very specific ideology under the guise of open conversation. They insist that they’re promoting “critical thinking,” but the structure is rigged, the audience is already aligned, and the outcome is always the same: women get mocked, minimized, and silenced. “The views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the views of the whatever channel,” my ass.
The impact isn’t just that young men start parroting these ideas; it’s that they start to adopt the framework. Everything becomes a debate to be won, a hierarchy to dominate. Consent becomes negotiable. Empathy becomes weakness. Women become the enemy or the object of conquest.
Somewhere out there right now, a 23-year-old finance bro is unboxing his podcast mic and preparing to ask women if they deserve rights.
Image Sourced through Pinterest
