Very doubtful he'll lose any of his current fans because of this. I'm also guessing there's not much overlap between Huberman fans and NY Mag devotees. If anything, this will just make him more famous (I'd never even heard of him until people started talking about this piece).
I've seen some people ask what the point of this piece was. Is it an attempt to revive #MeToo (but for cheating)? Is it just salacious gossip? It seems more to be the latest expression of anger by elite metropolitan women over the relentlessly hypercompetitive environment for the dwindling number of men they deem eligible, which further just empowers those men to act in ways that make those women deeply unhappy. This is just West Elm Caleb all over again.
There's no real solution to all this. Cheating isn't admirable, but it's also not a crime. We also often hear, both with bitterness and triumph, that women cheat just as much as men. So all there's left to do is vent from time to time.
Shouldn't we be supportive of Huberman? I mean, simultaneously suffering from both narcissism and sociopathy (potentially) would be a burden for anyone. Not to mention the expense of a separate phone account per girlfriend.
So cool that the first I heard of it was from your substack. To be honest, that guy always gave me a bad feeling, and I did not like listening to him obviously full of pride.
I find this very balanced and it was refreshing to read this perspective from a woman. I'm wondering now what you think about the Yascha Mounk fiasco. Granted the accusation there is one of rape instead of merely unsavory behavior, but it is an example of trial by media. I did notice, though, that there's a far more muted reaction to that one, too. I also am curious to read your thoughts on how one might process unfalsifiable statements when women allege rape. On the one hand, I want to have sympathy. On the other, we've not been given much info to judge the situation in the first place.
Even granting that Huberman is well-known in some circles (I'd never heard of him before this), I still don't understand why a major magazine thought that his ex-girlfriends' many complaints about how shitty he was as a boyfriend was cover-story material. He does sound pretty shitty! But I don't think being a somewhat public figure necessarily makes your shortcomings as a partner fair game for lengthy public discussion and dissection, ESPECIALLY when there's no connection between those shortcomings and your public notoriety. This just seems like gossip, of the old-school "kind of gross" variety.
Should we separate the science from the scientist?
The one good thing that came out of the internet is knowledge and choice (for most people)
If you're a woman and a possible potential partner of his, you can choose to know all of of this and ignore it. Keep listening to his podcast and ignore it. But at least, now you know.
To cheat on someone doing IVF to have a baby with you, considering what a difficult process that is... Is PEAK Ahole behavior.
> Is this public shaming? Yes, which is, in my opinion, the correct reaction to men behaving in a socially unpalatable and yet perfectly legal way in the sexual arena.
In what conservative backwater is "public shaming" an acceptable response to private matters, or is the concern of the public if consenting adults did or did not wear protection?
This guy is just living out the entertainment trope we see everywhere – X professional is bad at X in their own life. Or on an even more basic level – we be bad at taking our own advice. This is simply not journalism worthy content. He entered these arrangements consensually and even if he is a bullshitter, are women really this dumb and don't they bear some responsibilty? Readers should kinda be ashamed to care about this. But I guess those willing to rely on guru types for self-help may be less critical thinkers overall and this could be catnip to them.
Recent subscriber, love your takes. Completely agree here, lot of people missing productive takeaways of the profile. It’s a very good, smartly crafted profile which also mentions Huberman being a supplement-hawking grifter with questionable expertise. Not a role model, and not entitled to high ground or “fairness” when his whole persona is *about* his personal life (which is obviously not-so-admirable in reality) …
Oh my. A semi famous man cheated and lied to his affair partners and *GASP* didn't use a condom.
Egads the horrors. What we have here is just another example of the mainstream left wing's war on men and war on all things masculine. I could see something like this showing up in a supermarket tabloid rag, but for a major publication to cover it shows how far the left will go to take down any man who they do not approve of.
I expected his behaviour will be recognized as empowering for women, at least for women involved, he did make himself available to (almost) all women who expressed desire, he was reasonably successful in satisfying their wishes/desires…will be adored forever by some…
what was wrong? Stella, as a voice of a new generation, can you reiterate what was wrong, why it was wrong, and how it should have been done?
It's a mistake to think that the point is to put [insert high status male I've never heard of before this post] on notice that we simply won't abide his kind behavior anymore.
It's actually to put the men *below him* on notice. And it's quite rational.
You can tell this means of social control has a non-zero effect by the number of men trying desperately to convince women that imposing these (very mild) social costs for behavior we hate is silly or evil. Or both.
Very doubtful he'll lose any of his current fans because of this. I'm also guessing there's not much overlap between Huberman fans and NY Mag devotees. If anything, this will just make him more famous (I'd never even heard of him until people started talking about this piece).
I've seen some people ask what the point of this piece was. Is it an attempt to revive #MeToo (but for cheating)? Is it just salacious gossip? It seems more to be the latest expression of anger by elite metropolitan women over the relentlessly hypercompetitive environment for the dwindling number of men they deem eligible, which further just empowers those men to act in ways that make those women deeply unhappy. This is just West Elm Caleb all over again.
There's no real solution to all this. Cheating isn't admirable, but it's also not a crime. We also often hear, both with bitterness and triumph, that women cheat just as much as men. So all there's left to do is vent from time to time.
Slut shaming is okay if the target is a man.
Why doesn't he just tell the women he wants to bed that he's polyamorous? Any guesses?
Shouldn't we be supportive of Huberman? I mean, simultaneously suffering from both narcissism and sociopathy (potentially) would be a burden for anyone. Not to mention the expense of a separate phone account per girlfriend.
So cool that the first I heard of it was from your substack. To be honest, that guy always gave me a bad feeling, and I did not like listening to him obviously full of pride.
I find this very balanced and it was refreshing to read this perspective from a woman. I'm wondering now what you think about the Yascha Mounk fiasco. Granted the accusation there is one of rape instead of merely unsavory behavior, but it is an example of trial by media. I did notice, though, that there's a far more muted reaction to that one, too. I also am curious to read your thoughts on how one might process unfalsifiable statements when women allege rape. On the one hand, I want to have sympathy. On the other, we've not been given much info to judge the situation in the first place.
I don’t have much to contribute beyond appreciation for dropping 1s in MOTHER.
Anyway, good piece. Chewing it over.
Even granting that Huberman is well-known in some circles (I'd never heard of him before this), I still don't understand why a major magazine thought that his ex-girlfriends' many complaints about how shitty he was as a boyfriend was cover-story material. He does sound pretty shitty! But I don't think being a somewhat public figure necessarily makes your shortcomings as a partner fair game for lengthy public discussion and dissection, ESPECIALLY when there's no connection between those shortcomings and your public notoriety. This just seems like gossip, of the old-school "kind of gross" variety.
Should we separate the art from the artist?
Should we separate the science from the scientist?
The one good thing that came out of the internet is knowledge and choice (for most people)
If you're a woman and a possible potential partner of his, you can choose to know all of of this and ignore it. Keep listening to his podcast and ignore it. But at least, now you know.
To cheat on someone doing IVF to have a baby with you, considering what a difficult process that is... Is PEAK Ahole behavior.
> Is this public shaming? Yes, which is, in my opinion, the correct reaction to men behaving in a socially unpalatable and yet perfectly legal way in the sexual arena.
In what conservative backwater is "public shaming" an acceptable response to private matters, or is the concern of the public if consenting adults did or did not wear protection?
This guy is just living out the entertainment trope we see everywhere – X professional is bad at X in their own life. Or on an even more basic level – we be bad at taking our own advice. This is simply not journalism worthy content. He entered these arrangements consensually and even if he is a bullshitter, are women really this dumb and don't they bear some responsibilty? Readers should kinda be ashamed to care about this. But I guess those willing to rely on guru types for self-help may be less critical thinkers overall and this could be catnip to them.
Recent subscriber, love your takes. Completely agree here, lot of people missing productive takeaways of the profile. It’s a very good, smartly crafted profile which also mentions Huberman being a supplement-hawking grifter with questionable expertise. Not a role model, and not entitled to high ground or “fairness” when his whole persona is *about* his personal life (which is obviously not-so-admirable in reality) …
>single
>rich
>famous
>stanford neuroscientist
>jacked
>life coach
wow i cant believe he would sleep with multiple women
Oh my. A semi famous man cheated and lied to his affair partners and *GASP* didn't use a condom.
Egads the horrors. What we have here is just another example of the mainstream left wing's war on men and war on all things masculine. I could see something like this showing up in a supermarket tabloid rag, but for a major publication to cover it shows how far the left will go to take down any man who they do not approve of.
I expected his behaviour will be recognized as empowering for women, at least for women involved, he did make himself available to (almost) all women who expressed desire, he was reasonably successful in satisfying their wishes/desires…will be adored forever by some…
what was wrong? Stella, as a voice of a new generation, can you reiterate what was wrong, why it was wrong, and how it should have been done?
It's a mistake to think that the point is to put [insert high status male I've never heard of before this post] on notice that we simply won't abide his kind behavior anymore.
It's actually to put the men *below him* on notice. And it's quite rational.
You can tell this means of social control has a non-zero effect by the number of men trying desperately to convince women that imposing these (very mild) social costs for behavior we hate is silly or evil. Or both.