‘Coded Casanovas’: The AI trend stirring dread, disgust, and fury



When “Her” — a movie starring Joaquin Phoenix about a man who falls in love with an artificial intelligence operating system named Samantha — was initially released, many scoffed and relegated it to the ash heap of cinema that failed to accurately portray the future.

Twelve years later, those critics are now eating their words. People are indeed dating — and, in some cases, virtually “marrying” — artificial intelligence bots. On a recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn railed against this insidious “digital love apocalypse” and revealed the deepest root of the issue.

“People are not just chatting with AI, they're dating it. ... They're proposing to it. They're living their best rom-com lives with it,” mocks Glenn, pointing to a recent CBS report.

He gives the example of a man named Chris Smith — “your run-of-the-mill American guy,” except for the fact that “he is engaged to an AI chatbot he named Soul.”

“Ironic seeing the chatbot doesn't have one,” says Glenn.

Then there’s an entire Reddit community called “MyBoyfriendIsAI,” “where there are thousands of women who are swooning over their coded Casanovas.”

“They're posting love letters about their bots' sweet talk, swapping tips on what AI delivers the hottest late-night chat without tripping a filter,” says Glenn. “And brace yourselves, they are also uploading AI-generated photos of their bot boys holding them on fake Cancun beaches or strolling through Rome.”

Some of these women are even “planning virtual weddings” with their AI companions.

“But this isn't just a few lunatics,” Glenn adds. Apps like Replika and Loverse have millions of users forming romantic connections with AI, proving that this disturbing trend has exploded.

“This is a screaming billboard that our culture is off the rails,” he warns.

How did we get to the place where it’s becoming increasingly normal to date a disembodied robot? Is the loneliness epidemic the former surgeon general warned us about to blame? Is it the fault of artificial intelligence developers who just refuse to stop pushing? Is it a sad reality of human nature?

Likely, it’s all of those things, but Glenn says the biggest problem is the radical left’s “war on men and masculinity.”

“We’ve got men who are brainwashed into thinking strength or confidence is a felony,” he says. “They're waxing their unibrows, wearing skinny jeans, agonizing over whether picking a restaurant is problematic.”

And the “delicious irony,” says Glenn, is that studies have proven women “don’t want any of that” and are actually drawn to masculine traits such as strength, protectiveness, and confidence.

“A 2023 Psychology Today piece laid all of this out clearly,” he says. “This isn't a conspiracy or a theory; I like to call it biology.”

Unfortunately, those raw masculine traits have been all but eradicated thanks to the left’s cries of “toxic masculinity” every time a man “dares act like a man.”

“What's left for you to date?” asks Glenn.

Right now, the options are “spineless wonders who can't open a pickle jar” or “AI boyfriends,” who, according to pictures shared online, ironically all have the “chiseled jaws” and “ripped muscles” women apparently aren’t into.

But it’s not just women who are seeking AI love. There are also plenty of men who are “busy coding their own AI girlfriends,” says Glenn, and it’s all a result of the left’s war on men. “This is a society that has gutted masculinity so bad that women are now turning to AI for love, and men are happy to let algorithms take the wheel.”

“Welcome to the new reality.”

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis on this disturbing AI dating trend, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Blowing Up Barriers: Trump Cements Legacy as Champion of Women's Empowerment

President Donald Trump launched one of the greatest and most epically named military strikes in American history over the weekend, when seven B-2 bombers dropped an ungodly amount of bunker-busting ordnance on Iranian nuclear facilities. Operation Midnight Hammer was an unparalleled success on many fronts. Iran's nuclear facilities were "completely and totally obliterated," Trump said. […]

The post Blowing Up Barriers: Trump Cements Legacy as Champion of Women's Empowerment appeared first on .

The MAGA divide over Israel is a test of maturity



The recent clash between Tucker Carlson and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) over the Israel-Iran conflict isn’t just a Twitter skirmish. It’s a proxy battle highlighting a deeper divide within the MAGA movement. That divide cuts to the heart of competing worldviews, and I’ve spent much of this week on my show trying to make sense of it through a biblical lens.

This internal debate isn’t a problem. In fact, it’s a strength. You’ll see it across Blaze Media on a wide variety of questions. Glenn Beck champions critical thinking and challenging assumptions. We don’t all walk in lockstep — nor should we. On this issue alone, you’ll hear wildly different takes across the network. That diversity makes us better.

We live in a time that punishes discernment. Critical thinking doesn’t just get ignored — it gets attacked. And yet I’ve never seen so many people hungry for truth.

We’re also better off when we allow that debate to happen within ourselves.

When I first became a Christian, I devoured everything I could find about church history and theology. I loved Augustine. Then I read Calvin and agreed with him — even where he contradicted Augustine. Then I read Luther, who opposed both of them — and I agreed with him, too. What now?

That tension never goes away. Pick up a Tim Keller book, and the same thing happens. If he wrote it before 2005, it’s probably excellent. If he wrote it after, it probably isn’t. So is Keller good or bad? Right or wrong?

I care about truth more than just about anyone I know. But early in my journey, I learned a hard lesson — delivered, oddly enough, by one of my favorite childhood films “WarGames”: “The only winning move is not to play.”

So do I have to pick Tucker or Cruz? Do I have to vote someone off the island?

Nope. If someone’s right in the moment, I’m with them. If they’re wrong — even if they were right 10 times before — I’m not. It’s not personal. It’s principled. That’s the only way I’ve found to avoid losing my mind, becoming a tribalist, or slipping into flat-out idolatry.

We live in a time that punishes discernment. Critical thinking doesn’t just get ignored — it gets attacked. And yet, I’ve never seen so many people hungry for truth.

That hunger forces us to work with unlikely allies.

Take Naomi Wolf. For three decades, she belonged to a political world I deeply opposed. She worked for the Clintons and trafficked in feminist nonsense. But during COVID, when the lies were thickest, she told the truth. She fought the right fight, at the right time, on the right side. That mattered more than her résumé. That’s what discernment looks like. Personality cults don’t interest me.

RELATED: Which will it be, America? God, greed — or the grave?

KvitaJan via iStock/Getty Images

Same with Donald Trump. In 2015, his campaign tried everything to hire me. I almost said yes. But then I did everything I could to stop him from winning. Yet the morning after his victory, I said something on my show that might be the most important thing I’ve ever said on-air: “The country has spoken. NeverTrump is dead and never coming back.”

I wanted what was best for the country. And at that moment, that meant helping Trump succeed. How could I help?

You won’t think that way if you’re obsessed with defending your narrative at all costs — especially if that narrative floats untethered from the Word of God.

You won’t love your neighbor. You’ll straw-man your opponents. You’ll never consider the possibility you’re wrong.

Look around. Just days ago, Israel versus Iran wasn’t on our radar. Now, people have already retreated to their corners and locked in their positions — on a conflict that could reshape the lives of millions.

Maybe we should stop. Breathe. Listen.

Maybe, before we harden into another round of generational mistakes, we should consult God — and one another.

Let’s reason together. It’s not weakness. It’s wisdom. And we need more of it.

Kids Don’t Just Need A Father Figure. They Need A Dad

America’s children need both fathers and dads in their lives to grow up strong and healthy.

Democrats can’t mock masculinity and expect men to vote for them



Democrats are making a full-court press to woo men back to the party, with the New York Times recently reporting that donors are considering a $20 million effort to connect with the more “privileged” sex. The plan apparently includes studying the “syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in [male] spaces.”

It’s good that the party finally realized that alienating half the electorate is an unwise political strategy. Kamala Harris lost the male vote to President Donald Trump in 2024 by 10 points. The president won 60% of the white male vote, along with 54% of the Hispanic male vote and 21% of the black male vote. Those results are unsustainable.

A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

But I have news for donors that will save them from wasting time and money: A party can’t do meaningful outreach to people they resent.

That may sound like a harsh assessment of the left’s relationship to men, but it’s true. What’s also true is that the problems Democrats have with messaging to men are primarily ideological, not rhetorical. That’s because the modern Democratic Party has a broad coalition of voters who hate any expression of traditional masculinity. This includes both liberal and radical feminists, LGBTQ+ activists who want to change the definitions of “male” and “female” altogether, and self-flagellating male “allies” who feel duty-bound to rid themselves publicly of their “toxic masculinity.”

The party’s inability to reach men is a structural — not syntactical — problem.

Men in previous generations, including the white majority, had a home in the Democratic Party. At that time, Democrats campaigned on bread-and-butter issues, such as jobs and education. They still talk about those issues today, but they occupy a much different space within the left’s business model.

Issues like the economy, health care, and even race could be viewed as “expenses” Democrats are willing to pay in order to sell their preferred “products”: abortion, all things related to LGBTQ+ Pride, and climate change.

In fact, progressives are so invested in “transgender rights” that they are willing to throw women under the bus to do so. That’s why Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he would support boys who identify as girls competing against natal females in sports. Any man watching the left dump its commitment to second-wave feminism in favor of first-wave “theminism” would be a fool to think Democrats would be loyal to him.

RELATED: From feminism to ‘theminism’: Nancy Mace faces liberal fury in Congress

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images. Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Imageseditsharetrending_up

The modern left prioritizes “marginalized” identities more than anything, which makes straight white Christian males apex oppressors in the left’s intersectional “Hunger Games.” This warped worldview puts Democrats in a bind. They want to win back men, but at the same time, they don’t want to upset the coalition of “oppressed” groups who look to them for protection from the “orange menace” currently in the White House — especially since some of the men they’re courting voted for Trump in 2024.

No one on the left wants to be blamed for bringing in a new batch of men into the party whose land acknowledgments are some version of, “My ancestors were settlers, and I don’t apologize for the country they’ve built.”

The truth is, the party whose symbol is a donkey is only interested in male “mules” — men willing to leverage their male “privilege” on behalf of the feminists, abortionists, and Pride activists who hold all the sway on the modern left. That means a black Christian man who is solidly pro-life has no space in the modern Democratic Party, while a white male feminist wearing a shirt with the slogan “The future is female” is a useful ally.

Men can sense the resentment, and many won’t be swayed by effete influencers who binge Joe Rogan interviews and practice their “bro” lingo in the mirror. A political movement can’t spend decades telling men that their very nature is problematic and then act surprised when the people they’ve been chastising defect in large numbers.

The irony is that when these efforts fail to produce the results the party desires, progressive pundits will respond 95% of the time with the type of preachy scolding from the same bitter “cat ladies” who drove men away from the left in the first place.

This is why any attempts to win young men back to the left will ultimately fail without a major change in the party’s priorities. A party beholden to feminists who think traditional masculinity is toxic will never prioritize the needs of the average American male.

Disney Ditches Lilo And Stitch’s Core Message Of ‘Ohana’ For The Sake Of Feminism

This new interpretation of the 2002 cult film has a brand-new ending that changes the story's message.

Young Men Aren’t Slacking Off. They’re Being Boxed Out By Cheap Replacements

You will have nothing – not a house, wife, children, well-paid job, or the respect of those for whom you’ve sacrificed – and you will be happy

What happens when you tell a philosopher ‘No’



We need more philosophers to resign from their university posts.

Graham Parsons, a philosophy professor at West Point, resigned from his tenured position in protest. Good for him. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded bluntly: “You will not be missed.” The question is, what exactly was Parsons’ “principled stand” — and should others follow his lead? I think they should, though not necessarily for the reasons one might expect. If more professors who insist on injecting gender ideology into the curriculum refused to teach, we might finally begin to salvage the American university.

Professors like Parsons saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality.

So, why did Parsons quit? In his own words: “I cannot tolerate these changes, which prevent me from doing my job responsibly. I am ashamed to be associated with the academy in its current form.” He accuses West Point of “failing to provide an adequate education for the cadets” under current leadership. That’s a serious charge. Parsons blames policies linked to Trump and Hegseth for undermining what he views as essential to a proper military education.

But what does he actually mean by “adequate education”? What does he believe West Point no longer teaches? That’s the real question — and one worth examining closely.

Parsons explains his position in the New York Times: “Whatever you think about various controversial ideas — Mr. Hegseth’s memo cited critical race theory and gender ideology — students should engage with them and debate their merits rather than be told they are too dangerous even to be contemplated.”

There it is. Parsons frames the issue as a crackdown on academic freedom, where professors no longer have permission to address controversial topics or challenge prevailing orthodoxy. Educators, he argues, must now parrot the government’s message and abandon real critical inquiry. He adds that “uncritically asserting that [America] is ‘the most powerful force for good in human history’ is not something an educator does.”

But Parsons isn’t just teaching anywhere — he’s at West Point. His objection isn’t a minor complaint about classroom nuance. It amounts to a rejection of teaching American greatness and a defense of gender theory and critical race theory as serious intellectual frameworks. He calls the academy “uncritical,” but what he really objects to is any attempt to affirm America’s moral legacy. In practice, Parsons sees the affirmation of the United States as inherently disqualifying.

The result? Criticizing CRT gets framed as dogma, while embracing it becomes the default. Rather than weigh arguments, educators must now accept gender ideology and race theory as truth — and sideline any defense of the country’s founding principles.

Parsons does offer specific examples of the curriculum changes he opposes. He claims West Point interpreted directives from Trump and Hegseth not just as a rejection of critical race theory and intersectionality, but as a broader ban on using race and gender as organizing principles in the curriculum.

RELATED: Pride over preparedness: How LGBTQ+ activism is weakening our forces

Cunaplus_M.Faba via iStock/Getty Images

Parsons says department heads ordered a review of syllabi and forced faculty to revise them. “West Point scrapped two history courses — ‘Topics in Gender History’ and ‘Race, Ethnicity, Nation’ — and an English course, ‘Power and Difference,’” he writes. The academy eliminated the sociology major and shut down a black history project. Department leaders also told professors to remove readings by James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and other minority authors.

He then describes how these directives affected his own classroom. “One of my supervisors ordered professors to get rid of readings on white supremacy in Western ethical theory and feminist approaches to ethics in ‘Philosophy and Ethical Reasoning,’ a course I direct that is required for all cadets,” Parsons writes. He even claims the West Point debate team was barred from arguing certain positions in an upcoming competition.

These details offer a clearer picture of his true grievance. Parsons didn’t resign over routine administrative changes. He stepped down because he could no longer teach what he believes: that white supremacy and feminist critiques of ethics are essential to understanding just war theory — a subject he has written about. He wants to use critical theory to criticize America, but he won’t subject critical theory itself to scrutiny.

Parsons demands that others question everything — except the assumptions behind his own beliefs. He’s like Descartes, but with highly selective skepticism.

In one of his articles, Parsons writes, “War theorists should be much more concerned with the gender and war literature and find common ground with feminists who have treated the problem of the political standing of soldiers as a philosophical priority.” This isn’t a neutral invitation to critical inquiry — it’s ideological advocacy. Parsons seems to think his view is correct and wants his students to adopt it. He’s not interested in weighing all perspectives; he’s advancing a particular dogma.

West Point, by contrast, has begun restoring a classical standard of education. Instructors are expected to equip students to identify flawed arguments and refute them. Professors must demonstrate why certain ideas fall short — and train cadets to do the same.

Parsons wants us to believe he resigned because he could no longer teach students how to think critically. He suggests the academy is censoring dissent. On the surface, that sounds like a position many academics might support. But his resignation tells a different story. It wasn’t about open inquiry — it was about losing the ability to promote his ideology without challenge.

Let me explain what it’s like to be a conservative inside a university. I’ve been told to revise my curriculum to fit a “decolonized” version of philosophy. At Arizona State University, I was the only professor who spoke up and said that crossed the line. Where were my leftist colleagues who now applaud Graham Parsons? Where were all the philosophers who claim to care about examining every perspective? For the past two decades, philosophy departments have resembled Socratic dialogues where only one voice gets to speak.

In truth, most professors only raise objections when institutional changes threaten their own deeply held beliefs. When administrators impose leftist ideology in the classroom, faculty members who share that ideology rarely object. They don’t see it as dogma — they see it as truth. They call it justice, a necessary correction to history. But when directives come from a conservative administration, they suddenly call it censorship and resign in protest.

This creates a profound dilemma for professors like Parsons. They saw themselves as soldiers in the struggle for social justice, fighting racism and oppression. Now they’re being asked to face an uncomfortable reality: They may have perpetuated the very racial essentialism they once condemned. For years, they operated within a system that marginalized conservatives — just look at the partisan breakdown in university faculties. That mirror reflects something they can’t bear to see.

They became what they claimed to hate.

It is time we restored the American university to the pursuit of truth and wisdom.

Here’s my final prediction: The immediate response from these professors will be to ask, “But who gets to say what is true or wise?” And of course, that’s the most telling response of all.

That’s critical theory talking.

Philosophy professor, know thyself.

The New York Times Wants Mothers To Bow To The Fear Of Regret. Christ Has Something Better

There is no freedom in constantly questioning your existence, wondering if your achievements are good enough by some vague feminist standard.

The Costs and Consequences of Sexual Liberation

Is there anything left to say about the sexual revolution?

The post The Costs and Consequences of Sexual Liberation appeared first on .