Louise: The sexual revolution has failed because the bad outweighs the good. Anna: It failed successfully. Haider: It's a success because women have more options. Grimes: Is, like, literally the product of the sexual revolution.
It’s unfortunate that Grimes can’t talk about the fact that she has multiple children with a polygamist who is at the top of the top of the social hierarchy. Kind of a massive elephant in the room.
agreeing with the person replying to you but liking your comment because as the person replying to you says, your point is partially valid, but their reply completes the thought @@planckismus
1:15:47 "More men are single today. Many are living with their parents. Their incomes are depressed. Outcomes are depressed, their lives kinda suck" *AUDIENCE LAUGHS*
I’d say it was a kind of morbid laughter to cut through the depression of that statement, with the lighter “their lives kinda suck” contrasting with the preceding statement.
@@arc4859I'd love to think you're right, but I don't. Today's younger women could not care less about men. Men are there to be used and to be taken from. Where else are they going to get money to buy the things they think they need to have.
Everything could go wrong. But I don't agree with everything on this subject. And I've seen, heard, lived, and still learning everyday. At my age I could write a book about all the chapters of my life experiences. And yes, I'm at peace now compared to most women my age.
I was just thinking this. She is level-headed with a rational insight into the plight of modern women and men. Not sure my entire feelings on the sexual revolution, but I would say the nays in this debate absolutely devastated Grimes and the other one.
They're just against it because They failed. If Women kept the advantages without any loses, for sure We won't see any conservatives speaking against it.
@@penelopekitty606 What about Anna Khaciyan? She is a gifted speaker. I’ve never heard her podcast or anything else she has done, and am still unconvinced as to how substantive her argument is (having mixed feelings about the state of sexuality and relationships today), but I do think that if I had no preexisting opinions, on the basis of presentation alone, she and Louise dominated this debate.
@@MarcusHCrawford I disagree. The only one who made much sense was Sarah Haider. I do not see Anna as a gifted speaker at all and both she and Louise Perry are reactionary and seem ignorant of the history. Why Grimes was there was a complete mystery. I suspect Bari wanted to appeal to a younger audience but there are much more serious and experienced women out there who could have added much more to the debate.
Louise spoke with the maturity of a University professor against a crowd that spoke with as much grace as a bunch of second year gender studies undergraduates.
The amount of seething Perry stans in the comments are quite amusing. Sorry, but no amount of it will change that Sarah Haider pretty much won this all single-handedly by maintaining sober facts opposite a stream of unaccountable and arbitrary question-begging fallacy.
@@equilibrium1037 Haider's entire opening statement is contradicted by Perry's sentence: "..but they forget that it also controlled male sexuality." Sarah is just using the same rhetoric as the women-worsting religion called feminism. And none of the 'positive' effects of the revolution outweigh all the negatives.
@@equilibrium1037 I will say male sexuality was more controlled before the sexual revolution, because it is well-known that men have a drive for variety, and most men couldn't practice that before So I will say, the sexual revolution "freed" men's sexuality much more than it "freed" women, and with that "freedom " more and more men stopped pursuing long term relationships which are what women want, so basically disadvantaging women and many other men.
@tranzorz6293 The percentage who have a drive for variety? Probably most men, over 60% of them The percentage of men who gave up on long-term relationships? Well, men don't give up totally on long-term relationships. Some of them will just delay that a lot, and those will be the ones who typically have a lot of options. A lot of those men wouldn't see a benefit to settling down if they have so many options they could choose from. They will practice the variety they want till 30 or something Those are probably about 20 percent of men, in my opinion , that is a minority, but if it is a minority that is desired a lot, they can cause a lot of damage and heartbreak.
Louise is the only one within her depths in this topic imo. Her approach to this topic is more fact based and rooted in a functional understanding of human nature, norms, and relations throughout history. The others are approaching it purely conceptually. Every panelist except for Louise treats the sexual revolution as if it's an isolated thing, like it's unrelated to discuss the downstream effects on people's mental health, the corrosion of societal norms, families etc. While it's true that rapid changes in technology play a role in overall dissatisfaction, it's also observably true that there is a breakdown in heterosexual relationships (and by extension the family structure) that is rooted from the sexual revolution. I think that there definitely should have been some male panelists to balance the female perspective.
Yes! Even many of the downstream effects on women specifically were grossly overlooked. Funny how every woman on the panel has children and one of them procreated with the richest man on earth…
It isn’t just the sexual revolution. It’s Title IX, it’s affirmative action, women’s scholarships, quotas, etc. We’ve gone from men putting women on a pedestal to society putting women on a pedestal. You go girl! Then they harp on about women making $0.73 for every $1 a man makes ... which is total BS and everyone knows it ... but ... “Pay inequity! Pay inequity!” Add social media to the mix and women have such an inflated ego that they have become largely insufferable.
Your language-specifically your use of "rooted" when you describe the putative relationship between the sexual revolution and a proposed "breakdown in heterosexual relations"-becomes unclear upon the crucial point of that claim. That is to say, are you asserting causation between the former and the latter? If you are, what evidence have you seen that permits you to impute cause where there may only be correlation? You appear to assign at least partial influence to technological changes, and so the sexual revolution would by necessity be itself a partial cause. Do you therefore assert that it was a _necessary_ condition for such "downstream effects" as you can substantiate? Or do you claim it as a partially _sufficient_ condition, if such a thing can be said to exist? The evidentiary bar for a proposition of causation is almost impassably high. Let us hope that your evidence is potent or copious or both.
Facts and data are not enough to make an argument. At some point, an actual argument has to be made. It is, however, enough to make you money off a book, get you invited to popular podcasts where the same non committal comments are re-stated and get you lots of adoring seal claps from those watching. Well done to her.
@@LoneWulf278 The world where you aren't a nepobaby who lucked into celebrity success and being the baby mama of one of the richest men in the world. Grimes, aka Claire Boucher, comes from an extremely wealthy and powerful family, and grew up extremely privileged. She had all the advantages, always been surrounded by elites, and never had to deal with the sort of hurdles that the average person does. It's not just that she lives in the world of entertainment (which certainly encourages luxury beliefs), it's that like a lot of modern "successful" entertainers, her success is a result of having parents that could afford to support their college drop-out daughter for a decade while she made weird, uncommerical music and faffed about until she had limited commerical success. And now she's worth 10 million dollars. She can afford to believe in nonsense and fairy tales, because shehas never and will never experience the negative consequences of her bullshit. She gets to pretend she understands "single mothers" because she's a "single mother" -- with ten million dollars! She gets to pretend she "struggled as an artist" while her parents paid her rent and made sure she had health insurance. That's why she can say stupid, ignorant bullshit like "every workplace should have a daycare." You gonna have a daycare at your local 7-11? At the local rock quarry? In the Department of Sanitation vehicle depo? This is absurd. Only someone who has never actually had to work for a living thinks that workplaces are safe and appropriate places for children. Like wtf. You going to turn the break room of the local McDonald's into a one-room daycare? And that's going to encourage women to get married and have kids? What?
@@wolfofthewest8019 Except there are many workplaces that actually DO have childcare onsite. It’s not nearly as non-sensical as you’re implying it is. But I agree. As a person, she’s really privileged.
Regardless of what side you're on, her brain is clearly spaghetti, she doesn't have coherent thoughts, and it didn't do her debate partner any favors having her on her side. The debate, the arguments, and the responses were lower quality having her on the stage.
@@wolfofthewest8019 Exactly, it's all "we should have all of the things which husbands-as-fathers used to provide - no, I don't have a husband and being a single mother is haaaarrrd!" Let's tax the people who don't get to bed "Grimes" in order to provide her with the things to her which husbands and fathers of children were historically required to provide.
“Revolutions are unpredictable.” Love ‘em or hate ‘em, social conservatives have predicted a lot of the problems of the sexual revolution long before they happened.
Wrong standard. There were terrible problems festering in those societies already. In doesn't take a genius of any political stripe to figure out you're trading one set of problems for another set of problems. If you are growth oriented, the choice is often to fix the existing problems and accept the new problems. Yes, you'll have to do it again. We call this learning.
Social conservatives were correct in many of their estimations, but society at large did not heed their warnings. But at last, it is probably for the best that society had to suffer through the consequences of the Sexual Revolution, as we now have proof of its shortcomings. This does not mean women do not deserve equal rights; it only means that their rights, like men, have to be tempered by responsibility and accountability. As Uncle Ben from Spider phrased, "With great power, come great responsibility." It took Peter Parker the death of his uncle to fully realize that truth; as it took society the consequences of the Sex Revolution to set in to realize its faults.
Grimes served up a word salad didn't she? tldr; 'this is what happened --- they have some good points though --- i'm so bad at this --- -no like really im so bad at this--- it'll all be good in the end because Elon has a bunker ----so its no big deal!' (raucous cheers) o_O
Louise for the win for me. She had a more holistic take on the matter, a great balance of the good traditional stuff that worked and the work/school liberty women found.
I wish they had talked about the pill has affected women hormonally. It’s been indicated that taking the pill for long periods of time can make women choose mates who are more feminine than masculine, and other neg things like weight gain, depression, foggy thinking, etc
Louise is steeped in religion and omits every single thing outside of the invisible desert skygods grip on the world. Pagans throughout history had ingrained heterosexuality, ingrained marriage, sex NOT limited to marriage and they WORSHIPED women. The exact opposite she says would exist without the flying spaghetti monsters barbaric view of sex.
KEYWORD RESTRICTED. You even typed it up and cant comprehend what restricted means......the fact that you and 89 other people cant even comprehend a basic word....
Why was Grimes even invited. Every time she speaks she sounds like kid in class that didnt help with the group project but still showed up for the credit.
Choice is not enough there is no true liberty without responsibility. Louise idea of operating as though the pill doesn’t exist is realizing that there is a necessity for self responsibility. The issue that arises is the distaste for accountability in a culture who sees it as oppressive. Responsible men and women are those who move society forward.
@@treacherousjslither6920 Willful ignorance is about staying ignorant about something - not what she is talking about. She knows the pill exists. We know the pill exists. She simply wants people to consider other factors when choosing partners and not just "I'm on the pill so everything is all good".
I think Sara won by questioning the premise of the question. She picked on the word "Failed" and made people doubt the wording. Perry's argument against 3rd wave feminism is much stronger but they needed a less hyperbolic statement as the basis for the argument.
Her rhetoric is virtually naught but fallacy and prevarication. The few propositions she does make are alarmingly, schoolmarmishly moralistic and authoritarian. History knows the consequences of the combination of the two, not least when it is deep in love with the sound of its own voice.
@@Didleeios88 " *they needed a less hyperbolic statement as the basis for the argument* " Either that, or they should bring in someone who actually agrees with it. Louise does not. Simple as.
@@hughmac13 " *The few propositions she does make are alarmingly, schoolmarmishly moralistic and authoritarian.* " You mean, she want's to rise the price of an "innocent" wank? That's preposterous! ;-) " *History knows the consequences of the combination of the two* " Yeah, we all know what happened the last time we tried "schoolmomy morals". They almost destroyed our civilization! Actually, wait... Did they?
Actualy..it has freed us men. We no longer have to work our asses to the bone to pay a womans bills. We can spend our hard earned money on our hobbies and kick ass survivial gear
Dasha is a moderately intelligent person who likes to pretend to be very stupid. Anna is an extremely stupid person who desperately wants to be perceived as intelligent.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a single insightful thing from Anna… ever. The most “profound” shit she can say is usually stolen right from Christopher Lasch.
@@lordsneed9418 But Anna was not committed to the point that the sexual revolution failed so admitted to it herself, so Louise was basically debating 3 people by herself. hey could had look harder for a funny person that actually agreed with her.
I agree and disagree. Anna made her problems with the sexual revolution very clear in her introduction. She was also honest about her pessimism of change (baked into the system) and frustration of the presuppositions of the argument (women are the fairer sex).
I think both sides have some good points and some bad, but Louise Perry is the only one who seems to be really knowledgeable and comfortable with her arguments and counter-arguments. Compare her opening statement against the others and she was the only one who clearly looked at the crowd and didn't sound like an undergraduate nervously reading her talking points verbatim off the pages in front of her.
Grimes is giving off the vibe that she is fighting just to justify her invite, seriously outmatched so she tries to change the subject and is always off topic. Louise did well, we stan Anna for comedic relief, and Sarah played a solid heel.
It's a shame that she does come off like that. However if you've seen her in other conversations like podcasts etc, she is very much a train of consciousness kind of speaker. Check out her episode with Lex Friedman.
No wife, no kids, no court dates, no jail time, no attorney bills, therapist fees, no alimony, no child support. No thank you! Not in this demented society. Blow me Up Tom Leykis!!! You were correct about it all. Thank you Dad! What ever it was or is, as a man feminism certainly set me free. Not sure this was thier intention but it was great for me. It's a terrible game, it is war, and the only way win, is not to play the game.
Your mind lives in the worst case scenario. When something has a 50% chance of going south you can either be hopeful or doubtful. You’re clearly doubtful whether based on fear or experiences. That’s fine but that doesn’t mean you or Tom are right or wrong. I hate the
@@maurice2014 I'm not negative person believe it or not. At my ripe age of 54, I'm just grown to accept the world for how it is, not how I wish it to be. I can go watch Disney if I want to see fairytale lens of this world. And Tom didn't make up the fundamental truths about relationships love and war. He just communicated his experiences, that just happen to reasonate with VERY MANY other mens experiences. There is no denying the fundametal natural of the human psyche of men and women in general. Leykis was just reporting on certain things men have known since ancient Egypt in a the context of modern society. He's much deeper than a shallow shock jock from the nineties. THere is a reason many men call Tom Leykis "Dad." Because many of us never had one that told us the brutal ugly truth about life. But I don't think you are his demographic, so don't listen to Tom Leykis. You would not like what he had to say.
@@GungaLaGunga You choose to point out the negative sides of a partnership and that's fair. You can't have the drawbacks if you opt out of the process. But you also miss out on the potential benefits and to many people, a romantic relationship is very important.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 16:34 🔄 *Louise argues the sexual revolution combines ideological and technological components, challenging traditional norms and contributing to societal shifts.* 23:42 🚺 *Sarah asserts that the sexual revolution destigmatized female participation in sex, granting women greater agency, challenging historical gender imbalances.* 27:18 🌐 *Anna Kachian argues on the success of the sexual revolution, highlighting the freedom it provides women, despite potential drawbacks.* 29:12 🤔 *Anna challenges the notion that the sexual revolution's failure is due to benefiting men, suggesting that blaming men is a continuation of victimizing women.* 30:37 🔄 *Anna criticizes contemporary feminism for perpetuating victimhood and not recognizing women's agency, emphasizing the need to move beyond traditional narratives.* 35:30 🚻 *Grimes defends the sexual revolution, viewing it as a natural step towards a world of sexual freedom, advocating for complementary social technologies to address its challenges.* 39:05 🔄 *Louise Perry argues for a return to more normalized sexual norms, acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the need for reconstruction over immediate changes.* 52:23 🌐 *The sexual revolution is perceived as offering freedom of choice primarily to the wealthy or upper middle class, leaving others with limited options based on the decisions of those who impregnate them.* 53:31 🤰 *Unplanned pregnancies among lower-income women are misunderstood; studies show these pregnancies are often not unwanted and provide a source of meaning in contexts where it's challenging to find purpose.* 54:13 🤱 *Before the sexual revolution, fewer single mothers existed, but a significant number of children were put up for adoption during the "baby scoop era," highlighting historical trade-offs in family structures.* 55:36 📚 *Addressing issues related to single mothers and family breakdown involves improving education, understanding fertility, and creating a culture that values children, emphasizing the importance of literacy and family-friendly environments.* 01:01:17 🚫 *While some argue for more conservative values to address societal challenges, others highlight the need to maintain sexual freedom while encouraging responsible choices and addressing broader issues like social support for mothers.* 01:14:55 🔄 *The debate questions if the Sexual Revolution primarily served men's desires. Participants discuss its impact on dating dynamics, with concerns raised about men's struggles in the current landscape.* 01:17:28 🌐 *Panelists share hopes for a healthy sexual culture for their children. Louise suggests we're in an era of reconstruction, emphasizing the need for societal values. Grimes envisions a future with AI companions, while others focus on familial and communal arrangements.* 01:23:07 🔄 *Louise argues for social guardrails, advocating for stable norms and cautioning against a cultural vacuum. She suggests a more conventional life often leads to better outcomes for most individuals.* 01:24:50 🔍 *Sarah critiques the intellectual dark web for not truly challenging wokeness and reflects on personal conflicts as a mother navigating ideological extremes. She emphasizes the need for responsibility amid the sexual revolution's successes and downsides.* 01:27:29 🌱 *Grimes expresses optimism and a moral imperative to build a new, improved model for society. She encourages individuals to recognize their agency and work towards positive change on a personal and community level.* Made with HARPA AI
Women: We want Equal Pay Also Women: Why can't we find a man who makes 3x as much as we do? The first step to recovery is admitting YOU have a problem.
@@spiff1 Incels are so crazy. Equal pay for equal work doesn't mean we can't opt for a man in a different line of work, who out earns us, so that we can feel comfortable with the risk of pregnancy and child rearing.
@@sarahrobertson634 are you really saying you want a high paying job and want someone to pay for everything? Do you seek to compete with a million women over a thousand men?
The problem comes down to 2 words, “why not?” “Why not?” has been the downfall of almost every positive political and social movement to ever exist in America. Why? At a certain point, reason and logic are thrown out the window to the detriment of their own cause. Going too far and going full circle is what seems to be happening now.
Also "why start small when you can go big or go home", another American Exceptionalism attitude of everything that could be done should be overdone. Supersize everything so the receipt comes flooding in all at once. Other countries tend to test the waters and study the results before just going all in. Just see how transgenderism went from acceptance to children going over their parents to get surgeries, how drug legalisation went from medial cannabis to just straight out distributing free fentanyl to overdosing addicts. All in under a decade.
this debate could have gone better, they didn't really define what they meant by "sexual revolution". the way I understand that term is that from the '60s onward, we were promised that we should shatter the norms when it comes to sex and that everyone would be happier for it. given this context, the sexual revolution absolutely failed. by all metrics, men's and women's satisfaction in finding a meaningful relationship has fallen. The feelings of loneliness, depression, and purposelessness have skyrocketed. so it's not a figment of imagination that the promise of the past has been deferred to a promise in the ever-increasing future, as long as we continue on this path of obliterating sexual norms. (which in the end means you aren't allowed to question the veracity of the "sexual liberators" claims) Grimes and Sarah then claimed that because we are better off now than we were in the sexually repressive 50s means that the sexual revolution was successful. and to that, I say NO, because again the prompt is asking if the sexual REVOLUTION failed the claim of the revolutionaries was that if all norms were destroyed people would be freer and happier to do as they pleased. and all metrics point to that being a false claim. I wished Anna and Louise would have been more assertive in reminding them that the options aren't this binary system of 50s sexual norms or none at all, but instead are sexual incrementalism that alleviates the repressiveness of the 50s norms but still offers structure, so men and women can act accordingly. facilitating the finding of a romantic partner more easily, which brings about purpose, meaning, and bonding within the love we all crave and are currently failing to find under the failed sexual revolution
@@JohnSmith-ms4xd the reason why they are neither freer or happier is basically because of the paradox of choice. When dealing with no restrictions you are inundated with options with no structure guiding your choice. Meaning you are not sure how to best move forward, makes it hard to be on the same page with the other person, and leaves you unhappy with your choice because you are left wondering the possible better choices of the infinite options Having structure on how to act alleviates all those bad outcomes, you have a limit on how to act making you more sure on how to best move forward, makes it easier to be on the same page with other people and makes you happier with your choice as the structure guides your options on how to move forward
@@BrianShhAmen! It's like we inherited thousands of years of food preparation but now just eat take aways because we've just become too busy slaving away paying Taxes. We let our culture go. We replaced God with iPhones and Tinder
You can definitely find contentment without a romantic partner. Culture - ever changing - currently creates feelings of inadequacy when not attaining cultural norms, like not finding a partner for life, not having children etc. But there are ways to liberation from these feelings.
Im sorry i disagree that it isnt the parents fault if your child is getting passed from grade to grade without realizing they cant read or write or do basic grade level math etc. Yes, the education system is a disaster, but if parents had noticed this a bit sooner maybe it wouldn't have been able to keep declining to this point up until covid when parents were forced to teach their own kids to realize how bad it was. I have 2 kids and there are few circumstances i can imagine where i would be unaware that they were either unable to read or not performing appropriately or behaving well at school
24:00 the claim that the 1960s in European societies was 'the first time in [human] history' that there could be an understanding of sex as something that could be about pleasure'; is so ridiculously false on the face of it.
Swiftly followed by the idea that it was dividing line for restrictions in education & the workplace, as if there are none afterwards & as if males have none before or after as well.
I always make fun of such ideas by asking "When weren't men buying from the world's oldest profession? That involved having sex and not making babies. It existed for ages before any pill did."
As I grew up and am a barely millennial. I was told by my parents to respect my elders. My neighborhood raised me and I knew I was watched by all. Children are not raised by community's these days which doesn't produce the best children
The resolution is a bad premise, as Haider points out in her opening segment. Failed in what regard? In order to break new and more fertile ground, we need to ask better questions.
The premise began with, “why with a ‘revolution’ of such kind are both men and women unhappy, disillusioned and sad?” freedom creates choice and with it, the outcomes of questions which bring us to the symptoms we see today in our society. In the conclusion, both sides come together to discuss what’s really most important and there is consensus. What is most valued, is what brings dignity to the offspring and a shared meaning for significance . If we are to carve out a future, we can learn from the setbacks together with our aspirations which we have learned from the hardships and complexities to merge with a sense of dignity and wholeness for all individuals as they set journey towards their growth as individuals, as partners, as parents and as necessary groups within families or tribes for the stability of generations. At least that is the one take I’m hearing from their discussion.
This is a cop out. Every society needs improvement. There hasn’t been a point in history where one hasn’t. The point is too many people disagree on what those improvements are..
@@Takobella non of this is relevant if the culture of today is based on circular argumentation, where the only thing that happens in debate is opinion exchange and nothing else.
Watching this is like watching 2 mature ladies debate 2 children. It speaks volumes. A society needs rules and needs “social norms” and the younger generation wants NEITHER. It’s a horrible plan, but they don’t want to be told what to do. It’s killing society. You need some social norms that help and provide guidance
The younger generation has been completely and utterly fucked over by the older generations and are lacking much motivation in life. When you see your life to be so much harder than that of your parents', you tend to resent them and be unwilling to follow in their footsteps. In the wise words of BLINK 182, "if we're fucked up, you're to blame."
We had the social norm that if one went to college, they would be on the fast track to a high paying job. Many Millennials and Gen Z never got those jobs no matter how they tried. Older people will just say "You just didn't do XYZ enough" when the current gen talks about the impossible job hunt. Social norms have to be more than pieces of advice the older gen hands out, social norms have to genuinely pay off.
Grimes: Like, the schools, and like, the system is like failing like the kids. Its like, not like the parents fault that like, their kids are like fucked. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The best part of this entire youtube video, is the fact that we all are willing to have these conversations with people that have opposing views. Love that, because having conversations with people that have the opposing view....will inherently lead to a better future.
Louise seems like the only one who is still living in reality. Though Grimes makes a good point, that society is no longer child (nor family, nor individual) friendly. She's basically describing Europe's approach to kids, many companies in Germany (for example) have built-in child care.
@@NoFeckingNamesLeft Which trends caused all which problems? Aside from daycare or improved literacy and education, what did Grimes explicitly endorse? Does your argument cast those as cause or consequence in the scenario you conjure?
@@NoFeckingNamesLeft Yes, her "but we just need to go a bit further!" is basically what is causing all the problems (and also how you get extremist movements). It's like she thinks women will transcend into ethereal beings or something.
We have a very correct belief that male sexuality needs to be constrained, but for some reason there seems to be a blind spot on the fact that female sexuality ALSO needs constraint. I think the anti-abortion movement is an ideological attempt to re-establish constraint on female sexuality. I think it's a bad way to go about it, but I think that the grownups in the room need to talk about how female sexuality can and should be constrained without stepping on the civil rights of women. The problem is that when women have complete sexual freedom a large subset freely chooses what is good for themselves over what is good for their children, and they freely choose to participate in the online harem culture. This is extremely damaging to children and society. Female sexual freedom is a good, but it is not the only good, and absolutism around this issue is damaging to men, women, children and society as a whole.
I like your expression "online harem culture"! I was lookikg for an expression describing the fact that 20% of men on dating app run through 80% of women! "Harem culture" is an excellent one!
"Female sexual freedom is a good" --> I'm not sure this is a "good", nor men's "sexual freedom". These "goods" damage men, women, children and society as a whole. Agree that "absolutism" - in either direction - is damaging. There were avenues of "leeway" in previous societies, yet women always blame men for *all* of this, yet clearly "it takes two to tango" and the women were engaging in it too... Sexual expression is the appropriate civil right, but this expression needs to be within a framework and structure that meets the needs of society first, and *both* of the genders second. The current sexual "laissez faire" (and the plain and the ugly too) is in a "structure" determined by technology serving Capitalism (e.g. the pill, abortions, Tinder, OF) and by female biological drives (i.e. hypergamy) and the results are clearly damaging to children, society and to 80% of the men. The current situation is neither sustainable nor desirable except to be desired by the self-serving "sexually free" females and the 10% of males they hypergamously select.
@@ladzerty The stats are even worse than that now, women now only swipe right on roughly 5% of men and online dating makes up around 50% of all connections. So just deduce from that what you will.
Abortion is not civil right of women. That is something so many fail to understand. Woman's bodily autonomy and right to do what she wants doesnt kick in after sexual intercourse. Pregnancy is the result of her doing whatever she wants(except rape) and that is for nobody to "fix". It is not governments responsibility to uphold her bodily autonomy. It's hers. That's equality they wished for.
@@mildajasaite871 I agree. At the same time women will frequently use the power of sex in unwise and unethical ways. Men have legitimate concerns around cuckolding, parental estrangement, and general fatherlessness. These are real consequences of women miss-using their sexual power. I'm not suggesting that we ban abortion. I want abortion to be legal, safe, and a woman's individual decision. But I also want social pressure to be put on women to use their sexuality in more responsible ways. I'm not advocating taking away abortion. I'm advocating changing the incentive structures that men and women are operating under using soft power. Things like: Let's put a ceiling on how much child support a parent can get per child. Let's make paternity testing mandatory for all live births. That sort of thing.
Good faith? It's an echo chamber. Could they not find any one of the opposite sex to participate? You know diversity of thought, to give the other side or at least a different perspective not considered by the teams? The teams can only offer a distorted interpretation of the male view of the sexual revolution. Given feminism's distortions, and fantasies of the patriarchy, misogyny, toxic masculinity and pay gaps, etc. I doubt many males would recognise any "male view" or consideration put forward by our esteemed panelists. The feminist perspective and messaging, which is lacking self awareness and devoid of critical analysis, saturates our everyday lives and is almost impossible to escape. The claim of supporting free speech is ironic, given the above and that cancel culture, deplatforming, reputation attack etc was invented and is still used by feminism to silence other viewpoints and stifle free speech. Oh, and it's 2023 so how about we finally update the definition of feminism to remove any reference to equality of the sexes; that's so 60s&70s. Feminism moved on years ago. Please seek a mental health professional if you believe otherwise.
The Sexual Revolution has not failed, but it is tilting toward collapse. Louise Perry mentioned having social guard rails and social norms. We absolutely need those. They can exist, be reasonable, and fluctuate upon discover of other variables and growth.
Why was this Grimes “like” even included in this “like” panel. She “like” contributed “like” nothing useful to the discussion. Such a self centered uber-Millennial.
As a male when I listen to this I hear constant conflict within the ideal. In other words, we want people to be able to sleep around without actually sleeping around. We want people to want children even though the have the choice not to. We want to hold on to the outcomes of the past while changing all the inputs. That isn't rational. We annot expect to remove the constraints on society and still have people act repsonsibly. Appy that to anything. Accessiblity of guns, accessibility of drugs, accessibility of art, accessibility of education, accessibility of sex. The more accessibility you have to something the more you will indulge in it. I think we made a trade off in the sixties of freedom for responsibility. And there wre good things and bad things about it. I think we do need a common generally accepted ethos, but if it is too common it becomes a constraint. There has to be latitude for those who can be responsible with greater freedom.
I think the point is that in the past a giant majority of the responsibility for being sexually active fell onto women. When we got birth control, we were able to actually experience a taste of sexual freedom. Who cares if it's destroyed the nuclear family. Nuclear families always sucked for us. I think once we've been able to live a little, things will settle down and become more balanced. Women are moving away from hook up culture and embracing celibacy more and more. We've experienced freedom, discovered that it's not all it's cracked up to be, and we're moving into a new phase of our journey. I'd be in favor of a world wide sex strike for a decade, personally.
@@sarahrobertson634 Louise Perry said "Freedom is like a great horse, one heading towards a direction' (I butchered the quote lol). The question is; what is your/the aim of a sexual strike for a decade? Majority of men are not having sex and are lonely as reported, a sex strike will just put a nail in the coffin burying civilization 6 feet. You can't solve a problem with a problem, liberals are far too concerned with thoughtless social anarchism and activism than actually going to the root of the problem, see what works/worked(whether perfectly or partially consistent) and meet people on middle grounds. You said "Women are moving away from hook up culture and embracing celibacy more and more", my response is that it won't last because it's not based on anything positively pursuable, it is just hinged on the rhetoric of "men are bad, women are good and unknowing victims and we need to punish men". That is why the original commenter said "As a male when I listen to this I hear constant conflict within the ideal". No direction, No destination, just a reapplication of the same bad formular.
@@sarahrobertson634Yeah, you can't put the genie back now, just like a women can't undo their promiscuous pasts, can't go Buck wild & party from 18 to 30 or 35, then just stop when YOU'RE ready & had your fun & demand Men collectively just settle & accept it, so what if you experimented sexually with 20 or 50 or 100 Men & gave them access for Free, but other men have to Commit/Marry & pay for that same access!
Yep, it's in the true spirit of the ♀ gender _"We want all the POWER and none of the RESPONSIBILITY"_ It was always a mistake to allow this, relative to not having it there were almost 0 good things and we are paying for it dearly, enjoy the decline. 🤡🌍
It’s unfortunate that public speaking is not a mandatory skill talk in school. With the exception of Louise Perry, the women were sorely lacking in this important, teachable skill.
I'm 43 minutes in and I feel like the topic got lost somewhere.. it's good that people are trying to make conversations like this happen, but I can't say it was focused.
@@youdonthavetocomment i feel the same. i think none of them provided facts to back up their many statements and in fact both sides were adding points to the other teams stance... so confusing. I thought the other women did well, aside from Grimes. Seems to me like there are Loise fans here just bridging and commenting their support.I dont know any of these women, so their backgrounds mean nothing to me.
This wasn’t a debate. It was a great discussion that began with a temporary misunderstanding about what other topics should and shouldn’t be lumped in categorically with the sexual revolution.
For these debates they shouldn't just have a yes/no poll. It should be graded to show how many people are fence sitters. There are people who might think the revolution failed a little, or is good but sees some downsides. And also people who are strongly on either side.
Especially when the question is such a dumb one. Seems like it's begging a "yes," when in fact it's like, "No, the sexual revolution didn't change everything. But people sure are a lot more honest about their needs."
I think yes/no is the standard for debate polls? But the question is definitely badly framed. „Do the negatives outweigh the positives?“ might have been better… dunno, I’m not a native speaker
As I was freaking out about this, I saw your comment. Thank you. There are no definitive answers. Just humans, compromises and the world they must navigate.
What airline is Grimes talking about? I fly a lot, a sh*t ton, and they always place "if anyone has small children, please board now", well before ANYONE else. If she is referring to single mothers with older children, she is nit picking, and not on the best side of it.
That's a standard leftist mode of thought, they emphasize exceptions and then try to make that the entire point. It's the same thing they do with abortions when brining up rape, incest and fetal deformities but the stats show that around 93% are pure elective personal reasons.
It's kind of weird to me how since testosterone is the primary chemical that influences a person's sex drive and men have far higher amounts of it so that men have a libido that is ten times stronger than women on average, men are considered to "only want one thing", pressure their wives for sex, incels are a cultural phenomenon, etc and yet you can almost guarantee anytime there is a discussion about sex in history or sex in the modern world or sexual liberation or sexual happiness or sex's effects on culture, or basically anything related to sex it will be women doing the talking, and if you ever hear of a sex therapist or sex expert it will almost always be a woman, and if you look at statistics women are more sexually active with more partners than men. It's weird to me.
I completely agree. One thing I would like to add is I hate the way incels are demonized by feminists. They’re men with low testosterone and limited social skills, not monsters, they’re people who are in a lot of pain. In polls, the vast majority identify as liberals, not extreme right wing.
I noticed dating go from Bad to worse after social media, but my friend who's a sociopath did way better. He's also tall successful and good looking which helps. Our experience of women is abundance. Mine has been scarcity. Since I stopped dating my finances and sanity have become much more stable. Women have become completely untenable for me and most men. Which has definitely pushed us much more right wing. Feminism was designed to destroy society. It worked!
Maybe it's because more people are willing to sleep with women than men? And tons of dudes r desperate for sex so if they're approached then it wouldn't take much for them to say yes
Having Grimes debate for rights of women/single mothers is like sending Baron Trump to orphanage to debate about hardships of being a child in modern world..Dude you were silver-spoon fed until you became famous and then had a baby with a billionare and receive $100k/month child support..
I have to agree. It was surprising and refreshing! I was expecting being overwhelmed by rebuttals that would devolve into emotional insults and personal attacks. Congratulations to all these women!
23:49 I disagree with her a bit here. Casual sex for men pre-SR (sex revolution) had social consequences, the kids and being a dead beat dad. Now in terms of the prominent stories being told out of Hollywood, yes, there were no consequences. But this was a misread of the culture at large at the time. Edit: when she says "excluded from work" she means "paid, salaried work". Working class women still very much worked.
Maybe she meant prostitution - men could have casual sex consequence free for money, perhaps with some stigma but not a great deal - and/or they could keep it a secret.
Exactly! Not even psychopathic men would want to be known as the father of a literal bastard. That diminishes his value not only in the eyes of a woman, but in society as a whole.
You can see the consequence's by listening to the music created by the children of those brought up during and directly after your 'revolution'. - Prior to the 60's we had Motown artists of both genders signing about love, kindness, virtue, and happiness. - In the 90's we heard Tupak rapping about playing catch with an imaginary father. - In the early 00's Eminem rapped about protecting a sibling from a derelict mother. It just continued down that path to where we are today, just turn on the radio and listen to the art created by the products of the revolution.
As a African American man I agree my parents are old school stevie wonder marven Gaye ect. Oldies jams was smoothing like Kenny g but not its demonic in my opinion
That's what happens when people are free to tell the truth, prior to the 60s, a lot of those mothers were on tranquilizers to get through the monotony and emptiness of their days and nights trying to build lives for them selves with whatever they had left from emptying them selves out into husbands and children who never bothered to give anything back... But they believed in keeping up appearances so they did not talk about the violence in the homes, the neglect, the disfunction, etc. Don't let the past fool you. This world has been messy...
@@r.walker7986 Because mothers are happier now unable to afford normal thing for theird kids and working most of the time, single and stressed right? Right?! Nobody is taking pills nor medication right?! Only 1950s bored unhappy housewives
and yet women in this society are consistently unhappy with all the rights in the world. they even have paths to being in the top 1% via routes like instagram, onlyfans depending on how much they "liberate" themselves and get their simps watching while saying it's all "men's fault"@@r.walker7986
I think the biggest problem we have, isn't sexuality. It's social security, and the reality is the markets and investment conglomerates have surpassed individual government in the power struggle. Now governments can be sued by markets for loss of earnings and all of this is carried out in a private arbitration trial. This means: A. Democracy is an elusion B. We are being divided by powers that we cannot touch or defend against C. The markets are not inclusive, but owned, in their majority, by a small number of individuals that are anonymous, who's Identities are protected. D. AI and robotics becomes more advanced, most of us become purposefully obsolete and therefore disposable. E. The people who place the value of money above social security will be positioned higher in the social structure. They will naturally be less empathetic and be less likely to value the rights and health of others and they will be in control of the most advanced technology that can be created.
mid. her point on creating a child centric world is truly a great idea, and also, people who are older should also have a greater impact on their grandchildren. i.e. it takes a village.
@@schafferluke I can understand that there may be upsides to creating a child centered culture. However, if there aren't adults only spaces, the people who never want children, and the parents taking a break will be outcast. I love how Scoot airlines of Singapore had a nobody under 12 section on planes.
Grimes was so hard to listen to 😩 I tried but the million likes, constant cursing and not actually responding to questions being asked n just goes off on a ramble. It was just hard to watch…
This absolutely surprised me. I went from rolling my eyes, thinking I knew where this was headed, to now claiming it's THE BEST debate I've heard all year. Oh & WOW it was by women, even a bigger shocker (and I'm a woman saying that).
@@carter_1 I did not know what Grimes looked like until this debate, but if you have listened to Chris Williamson, Ali Abdaal, Lila Rose, Jordan Peterson then you would have stumbled across Perry. but it depends what discussion spheres your in I go from leftists ones to conservative, you can be listening to in defense of BLM by Ta-Nehisi Coates and the next day listening to Destiny argue Kyle Rittenhouse should not be found guilty.
Anna seems funny with her sarcasm however Louise is so isolated with her argument on her own, not one person can support her argument. I think Louise is being more realistic compared to other 3 women in the debate
@@treacherousjslither6920 the pill can create negative effects of you emotionally and your body (not always), I do agree that we shouldn't ban taking pills however it does need to be talked about
I just want to say that I am so grateful for Bari and for the Free Press and for this panel in the ethos behind it. It makes me feel more sane. Not because of the topic but because of the way in which intellectual debate is being approached here.
Free speech is dead, and Carl Schmitt has killed it. Sure, intellectually you can make the case for it, but I think it has become obvious that you can't have an orderly society without restrictions that extend past crying wolf and libel. The marketplace of ideas mistakenly presumes that the printing presses of propagandists can be defeated. Let the last century show that they cannot. I'd also make the case that there is such a thing as degenerative and destabilizing speech which ought not to be heard or be allowed to be articulated, but I think you got the point before that. I'm not a blue-blooded democrat, I admit.
You like the approach and the ethos? A debate on the sexual revolution that excludes any male participants. I guess the ethos is feminism and discrimination and rather ironically, stifling free speech?
I'd say that in the 50s women were more depressed but today they're more embittered. In the 50s they were fooled (and mistreated) by men; during the sexual revolution, they've been fooled by their own (and led to mistreat themselves).
I honesty think, while abuse no doubt was a thing, i think there is gross generalisation about the depressed and abusive state of most women in the 50s... I dont think that was the norm for most women at all... also the idea that everything was for the benefit of the men, and that all men mistreated their wifes... is also a gross misconception. In the big picture kinda thing, nowadays most people will tend to live lonely lives, no children, no partner, of course people will be more unhappy, generally speaking
I like how the camera panned over to grimes as Louise was saying that the men “at the tipy top of the power structure” are setting the sexual terms and having multiple women/kids etc. 😂😂😂😂
That was interesting! Anna is very smart, and Grimes surprised me in a good way. There was too little time to really discuss any of the issues they mentioned though. It didn't feel much like a discussion, they were just... saying some things one after another, lol.
You enjoy someone uses the word Like so many times in her conversation but never actually supports the claim that the sexual revolution was a net good thing? Interesting
@@robertfetrow4612 Yeah, verbal tics can be annoying and I mostly don't agree with her, but she did better than I expected with expressing her view. It's okay if you didn't think so.
@@esterlopes7806 What does that mean? I was not asking for permission to have my opinion. Shes not prepared, nor was her partner prepared for the actual topic of the debate. It was really, we won and we need time to actually win but let me point out an issue from the past and pretend that means my solution is the best one. Or, society has not come up with a good society or govt to regulate society to my liking so I deem our society and govt a failure but the sexual revolution was needed. I do find it odd that everyone on the panel was not an American. Interesting since the sexual revolution and much open for debate centers on American culture
Why did a debate have three people arguing that it was a success and only one person arguing it was a failure? I think the failure is whomever chose the panel.
I'm happy the way things turned out. Had I been born a 100's earlier I would have been pair up (through expectations) with someone in my village, had 3 or 4 kids and forced to work until I am dead to support them and a family. As a single and never married guy I have been able to retire early in my 50's and do what I want.
@@TheDionysianFields I would agree with you. I didn't have kids for that reason. I knew were the world was headed and where it is going. However, it is a self correcting problem that unfortunately will take many generations to work itself out.
Actually your kids would take responsibility of taking care of you when they grow up. But now the opichen to retire is becaming harder and harder because there is less young people who is working and more retire people.
And why is Grimes there? Taking up a seat. If I was Sarah I’d be kind of pissed they teamed me up with Grimes for this kind of debate. Grimes has her talents (Art Angels and Visions go CRAZY), but debating isn’t one of them.
I valued her comments and perspective. She said she wasn't a good public speaker, which she isn't, but it was very game of her to participate. She made some excellent points even if she's no rhetorician. I found her smart and authentic. Plus it wasn't like she makes a living off this kind of thing. Arguably you could say that Louise Perry hangs her hat on this stuff.
Thank you for a great and informative debate. It felt like 3 against 2: Anna, Louise and Grimes against Sarah and Bari. Framing this as men vs. women is a major mistake. Bari, the numbers for pro-choice vs pro-life - male and female are very close. So, stop stereotyping the issue thinking men are the only ones against abortion and all women are pro-choice. Depending on the state, it may be men and women on either side of this issue are about the same or very close.
"If you don't have a supporting other, you're left with the state to take care of your baby" Grimes: "No, we just need to give the babies to all the old people" I'm dying over here 🤣🤣🤣
Bravo to the host and design of this debate. Our society is rotten when intellectual debate serves to appease the masses' desire for blood and to annoint the gladiator of their tribe. No, this was more than entertaining, and greater than any individual person here, and in service to a true discussion for us all to benefit from.
It would have been a better debate if Louise had had had perhaps Mary Harrington to back her, instead of that Anna woman -- did Anna even agree with the premise she was "championing?" I think she even mentioned that she didn't.
@@jimluebke3869 thanks for responding. This and other comments like it are exactly what I'm criticizing. Take these matters seriously. Don't take yourself so seriously. If we can laugh together, we can work together, and we can thank Anna's irony for creating space for that.
agreed. there were many men who supported feminism and yet women gave no fdcaks about the men. well...shame on the men who supported a movement that didn't care about them tbh
Interesting debate. Very reminiscent of the debate in Catholic circles about whether Vatican 2 has failed. You have the "Grimes-ian" take, in which the response is that V2 just hasn't been implemented properly yet, and you have the "Perry-ian" take, in which the response is that it's been 60 years now and, judging by its fruit, V2 has clearly been a failure.
I’m not sure it’s V2 or the progressivism that ended up producing V2. The Church seemed to give up. It saw all the social pathologies that resulted from abandoning the 10 Commandments, ignored the root cause, and supported socialist government welfare programs to deal with the symptoms. “Give to Caesar whatever he asks to do God’s work.”
Bari had a agende she was trying to push and it becomes very apparent. When she talked to Grimes and Sarah she would asked them to explain their thinking but Louise and Ana had to spend the entire time defending there's because Bari would make wild accusation about their points and then they would have to spend the entire time rebutting them.
This comment does not make sense. The panel is suppose to be biased and was biased. How could you possibly find them unbiased. Who the heck is the audience of this channel?
@@darklightimages Go read any of the stuff that she has done for the newspapers, it's all leftist politically charged nonsense and even when it's social issues it's all the expected leftist talking points. I'd suggest you go watch when she went on Joe Rogan, she spent the entire time talking in circles and outright denied points Joe makes which are supported by data. She's the type that says exact what she needs to in order to maintain her key demographic audience.
Another thing is that maybe there should had been a YES, NO and UNDECIDED and the number of people voting to gather more accurate numbers and even allow for a tie if appropriate.
As a man I'm actually glad women are more independent because now I don't have to worry about meeting someone else's needs or feel pressure to have a family.
For me as a man the double standard where women argue that you can't use the force of the state to extract my fertility (ban abortion), but I do think it is moral to use the force of the state to extract resources from men who are not related to my child is disgusting. I'm a very caring man, I care for my nephews and I fully intend to care for my future wife and children, but the way women casually throw around the idea nowadays that we can just make the state (men) pay for their children makes my blood boil. Seems like to me that they want to take away all leverage that men have and give up nothing in return. Men wont put up with that for long, either they make themselves so useless that nothing can be extracted from them (we see clear signs of this already) or they go violent against the system they have no stake in.
How women stract resources form men they are not related? The state is women too, so You don't want to help women, perfect women just need to not pop out babies
@@treacherousjslither6920 I agree, but that is a false dichotomy. My issue is that women think men HAVE TO SUPPORT their bad decisions. To give you an example: Girl thinks working man is boring-yuck, wont touch that. Drug dealer is super cool, exciting. Lets fuck the drug dealer, then when he obviously wont support her. You the boring-yuck working man who she wont even acknowledge exists will have to pay for that bad decision, because the state sanctions it. This is happening and women want this optionality to continue and it is just unfair and men will opt-out of society if this is the only option they are given. That is my whole point.
There is and interesting duality to the American - highly self interested but unable to see that helping others is a long term investment in your own society (and is thus your own self interest).
I thought Louise Perry won the debate. Her partner was of no use honestly. The opposition's argument is basically let's hop on the hedonism train and see what stop we get off at. If society is run like that, where do you think it will end?
Louise couldn't really say what she wanted to happen. It remained convoluted throughout. Bari tried to extract a more concrete viewpoint from her but never got it.
My favorite part is how they pretend to the be the empathetic ones always screeching about saving children but every single possible metric shows the impact of the sexual revolution (single motherhood) as being objectively worse for the outcomes of children.
Plan your families around your careers, but at what expense, at whose expense? What I see these dsys is, people want their cake, they want to eat it, they want an elixir to undo all consequences, they want everyone to affirm what they chose to do, and they want someone else to pay for it.
Grimes seems to have great Utopian ideals like a nursery every place of employment, but then the question is who pays for it because employers certainly cannot afford that. I think the problem with untethering ourselves from tradition and things that have worked in the past and trying to come up with a brand new society as she seems to envision is that it leads to extremely bad outcomes because we are just not smart enough. We have seen this attempted in the Utopian ideals of the French revolution and communist revolution with a hundreds million of dead bodies in its wake.
One of the goals of the sexual revolution was to decrease the amount that industrialists had to pay for labour. How to do that? Simple supply and demand. Increase the supply, reduce the demand and hence price. What pool of new workers could they call on to double the labour pool overnight? Women. Overnight the value of labour halved. That is why one person working a normal job cannot support a family anymore, now both parents must work for the same standard of living. When you throw in Edward Bernay's marketing scheme to make smoking a symbol of female empowerment to open up the other 50% of the market to the tobacco companies, you begin to see that mass movements like this are often in part orchestrated or at least co-opted by the powerful, however noble their stated aims may be. So often they're concocted in a boardroom by men in suits and SOLD to people by means of ingenious (albeit sociopathic) marketing techniques, and today people still talk about them as though they were organic movements arising from desires originating in the hearts of normal people, when actually sometimes they are planted there.
@chesneytube1 that's the hard pill to swallow for the modern liberal: accept that their most core believes and ideas were planted like a dream in The Inception, an engineered consensus to make us collaborate on our own enslavement. But few will understand this, unfortunately.
@@treacherousjslither6920 No but its important not to paint a cause as being achieved on a backdrop of altruism. That is what breeds fanaticism. Humans try to create altruistic systems and make altruistic actions. They are not pure altruists and through the process of compromise cannot fully create altruistic systems due to the way humankind interacts with scarcity. Generations ago, women calling for suffrage probably did not anticipate that the market would manipulate future working women the way it does now; the original post makes a salient point about the way capitalism interacts with women. Is it wrong? I think it is, because capitalism eventually deteriorates into a sliding scale of the haves exploiting the have-nots, all to a backdrop of 'the most ruthless businessperson survives'. But then it has come with benefits as well as downsides, it would be stupid not to recognize both.
@@treacherousjslither6920but they are to blame for falling for the ......go be a slave to a strange company that will fire you when and if they feel like it....cause you know ...that's empowering...
This is my favorite debate of the last decade. Loved that it wasn't a monolithic argument for any of these four women though circumstantially they exist in a similar demographic. However, my biggest gripe is that "failure" wasn't 'defined' well enough. In a debate, something as conceptual as success or failure must be defined by the debators themselves, but I would have liked to see a baseline rubric scale. Such as: 'a' means wildly successful, 'b' means moderate success, 'c' means moderate failure, and 'd' means incomprehensible failure ( or something like that). Hindsight, and all that...
Failure - Single motherhood rates, female (and male) depression rates, female STD rates, a decline in birthrates overall, fewer competent men from which straight women can select a life long partner, and the growing number of men who are travelling abroad to find quality women (I included.) This wasn't a debate concerning the perversity of the "sexual revolution", it was a debate concerning the perversity feminism. Feminists simply go by another name because they know their religion is responsible for all the bad things it has brought society.
You can choose actions but you don't get to choose consequences. When American Society is eventually replaced by people that believe in ideas that actually promote families. What will we say then when we are dying as a culture. That we were free to destroy ourselves?
This is a very important discussion because it will provide a number of perspectives for young women and men to consider with the current landscape of existing technologies as well as emerging technologies. It is a complex and fascinating debate that asks us to critically think about what on earth is going on and how did we get here. I believe that everyone at the table is correct in one shape of form because there are, and will be multiple outcomes from the intervention of technology on the human body and mind. We can not consider removing the elements of these technologies(birth pill, internet,etc) from the freedom that modern society allows us but we can limit the effect of everything on our own lives as individuals. At least we are now having the conversation and thats a start. I do think we need to consider how the chemical and digital revolution has altered the natural vector of evolution to some extent but we cannot turn back because we all understand the freedoms that existing technology provides us all. Asking for the internet sexual content to be censored is like taking your car keys away becuase everyone can relate to the freedom of the feeling of driving but whether a person decides to break the speed limit or put themselves or others at risk is something we try to police and use law enforcement to manage. Online content and behaviour is extremely difficult to police but the majority of people do move on from addictive content or behaviour eventually. I think that women who are suffering with unwanted sex or sexual acts need to listen to their bodies and take control of the choices they make as men need to also take responsibility for their behaviour. Sexual freedom is not the issue, it is what people decide to do with their sexual freedom that needs addressing so education is the first step. This debate is exactly that. One thing I will saya s a man watching women with very different views on very important matters of culture and society. It is refreshing to see that not once, did any speaker attack another speaker or take what another said out of context or try to convince the audience that another perspective is ridiculous or pathetic or futile or any other extremely unkind comment. It is clear that womens ability to be respectful and considerate and agreeable on foundational ethics is something that men are just incapable of doing when they have an audience. An excellent and well considered debate that I will watch many times and share with all the people I care for.
I have a comment that ties this debate, its essence, and the very core from which the other emanate: Women are not men, and men are not women. We're different *on average per individual* (with varying ratios effecting different expressions--e.g., people-oriented or paternal instincts, overall disagreeableness, etc.) at a very fundamental level. Postmodern-Queer feminists have tried to use gender as a way of trying to subvert this fundamental fact by showing a fluidity between men and women as mere symbols constructed and maintained by words and social performance. As for the Radical Feminists, they gaslight us all by insisting that we're hoodwinked by our common sense of the downstream effect of our respective sexes. They insist these normative instincts are mere social constructs born out of a unilateral agreement to accumulate power for one over the other. Hence, we get the sexual revolution where, no matter your feminist school of thought, society can be gaslit into role reversals, which ultimately failed.
Well, there are 8 billion of us on this planet right now, with 140 million born each and every year. We're still overconsuming this planet, and the planet can afford us being some billions less.
Being single and childless is not the result of sexual revolution. It's the consequences of men's actions that women no longer want to put up with. I'm sure you're gonna put your hands up and say what actions? 🤷🏻♀️
Humanity as a whole is doing better than ever. Immigration easily solves the replacement birth issue. For the time being anyway. If/when all countries reach socioeconomic equilibrium then I imagine we'll just vat grow new citizens as needed. We're kinda there already with the sperm banks and everything but once artificial wombs come online then it's game on.
As with many revolutions, this one has reached a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of a point. I don't think that free and informed people would choose loneliness, unworkable relationship models, utter chaos, gender tribalism, anti-natalism, fundamentalism, ghosting, etc. So the question should be why are the options open to us now so bad, and who are the new masters whove replaced the old ones?
This was actually awesome and far exceeded my expectations! I was firmly in the "it has failed" camp... not sure I've switched sides 😂 but the opposing panel actually had some really good points. Usually they just talk rubbish 😅
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
Louise: The sexual revolution has failed because the bad outweighs the good.
Anna: It failed successfully.
Haider: It's a success because women have more options.
Grimes: Is, like, literally the product of the sexual revolution.
It’s unfortunate that Grimes can’t talk about the fact that she has multiple children with a polygamist who is at the top of the top of the social hierarchy. Kind of a massive elephant in the room.
Oops! Lol
Yes, that’s exactly what Louis Perry said happens😊
Idk that personal lives are helpful to get into on a debate like this
@@planckismusno but it does provide an informative understanding of the possible motivations for the debaters.
agreeing with the person replying to you but liking your comment because as the person replying to you says, your point is partially valid, but their reply completes the thought @@planckismus
1:15:47 "More men are single today. Many are living with their parents. Their incomes are depressed. Outcomes are depressed, their lives kinda suck"
*AUDIENCE LAUGHS*
They won't be laughing soon enough... when everything swings back round and adversely affects them as men check out of society
@@StillLookingforTruth already checked out
I’d say it was a kind of morbid laughter to cut through the depression of that statement, with the lighter “their lives kinda suck” contrasting with the preceding statement.
@@arc4859I'd love to think you're right, but I don't. Today's younger women could not care less about men. Men are there to be used and to be taken from. Where else are they going to get money to buy the things they think they need to have.
@@StillLookingforTruthyou mean when society falls and men rebuilds the world, then their in trouble
Freedom without responsibility... what could possibly go wrong.
Thank you
Everything could go wrong. But I don't agree with everything on this subject. And I've seen, heard, lived, and still learning everyday. At my age I could write a book about all the chapters of my life experiences. And yes, I'm at peace now compared to most women my age.
Freedom comes only from responsibility and moral action. If you aren’t responsible, you are not free.
the allies won the war, look what we have today.
@@justbecause968 All the republicans are applauding your deep wisdom.
Louise Perry will hopefully be remembered as the woman of our times.
I was just thinking this. She is level-headed with a rational insight into the plight of modern women and men. Not sure my entire feelings on the sexual revolution, but I would say the nays in this debate absolutely devastated Grimes and the other one.
They're just against it because They failed. If Women kept the advantages without any loses, for sure We won't see any conservatives speaking against it.
Meh. Not impressed and I've watched multiple interviews with her.
@@penelopekitty606
What about Anna Khaciyan? She is a gifted speaker. I’ve never heard her podcast or anything else she has done, and am still unconvinced as to how substantive her argument is (having mixed feelings about the state of sexuality and relationships today), but I do think that if I had no preexisting opinions, on the basis of presentation alone, she and Louise dominated this debate.
@@MarcusHCrawford I disagree. The only one who made much sense was Sarah Haider. I do not see Anna as a gifted speaker at all and both she and Louise Perry are reactionary and seem ignorant of the history. Why Grimes was there was a complete mystery. I suspect Bari wanted to appeal to a younger audience but there are much more serious and experienced women out there who could have added much more to the debate.
Louise spoke with the maturity of a University professor against a crowd that spoke with as much grace as a bunch of second year gender studies undergraduates.
Yes, her experience really shows.
The amount of seething Perry stans in the comments are quite amusing.
Sorry, but no amount of it will change that Sarah Haider pretty much won this all single-handedly by maintaining sober facts opposite a stream of unaccountable and arbitrary question-begging fallacy.
@@equilibrium1037 Haider's entire opening statement is contradicted by Perry's sentence: "..but they forget that it also controlled male sexuality." Sarah is just using the same rhetoric as the women-worsting religion called feminism. And none of the 'positive' effects of the revolution outweigh all the negatives.
@@equilibrium1037
I will say male sexuality was more controlled before the sexual revolution, because it is well-known that men have a drive for variety, and most men couldn't practice that before
So I will say, the sexual revolution "freed" men's sexuality much more than it "freed" women, and with that "freedom " more and more men stopped pursuing long term relationships which are what women want, so basically disadvantaging women and many other men.
@tranzorz6293
The percentage who have a drive for variety? Probably most men, over 60% of them
The percentage of men who gave up on long-term relationships? Well, men don't give up totally on long-term relationships. Some of them will just delay that a lot, and those will be the ones who typically have a lot of options. A lot of those men wouldn't see a benefit to settling down if they have so many options they could choose from. They will practice the variety they want till 30 or something
Those are probably about 20 percent of men, in my opinion , that is a minority, but if it is a minority that is desired a lot, they can cause a lot of damage and heartbreak.
Louise is the only one within her depths in this topic imo. Her approach to this topic is more fact based and rooted in a functional understanding of human nature, norms, and relations throughout history. The others are approaching it purely conceptually. Every panelist except for Louise treats the sexual revolution as if it's an isolated thing, like it's unrelated to discuss the downstream effects on people's mental health, the corrosion of societal norms, families etc. While it's true that rapid changes in technology play a role in overall dissatisfaction, it's also observably true that there is a breakdown in heterosexual relationships (and by extension the family structure) that is rooted from the sexual revolution. I think that there definitely should have been some male panelists to balance the female perspective.
Yes! Even many of the downstream effects on women specifically were grossly overlooked. Funny how every woman on the panel has children and one of them procreated with the richest man on earth…
It isn’t just the sexual revolution. It’s Title IX, it’s affirmative action, women’s scholarships, quotas, etc. We’ve gone from men putting women on a pedestal to society putting women on a pedestal. You go girl! Then they harp on about women making $0.73 for every $1 a man makes ... which is total BS and everyone knows it ... but ... “Pay inequity! Pay inequity!” Add social media to the mix and women have such an inflated ego that they have become largely insufferable.
Your language-specifically your use of "rooted" when you describe the putative relationship between the sexual revolution and a proposed "breakdown in heterosexual relations"-becomes unclear upon the crucial point of that claim. That is to say, are you asserting causation between the former and the latter?
If you are, what evidence have you seen that permits you to impute cause where there may only be correlation? You appear to assign at least partial influence to technological changes, and so the sexual revolution would by necessity be itself a partial cause. Do you therefore assert that it was a _necessary_ condition for such "downstream effects" as you can substantiate? Or do you claim it as a partially _sufficient_ condition, if such a thing can be said to exist?
The evidentiary bar for a proposition of causation is almost impassably high. Let us hope that your evidence is potent or copious or both.
Couldn’t agree more
Facts and data are not enough to make an argument. At some point, an actual argument has to be made. It is, however, enough to make you money off a book, get you invited to popular podcasts where the same non committal comments are re-stated and get you lots of adoring seal claps from those watching. Well done to her.
Grimes is the living embodiment of the term "luxury beliefs." Sarah isn't any better, but holy shit, no way could Grimes survive in the real world.
Real world as in a world outside of entertainment or what?
@@LoneWulf278 The world where you aren't a nepobaby who lucked into celebrity success and being the baby mama of one of the richest men in the world. Grimes, aka Claire Boucher, comes from an extremely wealthy and powerful family, and grew up extremely privileged. She had all the advantages, always been surrounded by elites, and never had to deal with the sort of hurdles that the average person does.
It's not just that she lives in the world of entertainment (which certainly encourages luxury beliefs), it's that like a lot of modern "successful" entertainers, her success is a result of having parents that could afford to support their college drop-out daughter for a decade while she made weird, uncommerical music and faffed about until she had limited commerical success. And now she's worth 10 million dollars. She can afford to believe in nonsense and fairy tales, because shehas never and will never experience the negative consequences of her bullshit. She gets to pretend she understands "single mothers" because she's a "single mother" -- with ten million dollars! She gets to pretend she "struggled as an artist" while her parents paid her rent and made sure she had health insurance.
That's why she can say stupid, ignorant bullshit like "every workplace should have a daycare." You gonna have a daycare at your local 7-11? At the local rock quarry? In the Department of Sanitation vehicle depo? This is absurd. Only someone who has never actually had to work for a living thinks that workplaces are safe and appropriate places for children.
Like wtf. You going to turn the break room of the local McDonald's into a one-room daycare? And that's going to encourage women to get married and have kids? What?
@@wolfofthewest8019 Except there are many workplaces that actually DO have childcare onsite. It’s not nearly as non-sensical as you’re implying it is. But I agree. As a person, she’s really privileged.
Regardless of what side you're on, her brain is clearly spaghetti, she doesn't have coherent thoughts, and it didn't do her debate partner any favors having her on her side. The debate, the arguments, and the responses were lower quality having her on the stage.
@@wolfofthewest8019 Exactly, it's all "we should have all of the things which husbands-as-fathers used to provide - no, I don't have a husband and being a single mother is haaaarrrd!" Let's tax the people who don't get to bed "Grimes" in order to provide her with the things to her which husbands and fathers of children were historically required to provide.
“Revolutions are unpredictable.”
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, social conservatives have predicted a lot of the problems of the sexual revolution long before they happened.
I love reading the "slippery slope" supposed fallacies from years ago; most turned out to be, or on the cusp of being, true.
@@TheTaysoren slippery slope is very obviously the rule, not a fallacy. things don't change suddenly... it's always by gradation
Wrong standard. There were terrible problems festering in those societies already. In doesn't take a genius of any political stripe to figure out you're trading one set of problems for another set of problems. If you are growth oriented, the choice is often to fix the existing problems and accept the new problems. Yes, you'll have to do it again. We call this learning.
Social conservatives were correct in many of their estimations, but society at large did not heed their warnings.
But at last, it is probably for the best that society had to suffer through the consequences of the Sexual Revolution, as we now have proof of its shortcomings.
This does not mean women do not deserve equal rights; it only means that their rights, like men, have to be tempered by responsibility and accountability.
As Uncle Ben from Spider phrased, "With great power, come great responsibility." It took Peter Parker the death of his uncle to fully realize that truth; as it took society the consequences of the Sex Revolution to set in to realize its faults.
Grimes served up a word salad didn't she?
tldr; 'this is what happened --- they have some good points though --- i'm so bad at this --- -no like really im so bad at this--- it'll all be good in the end because Elon has a bunker ----so its no big deal!' (raucous cheers)
o_O
Louise for the win for me. She had a more holistic take on the matter, a great balance of the good traditional stuff that worked and the work/school liberty women found.
I wish they had talked about the pill has affected women hormonally. It’s been indicated that taking the pill for long periods of time can make women choose mates who are more feminine than masculine, and other neg things like weight gain, depression, foggy thinking, etc
@@allysongierke312I was waiting for anyone to mention the harmful side effects, physically and socially. Missed opportunity.
@@allysongierke312 thanks for the information
Louise is steeped in religion and omits every single thing outside of the invisible desert skygods grip on the world. Pagans throughout history had ingrained heterosexuality, ingrained marriage, sex NOT limited to marriage and they WORSHIPED women. The exact opposite she says would exist without the flying spaghetti monsters barbaric view of sex.
the wave with all the psycho suffragettes loool your favourite hahaha wtf@dontaycalvin7105
“Women were restricted from the work force” that utter nonsense for a start !!! Poor and working class women have ALWAYS worked!
This!!! I hate this point people keep trying to make. Most people have worked!!
Every movement like this requires historical ignorance
@@WeeedyMcMethexactly. Like black women were not working on the fields alongside the men
The only time women didn’t work was when the man could pay (or not pay) someone to work for him or they went without in order to focus on kids.
KEYWORD RESTRICTED. You even typed it up and cant comprehend what restricted means......the fact that you and 89 other people cant even comprehend a basic word....
Why was Grimes even invited. Every time she speaks she sounds like kid in class that didnt help with the group project but still showed up for the credit.
And even with that handicap and high on cold medicine, Sarah Haider held her own.
She was there because she's Elon Musk's baby momma and he's friendly with Bari.
I can't remember exactly if it it was her or not. But I think one time she said she went on a "vegan diet" that consisted mainly of macaroni and candy
To be fair, she had to argue for the downfall of society
I thought she did okay, but I do kinda agree.
Choice is not enough there is no true liberty without responsibility. Louise idea of operating as though the pill doesn’t exist is realizing that there is a necessity for self responsibility. The issue that arises is the distaste for accountability in a culture who sees it as oppressive. Responsible men and women are those who move society forward.
Her idea is absurd. We need tangible solutions. Not willful ignorance.
@@treacherousjslither6920 What? Her idea is the opposite of willful ignorance.
@@jcav764 Pretending something doesn't exist is the definition of willful ignorance
@@treacherousjslither6920 Willful ignorance is about staying ignorant about something - not what she is talking about. She knows the pill exists. We know the pill exists. She simply wants people to consider other factors when choosing partners and not just "I'm on the pill so everything is all good".
@@jcav764 Ah I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification. I don't see that as a viable solution though.
Louise Perry is a force. She wins. No contest.
I think Sara won by questioning the premise of the question. She picked on the word "Failed" and made people doubt the wording. Perry's argument against 3rd wave feminism is much stronger but they needed a less hyperbolic statement as the basis for the argument.
Her rhetoric is virtually naught but fallacy and prevarication. The few propositions she does make are alarmingly, schoolmarmishly moralistic and authoritarian. History knows the consequences of the combination of the two, not least when it is deep in love with the sound of its own voice.
@@Didleeios88 " *they needed a less hyperbolic statement as the basis for the argument* "
Either that, or they should bring in someone who actually agrees with it.
Louise does not. Simple as.
@@hughmac13 " *The few propositions she does make are alarmingly, schoolmarmishly moralistic and authoritarian.* "
You mean, she want's to rise the price of an "innocent" wank? That's preposterous! ;-)
" *History knows the consequences of the combination of the two* "
Yeah, we all know what happened the last time we tried "schoolmomy morals". They almost destroyed our civilization!
Actually, wait... Did they?
@@bakters is there a public thinker who is saying that these days? That the sexual revolution was a complete failure?
It has failed us all. Women, Men, Families.
And yet, women still vote. Mainly for Democrats and other blatant Marxists. Odd that hmm?
Actualy..it has freed us men. We no longer have to work our asses to the bone to pay a womans bills. We can spend our hard earned money on our hobbies and kick ass survivial gear
Was that failure, or success as designed?
@@Igneale as planed. In order to turn a nation communist you must destroy the nuclear family.
@@pitviper6713 Men are more lonely than ever
Louise deserved a better debate partner than Anna. Shes funny dissing the libs and all, but Louise clearly carried the whole thing.
That is what I came to say Louise was on her own on this of course she lost.
Dasha is a moderately intelligent person who likes to pretend to be very stupid. Anna is an extremely stupid person who desperately wants to be perceived as intelligent.
I couldn't disagree more! Everybody on this panel is wicked smart! Each one of them bringing something totally different!
I preferred Anna.
But not by much--more her style, which I think is what you may have disliked.
It was a fun listen all around.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard a single insightful thing from Anna… ever. The most “profound” shit she can say is usually stolen right from Christopher Lasch.
Very unfair for Louise to carry her entire side point by herself. She needed Mary Harrington there or someone along those lines.
Exaccctlllly😅😅
the point was for each side to have one serious person and one funny/quirky person.
@@lordsneed9418 But Anna was not committed to the point that the sexual revolution failed so admitted to it herself, so Louise was basically debating 3 people by herself. hey could had look harder for a funny person that actually agreed with her.
The idea of Mary Harrington or a similar intellectual does sound like a good idea.
I agree and disagree. Anna made her problems with the sexual revolution very clear in her introduction. She was also honest about her pessimism of change (baked into the system) and frustration of the presuppositions of the argument (women are the fairer sex).
I think both sides have some good points and some bad, but Louise Perry is the only one who seems to be really knowledgeable and comfortable with her arguments and counter-arguments. Compare her opening statement against the others and she was the only one who clearly looked at the crowd and didn't sound like an undergraduate nervously reading her talking points verbatim off the pages in front of her.
Grimes is giving off the vibe that she is fighting just to justify her invite, seriously outmatched so she tries to change the subject and is always off topic. Louise did well, we stan Anna for comedic relief, and Sarah played a solid heel.
It's a shame that she does come off like that. However if you've seen her in other conversations like podcasts etc, she is very much a train of consciousness kind of speaker. Check out her episode with Lex Friedman.
Friedman is that other internet personality that's similarly revolting to listen to as grimes the airhead. No thanks lol.
@@ewmmqc No thanks. Her "stream of consciousness" was LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE. She was like listening to a 13 yr old girl try to form sentences.
gosh... Grimes... She's 35. Calls herself 'a young mother'. I thought she was like 21
Grimes is just a rich idealist, she has no grasp of repercussions, human nature or how impractical most of her suggestions are.
No wife, no kids, no court dates, no jail time, no attorney bills, therapist fees, no alimony, no child support. No thank you! Not in this demented society. Blow me Up Tom Leykis!!! You were correct about it all. Thank you Dad! What ever it was or is, as a man feminism certainly set me free. Not sure this was thier intention but it was great for me. It's a terrible game, it is war, and the only way win, is not to play the game.
Your mind lives in the worst case scenario. When something has a 50% chance of going south you can either be hopeful or doubtful. You’re clearly doubtful whether based on fear or experiences. That’s fine but that doesn’t mean you or Tom are right or wrong. I hate the
@@maurice2014 yes, this is just my opinion. And?
@@maurice2014 I'm not negative person believe it or not. At my ripe age of 54, I'm just grown to accept the world for how it is, not how I wish it to be. I can go watch Disney if I want to see fairytale lens of this world. And Tom didn't make up the fundamental truths about relationships love and war. He just communicated his experiences, that just happen to reasonate with VERY MANY other mens experiences. There is no denying the fundametal natural of the human psyche of men and women in general. Leykis was just reporting on certain things men have known since ancient Egypt in a the context of modern society. He's much deeper than a shallow shock jock from the nineties. THere is a reason many men call Tom Leykis "Dad." Because many of us never had one that told us the brutal ugly truth about life. But I don't think you are his demographic, so don't listen to Tom Leykis. You would not like what he had to say.
@@GungaLaGunga
You will die alone and be forgotten. In the scale of time, you're a dead end and meaningless.
@@GungaLaGunga
You choose to point out the negative sides of a partnership and that's fair. You can't have the drawbacks if you opt out of the process. But you also miss out on the potential benefits and to many people, a romantic relationship is very important.
Never heard of Anna Khachiyan before, but shes absolutely awesome
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
16:34 🔄 *Louise argues the sexual revolution combines ideological and technological components, challenging traditional norms and contributing to societal shifts.*
23:42 🚺 *Sarah asserts that the sexual revolution destigmatized female participation in sex, granting women greater agency, challenging historical gender imbalances.*
27:18 🌐 *Anna Kachian argues on the success of the sexual revolution, highlighting the freedom it provides women, despite potential drawbacks.*
29:12 🤔 *Anna challenges the notion that the sexual revolution's failure is due to benefiting men, suggesting that blaming men is a continuation of victimizing women.*
30:37 🔄 *Anna criticizes contemporary feminism for perpetuating victimhood and not recognizing women's agency, emphasizing the need to move beyond traditional narratives.*
35:30 🚻 *Grimes defends the sexual revolution, viewing it as a natural step towards a world of sexual freedom, advocating for complementary social technologies to address its challenges.*
39:05 🔄 *Louise Perry argues for a return to more normalized sexual norms, acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the need for reconstruction over immediate changes.*
52:23 🌐 *The sexual revolution is perceived as offering freedom of choice primarily to the wealthy or upper middle class, leaving others with limited options based on the decisions of those who impregnate them.*
53:31 🤰 *Unplanned pregnancies among lower-income women are misunderstood; studies show these pregnancies are often not unwanted and provide a source of meaning in contexts where it's challenging to find purpose.*
54:13 🤱 *Before the sexual revolution, fewer single mothers existed, but a significant number of children were put up for adoption during the "baby scoop era," highlighting historical trade-offs in family structures.*
55:36 📚 *Addressing issues related to single mothers and family breakdown involves improving education, understanding fertility, and creating a culture that values children, emphasizing the importance of literacy and family-friendly environments.*
01:01:17 🚫 *While some argue for more conservative values to address societal challenges, others highlight the need to maintain sexual freedom while encouraging responsible choices and addressing broader issues like social support for mothers.*
01:14:55 🔄 *The debate questions if the Sexual Revolution primarily served men's desires. Participants discuss its impact on dating dynamics, with concerns raised about men's struggles in the current landscape.*
01:17:28 🌐 *Panelists share hopes for a healthy sexual culture for their children. Louise suggests we're in an era of reconstruction, emphasizing the need for societal values. Grimes envisions a future with AI companions, while others focus on familial and communal arrangements.*
01:23:07 🔄 *Louise argues for social guardrails, advocating for stable norms and cautioning against a cultural vacuum. She suggests a more conventional life often leads to better outcomes for most individuals.*
01:24:50 🔍 *Sarah critiques the intellectual dark web for not truly challenging wokeness and reflects on personal conflicts as a mother navigating ideological extremes. She emphasizes the need for responsibility amid the sexual revolution's successes and downsides.*
01:27:29 🌱 *Grimes expresses optimism and a moral imperative to build a new, improved model for society. She encourages individuals to recognize their agency and work towards positive change on a personal and community level.*
Made with HARPA AI
Women: We want Equal Pay
Also Women: Why can't we find a man who makes 3x as much as we do?
The first step to recovery is admitting YOU have a problem.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE STRONK WAHMENS! MISOGYNYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Exactly. They want high paying job and also for you to pay for everything.
@@spiff1 Incels are so crazy. Equal pay for equal work doesn't mean we can't opt for a man in a different line of work, who out earns us, so that we can feel comfortable with the risk of pregnancy and child rearing.
@@Green89_ We can have that.
@@sarahrobertson634 are you really saying you want a high paying job and want someone to pay for everything? Do you seek to compete with a million women over a thousand men?
The problem comes down to 2 words, “why not?”
“Why not?” has been the downfall of almost every positive political and social movement to ever exist in America. Why? At a certain point, reason and logic are thrown out the window to the detriment of their own cause. Going too far and going full circle is what seems to be happening now.
Also "why start small when you can go big or go home", another American Exceptionalism attitude of everything that could be done should be overdone. Supersize everything so the receipt comes flooding in all at once. Other countries tend to test the waters and study the results before just going all in. Just see how transgenderism went from acceptance to children going over their parents to get surgeries, how drug legalisation went from medial cannabis to just straight out distributing free fentanyl to overdosing addicts. All in under a decade.
this debate could have gone better, they didn't really define what they meant by "sexual revolution". the way I understand that term is that from the '60s onward, we were promised that we should shatter the norms when it comes to sex and that everyone would be happier for it.
given this context, the sexual revolution absolutely failed. by all metrics, men's and women's satisfaction in finding a meaningful relationship has fallen. The feelings of loneliness, depression, and purposelessness have skyrocketed. so it's not a figment of imagination that the promise of the past has been deferred to a promise in the ever-increasing future, as long as we continue on this path of obliterating sexual norms. (which in the end means you aren't allowed to question the veracity of the "sexual liberators" claims)
Grimes and Sarah then claimed that because we are better off now than we were in the sexually repressive 50s means that the sexual revolution was successful. and to that, I say NO, because again the prompt is asking if the sexual REVOLUTION failed
the claim of the revolutionaries was that if all norms were destroyed people would be freer and happier to do as they pleased. and all metrics point to that being a false claim. I wished Anna and Louise would have been more assertive in reminding them that the options aren't this binary system of 50s sexual norms or none at all, but instead are sexual incrementalism that alleviates the repressiveness of the 50s norms but still offers structure, so men and women can act accordingly. facilitating the finding of a romantic partner more easily, which brings about purpose, meaning, and bonding within the love we all crave and are currently failing to find under the failed sexual revolution
I thought the same thing. It wasn't a coherent argument because they didn't define what they were arguing
"people would be freer and happier to do as they pleased."
how exactly are people not freer and happier to do as they pleased?
@@JohnSmith-ms4xd the reason why they are neither freer or happier is basically because of the paradox of choice.
When dealing with no restrictions you are inundated with options with no structure guiding your choice.
Meaning you are not sure how to best move forward, makes it hard to be on the same page with the other person, and leaves you unhappy with your choice because you are left wondering the possible better choices of the infinite options
Having structure on how to act alleviates all those bad outcomes, you have a limit on how to act making you more sure on how to best move forward, makes it easier to be on the same page with other people and makes you happier with your choice as the structure guides your options on how to move forward
@@BrianShhAmen!
It's like we inherited thousands of years of food preparation but now just eat take aways because we've just become too busy slaving away paying Taxes.
We let our culture go.
We replaced God with iPhones and Tinder
You can definitely find contentment without a romantic partner. Culture - ever changing - currently creates feelings of inadequacy when not attaining cultural norms, like not finding a partner for life, not having children etc. But there are ways to liberation from these feelings.
Im sorry i disagree that it isnt the parents fault if your child is getting passed from grade to grade without realizing they cant read or write or do basic grade level math etc. Yes, the education system is a disaster, but if parents had noticed this a bit sooner maybe it wouldn't have been able to keep declining to this point up until covid when parents were forced to teach their own kids to realize how bad it was. I have 2 kids and there are few circumstances i can imagine where i would be unaware that they were either unable to read or not performing appropriately or behaving well at school
I have seven grandchildren and every one of them could read before they set foot in a classroom because their mothers taught them.
Maybe it's the parents fault, because they were stupid to read the directions on a condom wrapper and made a stupid kid.
I had no idea who Grimes was before this debate. I now still have no idea who she is and what she's doing there.
I only found out about her a few months ago and know her as "That weird electronic musician chick who has kids from Elon Musk."
I only know her as Elon Musk's baby mama.
@@jzen1455 so it's true then, smart men like stupid women.
24:00 the claim that the 1960s in European societies was 'the first time in [human] history' that there could be an understanding of sex as something that could be about pleasure'; is so ridiculously false on the face of it.
Swiftly followed by the idea that it was dividing line for restrictions in education & the workplace, as if there are none afterwards & as if males have none before or after as well.
I was thinking that. Quite ignorant
I always make fun of such ideas by asking "When weren't men buying from the world's oldest profession? That involved having sex and not making babies. It existed for ages before any pill did."
As I grew up and am a barely millennial. I was told by my parents to respect my elders. My neighborhood raised me and I knew I was watched by all. Children are not raised by community's these days which doesn't produce the best children
That's crazy, because from my point of view, it seems like the streets are raising kids these days.
@@shel-f7c "the streets" is not the community.
@@shel-f7c no the internet and institutionalized child care facilities are raising kids. There is no community anymore.
"Like ... like, like ... Like, like like .. Like ... Like! ... Like, like like .. "
Grimes - 2023
The resolution is a bad premise, as Haider points out in her opening segment. Failed in what regard? In order to break new and more fertile ground, we need to ask better questions.
The premise began with, “why with a ‘revolution’ of such kind are both men and women unhappy, disillusioned and sad?” freedom creates choice and with it, the outcomes of questions which bring us to the symptoms we see today in our society. In the conclusion, both sides come together to discuss what’s really most important and there is consensus. What is most valued, is what brings dignity to the offspring and a shared meaning for significance . If we are to carve out a future, we can learn from the setbacks together with our aspirations which we have learned from the hardships and complexities to merge with a sense of dignity and wholeness for all individuals as they set journey towards their growth as individuals, as partners, as parents and as necessary groups within families or tribes for the stability of generations. At least that is the one take I’m hearing from their discussion.
Watching these debates is like watching a debate of the Hiroshima city council in 1946 trying to determine wether or not the city needs repairs.
This is literally like watching idiocracy it's sad
This is a cop out. Every society needs improvement. There hasn’t been a point in history where one hasn’t. The point is too many people disagree on what those improvements are..
@@shelbyspeaks3287not a movie, a documentary
@@Takobelladisagreement doesn't mean both sides are equal.
I heard the other day, only Israel 🇮🇱 is having replacement reproduction
@@Takobella non of this is relevant if the culture of today is based on circular argumentation, where the only thing that happens in debate is opinion exchange and nothing else.
Starts at 12:49
Watching this is like watching 2 mature ladies debate 2 children. It speaks volumes. A society needs rules and needs “social norms” and the younger generation wants NEITHER. It’s a horrible plan, but they don’t want to be told what to do. It’s killing society. You need some social norms that help and provide guidance
The younger generation has been completely and utterly fucked over by the older generations and are lacking much motivation in life.
When you see your life to be so much harder than that of your parents', you tend to resent them and be unwilling to follow in their footsteps.
In the wise words of BLINK 182, "if we're fucked up, you're to blame."
We had the social norm that if one went to college, they would be on the fast track to a high paying job. Many Millennials and Gen Z never got those jobs no matter how they tried. Older people will just say "You just didn't do XYZ enough" when the current gen talks about the impossible job hunt.
Social norms have to be more than pieces of advice the older gen hands out, social norms have to genuinely pay off.
Grimes:
Like, the schools, and like, the system is like failing like the kids. Its like, not like the parents fault that like, their kids are like fucked.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The best part of this entire youtube video, is the fact that we all are willing to have these conversations with people that have opposing views. Love that, because having conversations with people that have the opposing view....will inherently lead to a better future.
Louise seems like the only one who is still living in reality. Though Grimes makes a good point, that society is no longer child (nor family, nor individual) friendly. She's basically describing Europe's approach to kids, many companies in Germany (for example) have built-in child care.
and yet Grimes' solution is to double down on all the trends that caused these problems. Still, she had more salient points than I expected.
@@NoFeckingNamesLeft Which trends caused all which problems? Aside from daycare or improved literacy and education, what did Grimes explicitly endorse? Does your argument cast those as cause or consequence in the scenario you conjure?
@@NoFeckingNamesLeft Yes, her "but we just need to go a bit further!" is basically what is causing all the problems (and also how you get extremist movements). It's like she thinks women will transcend into ethereal beings or something.
@@Mr.McWatson How do you understand her use of "further"?
being a h0e@@hughmac13
We have a very correct belief that male sexuality needs to be constrained, but for some reason there seems to be a blind spot on the fact that female sexuality ALSO needs constraint. I think the anti-abortion movement is an ideological attempt to re-establish constraint on female sexuality. I think it's a bad way to go about it, but I think that the grownups in the room need to talk about how female sexuality can and should be constrained without stepping on the civil rights of women. The problem is that when women have complete sexual freedom a large subset freely chooses what is good for themselves over what is good for their children, and they freely choose to participate in the online harem culture. This is extremely damaging to children and society. Female sexual freedom is a good, but it is not the only good, and absolutism around this issue is damaging to men, women, children and society as a whole.
I like your expression "online harem culture"! I was lookikg for an expression describing the fact that 20% of men on dating app run through 80% of women! "Harem culture" is an excellent one!
"Female sexual freedom is a good" --> I'm not sure this is a "good", nor men's "sexual freedom". These "goods" damage men, women, children and society as a whole.
Agree that "absolutism" - in either direction - is damaging. There were avenues of "leeway" in previous societies, yet women always blame men for *all* of this, yet clearly "it takes two to tango" and the women were engaging in it too...
Sexual expression is the appropriate civil right, but this expression needs to be within a framework and structure that meets the needs of society first, and *both* of the genders second.
The current sexual "laissez faire" (and the plain and the ugly too) is in a "structure" determined by technology serving Capitalism (e.g. the pill, abortions, Tinder, OF) and by female biological drives (i.e. hypergamy) and the results are clearly damaging to children, society and to 80% of the men.
The current situation is neither sustainable nor desirable except to be desired by the self-serving "sexually free" females and the 10% of males they hypergamously select.
@@ladzerty The stats are even worse than that now, women now only swipe right on roughly 5% of men and online dating makes up around 50% of all connections. So just deduce from that what you will.
Abortion is not civil right of women. That is something so many fail to understand. Woman's bodily autonomy and right to do what she wants doesnt kick in after sexual intercourse. Pregnancy is the result of her doing whatever she wants(except rape) and that is for nobody to "fix". It is not governments responsibility to uphold her bodily autonomy. It's hers. That's equality they wished for.
@@mildajasaite871 I agree. At the same time women will frequently use the power of sex in unwise and unethical ways. Men have legitimate concerns around cuckolding, parental estrangement, and general fatherlessness. These are real consequences of women miss-using their sexual power. I'm not suggesting that we ban abortion. I want abortion to be legal, safe, and a woman's individual decision. But I also want social pressure to be put on women to use their sexuality in more responsible ways. I'm not advocating taking away abortion. I'm advocating changing the incentive structures that men and women are operating under using soft power. Things like: Let's put a ceiling on how much child support a parent can get per child. Let's make paternity testing mandatory for all live births. That sort of thing.
Wow, what an amazing speaker/writer Anna Khachiyan is.
Its very refreshing to see a good faith debate with two sides who speak rationally for a change
Good faith? It's an echo chamber. Could they not find any one of the opposite sex to participate? You know diversity of thought, to give the other side or at least a different perspective not considered by the teams? The teams can only offer a distorted interpretation of the male view of the sexual revolution. Given feminism's distortions, and fantasies of the patriarchy, misogyny, toxic masculinity and pay gaps, etc. I doubt many males would recognise any "male view" or consideration put forward by our esteemed panelists.
The feminist perspective and messaging, which is lacking self awareness and devoid of critical analysis, saturates our everyday lives and is almost impossible to escape. The claim of supporting free speech is ironic, given the above and that cancel culture, deplatforming, reputation attack etc was invented and is still used by feminism to silence other viewpoints and stifle free speech.
Oh, and it's 2023 so how about we finally update the definition of feminism to remove any reference to equality of the sexes; that's so 60s&70s. Feminism moved on years ago. Please seek a mental health professional if you believe otherwise.
'rationally' hahaha bunch of women talking gets you nowhere
Should have brought *Red Pill* into it, especially someone like Colttaine
They would have lost that battle 10/10 times.@@Damo-np7ul
Same as it ever was.@@spiff1
@@spiff1 you clicked the video to hear them get nowhere?
The Sexual Revolution has not failed, but it is tilting toward collapse. Louise Perry mentioned having social guard rails and social norms. We absolutely need those. They can exist, be reasonable, and fluctuate upon discover of other variables and growth.
Why was this Grimes “like” even included in this “like” panel. She “like” contributed “like” nothing useful to the discussion. Such a self centered uber-Millennial.
Because she represents them in a way and it is good to see who actually represents those people. You can clearly see who is more coherent.
Lmaooo😂😂
As a male when I listen to this I hear constant conflict within the ideal. In other words, we want people to be able to sleep around without actually sleeping around. We want people to want children even though the have the choice not to. We want to hold on to the outcomes of the past while changing all the inputs. That isn't rational. We annot expect to remove the constraints on society and still have people act repsonsibly. Appy that to anything. Accessiblity of guns, accessibility of drugs, accessibility of art, accessibility of education, accessibility of sex. The more accessibility you have to something the more you will indulge in it. I think we made a trade off in the sixties of freedom for responsibility. And there wre good things and bad things about it. I think we do need a common generally accepted ethos, but if it is too common it becomes a constraint. There has to be latitude for those who can be responsible with greater freedom.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I think the point is that in the past a giant majority of the responsibility for being sexually active fell onto women. When we got birth control, we were able to actually experience a taste of sexual freedom. Who cares if it's destroyed the nuclear family. Nuclear families always sucked for us. I think once we've been able to live a little, things will settle down and become more balanced. Women are moving away from hook up culture and embracing celibacy more and more. We've experienced freedom, discovered that it's not all it's cracked up to be, and we're moving into a new phase of our journey. I'd be in favor of a world wide sex strike for a decade, personally.
@@sarahrobertson634 Louise Perry said "Freedom is like a great horse, one heading towards a direction' (I butchered the quote lol). The question is; what is your/the aim of a sexual strike for a decade?
Majority of men are not having sex and are lonely as reported, a sex strike will just put a nail in the coffin burying civilization 6 feet.
You can't solve a problem with a problem, liberals are far too concerned with thoughtless social anarchism and activism than actually going to the root of the problem, see what works/worked(whether perfectly or partially consistent) and meet people on middle grounds.
You said "Women are moving away from hook up culture and embracing celibacy more and more", my response is that it won't last because it's not based on anything positively pursuable, it is just hinged on the rhetoric of "men are bad, women are good and unknowing victims and we need to punish men".
That is why the original commenter said "As a male when I listen to this I hear constant conflict within the ideal".
No direction, No destination, just a reapplication of the same bad formular.
@@sarahrobertson634Yeah, you can't put the genie back now, just like a women can't undo their promiscuous pasts, can't go Buck wild & party from 18 to 30 or 35, then just stop when YOU'RE ready & had your fun & demand Men collectively just settle & accept it, so what if you experimented sexually with 20 or 50 or 100 Men & gave them access for Free, but other men have to Commit/Marry & pay for that same access!
Yep, it's in the true spirit of the ♀ gender
_"We want all the POWER and none of the RESPONSIBILITY"_
It was always a mistake to allow this, relative to not having it there were almost 0 good things and we are paying for it dearly, enjoy the decline. 🤡🌍
It’s unfortunate that public speaking is not a mandatory skill talk in school. With the exception of Louise Perry, the women were sorely lacking in this important, teachable skill.
I'm 43 minutes in and I feel like the topic got lost somewhere.. it's good that people are trying to make conversations like this happen, but I can't say it was focused.
I think they all did good.I did public speaking many times, and i progressively was worse and worse because of anxiety.
Yeah talking or public speaking is a skill set that should be focused on in school.
@@youdonthavetocomment i feel the same. i think none of them provided facts to back up their many statements and in fact both sides were adding points to the other teams stance... so confusing. I thought the other women did well, aside from Grimes. Seems to me like there are Loise fans here just bridging and commenting their support.I dont know any of these women, so their backgrounds mean nothing to me.
Nah, with the exception of Grimes, the rest were fine, but generally I forgot everything. T.(that includes Louise's point)
This wasn’t a debate. It was a great discussion that began with a temporary misunderstanding about what other topics should and shouldn’t be lumped in categorically with the sexual revolution.
Illiteracy *is* the fault of parents.
Parents aren't reading to children -- the greatest determiner of literacy.
Agreed. I hate that she absolves parents of any responsibility. Ridiculous.
Why the fuck did they invite Grimes....made it a little unserious ...
She’s not well read enough
I never thought I'd say this but she has some interesting points.
because their agenda was to make the "sexual revolution has been successful" side week.
Can't stop chuckling at Anna's utter refusal to say the word women properly.
For these debates they shouldn't just have a yes/no poll. It should be graded to show how many people are fence sitters. There are people who might think the revolution failed a little, or is good but sees some downsides. And also people who are strongly on either side.
Indeed. Many things are a mixed bag. It may be better to ask how many advantages it had versus disadvantages.
Especially when the question is such a dumb one. Seems like it's begging a "yes," when in fact it's like, "No, the sexual revolution didn't change everything. But people sure are a lot more honest about their needs."
it could also have the very negative effect of making people stick to their original positions more, once they committed to them
I think yes/no is the standard for debate polls? But the question is definitely badly framed. „Do the negatives outweigh the positives?“ might have been better… dunno, I’m not a native speaker
As I was freaking out about this, I saw your comment. Thank you.
There are no definitive answers. Just humans, compromises and the world they must navigate.
What airline is Grimes talking about? I fly a lot, a sh*t ton, and they always place "if anyone has small children, please board now", well before ANYONE else. If she is referring to single mothers with older children, she is nit picking, and not on the best side of it.
That's a standard leftist mode of thought, they emphasize exceptions and then try to make that the entire point. It's the same thing they do with abortions when brining up rape, incest and fetal deformities but the stats show that around 93% are pure elective personal reasons.
The problem begins with describing affairs of the heart and sexuality as warfare, battle, win/lose and revolution.
How about describing them as a an overgrown stank, dank pond populated by swamp creatures?
I like your thinking.
It's kind of weird to me how since testosterone is the primary chemical that influences a person's sex drive and men have far higher amounts of it so that men have a libido that is ten times stronger than women on average, men are considered to "only want one thing", pressure their wives for sex, incels are a cultural phenomenon, etc and yet you can almost guarantee anytime there is a discussion about sex in history or sex in the modern world or sexual liberation or sexual happiness or sex's effects on culture, or basically anything related to sex it will be women doing the talking, and if you ever hear of a sex therapist or sex expert it will almost always be a woman, and if you look at statistics women are more sexually active with more partners than men. It's weird to me.
I completely agree. One thing I would like to add is I hate the way incels are demonized by feminists. They’re men with low testosterone and limited social skills, not monsters, they’re people who are in a lot of pain. In polls, the vast majority identify as liberals, not extreme right wing.
I noticed dating go from Bad to worse after social media, but my friend who's a sociopath did way better.
He's also tall successful and good looking which helps.
Our experience of women is abundance.
Mine has been scarcity.
Since I stopped dating my finances and sanity have become much more stable.
Women have become completely untenable for me and most men.
Which has definitely pushed us much more right wing.
Feminism was designed to destroy society.
It worked!
It’s not weird… it’s feminism
Feminism.
Maybe it's because more people are willing to sleep with women than men? And tons of dudes r desperate for sex so if they're approached then it wouldn't take much for them to say yes
Having Grimes debate for rights of women/single mothers is like sending Baron Trump to orphanage to debate about hardships of being a child in modern world..Dude you were silver-spoon fed until you became famous and then had a baby with a billionare and receive $100k/month child support..
Boo hoo it’s hard being poor
This was great. I have never in my life witnessed 4 women who disagreed with each other be so respectful and dignified with their opposition
Absolutely hilarious point!
I have to agree.
It was surprising and refreshing!
I was expecting being overwhelmed by rebuttals that would devolve into emotional insults and personal attacks.
Congratulations to all these women!
@@chitownbob9714 lol imagine saying that about men! equal...
they basically all agreed in the end. certainly by lifestyle they agree: have a husband who looks after you and your kids and be monogamous lmao
@@chitownbob9714because we've identified the enemy, and it's not other women.
23:49 I disagree with her a bit here. Casual sex for men pre-SR (sex revolution) had social consequences, the kids and being a dead beat dad.
Now in terms of the prominent stories being told out of Hollywood, yes, there were no consequences. But this was a misread of the culture at large at the time.
Edit: when she says "excluded from work" she means "paid, salaried work". Working class women still very much worked.
Maybe she meant prostitution - men could have casual sex consequence free for money, perhaps with some stigma but not a great deal - and/or they could keep it a secret.
@@MrDezokokotar true
Exactly! Not even psychopathic men would want to be known as the father of a literal bastard. That diminishes his value not only in the eyes of a woman, but in society as a whole.
'excluded' from working for a soulless company rather than your own family
All a consequence of simplistic feminist interpretation of history, Marx style : oppressors, oppressed, the end.
You can see the consequence's by listening to the music created by the children of those brought up during and directly after your 'revolution'.
- Prior to the 60's we had Motown artists of both genders signing about love, kindness, virtue, and happiness.
- In the 90's we heard Tupak rapping about playing catch with an imaginary father.
- In the early 00's Eminem rapped about protecting a sibling from a derelict mother.
It just continued down that path to where we are today, just turn on the radio and listen to the art created by the products of the revolution.
As a African American man I agree my parents are old school stevie wonder marven Gaye ect. Oldies jams was smoothing like Kenny g but not its demonic in my opinion
Dude this is a PERFECT example
That's what happens when people are free to tell the truth, prior to the 60s, a lot of those mothers were on tranquilizers to get through the monotony and emptiness of their days and nights trying to build lives for them selves with whatever they had left from emptying them selves out into husbands and children who never bothered to give anything back... But they believed in keeping up appearances so they did not talk about the violence in the homes, the neglect, the disfunction, etc. Don't let the past fool you. This world has been messy...
@@r.walker7986
Because mothers are happier now unable to afford normal thing for theird kids and working most of the time, single and stressed right? Right?! Nobody is taking pills nor medication right?! Only 1950s bored unhappy housewives
and yet women in this society are consistently unhappy with all the rights in the world. they even have paths to being in the top 1% via routes like instagram, onlyfans depending on how much they "liberate" themselves and get their simps watching while saying it's all "men's fault"@@r.walker7986
I think the biggest problem we have, isn't sexuality. It's social security, and the reality is the markets and investment conglomerates have surpassed individual government in the power struggle. Now governments can be sued by markets for loss of earnings and all of this is carried out in a private arbitration trial. This means:
A. Democracy is an elusion
B. We are being divided by powers that we cannot touch or defend against
C. The markets are not inclusive, but owned, in their majority, by a small number of individuals that are anonymous, who's Identities are protected.
D. AI and robotics becomes more advanced, most of us become purposefully obsolete and therefore disposable.
E. The people who place the value of money above social security will be positioned higher in the social structure. They will naturally be less empathetic and be less likely to value the rights and health of others and they will be in control of the most advanced technology that can be created.
Very well stated. 💯
Or AI takes over and even they lose…hopefully
if I am right, you meant, 'illusion'.
Iron law of oligarchy is the greatest thing I ever read.
I lost braincells every time GRIMES spoke. She should NOT be in this debate.
Love her, but have to agree. Embarrassing.
You think you’re smarter than grimes?
I suppose if Grimes wrote the arguments and didn't have someone who says "like" every 5 seconds, it would be more interesting.
mid. her point on creating a child centric world is truly a great idea, and also, people who are older should also have a greater impact on their grandchildren. i.e. it takes a village.
@@schafferluke I can understand that there may be upsides to creating a child centered culture. However, if there aren't adults only spaces, the people who never want children, and the parents taking a break will be outcast.
I love how Scoot airlines of Singapore had a nobody under 12 section on planes.
Grimes was so hard to listen to 😩 I tried but the million likes, constant cursing and not actually responding to questions being asked n just goes off on a ramble. It was just hard to watch…
This absolutely surprised me. I went from rolling my eyes, thinking I knew where this was headed, to now claiming it's THE BEST debate I've heard all year. Oh & WOW it was by women, even a bigger shocker (and I'm a woman saying that).
you never heard Louise Perry before?
@@jasonu3741 Maybe. Maybe not.
Jog my memory.
HC-JAIPUR (19/12/2023)
.
@jasonu3741 No, actually I haven't heard of any of them (except Grimes). I thought I was in the debate "know" but maybe not.
@@carter_1 I did not know what Grimes looked like until this debate, but if you have listened to Chris Williamson, Ali Abdaal, Lila Rose, Jordan Peterson then you would have stumbled across Perry.
but it depends what discussion spheres your in I go from leftists ones to conservative, you can be listening to in defense of BLM by Ta-Nehisi Coates and the next day listening to Destiny argue Kyle Rittenhouse should not be found guilty.
Anna seems funny with her sarcasm however Louise is so isolated with her argument on her own, not one person can support her argument. I think Louise is being more realistic compared to other 3 women in the debate
Her solution is to ignore the pill. Come on man that's just silly
@@treacherousjslither6920 the pill can create negative effects of you emotionally and your body (not always), I do agree that we shouldn't ban taking pills however it does need to be talked about
@@Femmeaesthetic Agreed
I just want to say that I am so grateful for Bari and for the Free Press and for this panel in the ethos behind it. It makes me feel more sane. Not because of the topic but because of the way in which intellectual debate is being approached here.
Free speech is dead, and Carl Schmitt has killed it. Sure, intellectually you can make the case for it, but I think it has become obvious that you can't have an orderly society without restrictions that extend past crying wolf and libel.
The marketplace of ideas mistakenly presumes that the printing presses of propagandists can be defeated. Let the last century show that they cannot. I'd also make the case that there is such a thing as degenerative and destabilizing speech which ought not to be heard or be allowed to be articulated, but I think you got the point before that.
I'm not a blue-blooded democrat, I admit.
You like the approach and the ethos? A debate on the sexual revolution that excludes any male participants. I guess the ethos is feminism and discrimination and rather ironically, stifling free speech?
women caused this mess, u cant expect women to get us out of it, its gonna get worse
Agree we need more discussions like this between different belief sets
@@Damo-np7ulwhich male speakers would you have liked to see in this discussion…?
Louise Perry is always enlightening when she speaks on this issue.
I'd say that in the 50s women were more depressed but today they're more embittered. In the 50s they were fooled (and mistreated) by men; during the sexual revolution, they've been fooled by their own (and led to mistreat themselves).
I honesty think, while abuse no doubt was a thing, i think there is gross generalisation about the depressed and abusive state of most women in the 50s... I dont think that was the norm for most women at all... also the idea that everything was for the benefit of the men, and that all men mistreated their wifes... is also a gross misconception. In the big picture kinda thing, nowadays most people will tend to live lonely lives, no children, no partner, of course people will be more unhappy, generally speaking
@@knightheaven8992 But women weren't free, and freedom counts for a lot. Although we're quickly finding out that it doesn't equal happiness.
I like how the camera panned over to grimes as Louise was saying that the men “at the tipy top of the power structure” are setting the sexual terms and having multiple women/kids etc. 😂😂😂😂
Louise is right. ❤
@@CF. yeah to a degree
Adding time stamps helps when you make a statement like that so people can click right to it.
@@soulsharts it’s towards the very beginning of the debate
Grimes is out of her element. She doesn't belong in this debate. Louise, Anna and Sarah are completely far above her league intellectually.
That was interesting! Anna is very smart, and Grimes surprised me in a good way. There was too little time to really discuss any of the issues they mentioned though. It didn't feel much like a discussion, they were just... saying some things one after another, lol.
Yes i think this was because they didn't define the impact that the sexual revolution has had. It felt like four people with 4 different arguments
You enjoy someone uses the word Like so many times in her conversation but never actually supports the claim that the sexual revolution was a net good thing?
Interesting
@@robertfetrow4612 Yeah, verbal tics can be annoying and I mostly don't agree with her, but she did better than I expected with expressing her view. It's okay if you didn't think so.
@@esterlopes7806 What does that mean? I was not asking for permission to have my opinion.
Shes not prepared, nor was her partner prepared for the actual topic of the debate. It was really, we won and we need time to actually win but let me point out an issue from the past and pretend that means my solution is the best one. Or, society has not come up with a good society or govt to regulate society to my liking so I deem our society and govt a failure but the sexual revolution was needed.
I do find it odd that everyone on the panel was not an American. Interesting since the sexual revolution and much open for debate centers on American culture
@@robertfetrow4612 I meant that I respect your opinion. Maybe it doesn't sound like that in english... anyways.
Why did a debate have three people arguing that it was a success and only one person arguing it was a failure? I think the failure is whomever chose the panel.
I'm happy the way things turned out. Had I been born a 100's earlier I would have been pair up (through expectations) with someone in my village, had 3 or 4 kids and forced to work until I am dead to support them and a family. As a single and never married guy I have been able to retire early in my 50's and do what I want.
If you had a son growing up into this dating/mating scenario, you might feel differently.
@@TheDionysianFields I would agree with you. I didn't have kids for that reason. I knew were the world was headed and where it is going. However, it is a self correcting problem that unfortunately will take many generations to work itself out.
Actually your kids would take responsibility of taking care of you when they grow up. But now the opichen to retire is becaming harder and harder because there is less young people who is working and more retire people.
And why is Grimes there? Taking up a seat. If I was Sarah I’d be kind of pissed they teamed me up with Grimes for this kind of debate.
Grimes has her talents (Art Angels and Visions go CRAZY), but debating isn’t one of them.
I valued her comments and perspective. She said she wasn't a good public speaker, which she isn't, but it was very game of her to participate. She made some excellent points even if she's no rhetorician. I found her smart and authentic. Plus it wasn't like she makes a living off this kind of thing. Arguably you could say that Louise Perry hangs her hat on this stuff.
Thank you for a great and informative debate. It felt like 3 against 2: Anna, Louise and Grimes against Sarah and Bari. Framing this as men vs. women is a major mistake. Bari, the numbers for pro-choice vs pro-life - male and female are very close. So, stop stereotyping the issue thinking men are the only ones against abortion and all women are pro-choice. Depending on the state, it may be men and women on either side of this issue are about the same or very close.
"If you don't have a supporting other, you're left with the state to take care of your baby"
Grimes: "No, we just need to give the babies to all the old people"
I'm dying over here 🤣🤣🤣
how old is Grimes? like, like, it's like, impossible, like to like listen to her.
35
Bravo to the host and design of this debate. Our society is rotten when intellectual debate serves to appease the masses' desire for blood and to annoint the gladiator of their tribe. No, this was more than entertaining, and greater than any individual person here, and in service to a true discussion for us all to benefit from.
It would have been a better debate if Louise had had had perhaps Mary Harrington to back her, instead of that Anna woman -- did Anna even agree with the premise she was "championing?" I think she even mentioned that she didn't.
@@jimluebke3869 thanks for responding. This and other comments like it are exactly what I'm criticizing. Take these matters seriously. Don't take yourself so seriously. If we can laugh together, we can work together, and we can thank Anna's irony for creating space for that.
@@eqapo Did it, though?
It's not a surprise the audience flipped when 3 of the 4 women on the panel were defending the "no" position
From this conversation, men apparently were not involved in and completely unaffected by the sexual revolution.
This is the entire problem. They do not care about anything but themselves-solipsism is ingrained in them.
Yup
agreed. there were many men who supported feminism and yet women gave no fdcaks about the men. well...shame on the men who supported a movement that didn't care about them tbh
@@majesticglue9100so, if women are not talking about men for a single time then the baby gets mad? Women don't need to o talk about men each time
@@angelaschone2847 they never talk about men lol unless it's say men are toxic and bad
Interesting debate. Very reminiscent of the debate in Catholic circles about whether Vatican 2 has failed. You have the "Grimes-ian" take, in which the response is that V2 just hasn't been implemented properly yet, and you have the "Perry-ian" take, in which the response is that it's been 60 years now and, judging by its fruit, V2 has clearly been a failure.
I’m not sure it’s V2 or the progressivism that ended up producing V2. The Church seemed to give up. It saw all the social pathologies that resulted from abandoning the 10 Commandments, ignored the root cause, and supported socialist government welfare programs to deal with the symptoms. “Give to Caesar whatever he asks to do God’s work.”
Transcript of Grimes: “Like fuck like fuck fuck shit fuck like like shit fuck like fuck y’know”
did high school fail Grimes or did Grimes fail high school?
Just watching the first ten minutes, I could tell how "unbiased" this moderator and penal was going to be!
Bari had a agende she was trying to push and it becomes very apparent. When she talked to Grimes and Sarah she would asked them to explain their thinking but Louise and Ana had to spend the entire time defending there's because Bari would make wild accusation about their points and then they would have to spend the entire time rebutting them.
I mean... she seems to have unironically introduced the debaters as "people with uteruses", so what did you expect?
@@Verity_Truth666 I believe she was being ironic. If you have ever seen her on Bill Maher, she is very against wokey stuff and cancel culture.
This comment does not make sense. The panel is suppose to be biased and was biased. How could you possibly find them unbiased.
Who the heck is the audience of this channel?
@@darklightimages Go read any of the stuff that she has done for the newspapers, it's all leftist politically charged nonsense and even when it's social issues it's all the expected leftist talking points. I'd suggest you go watch when she went on Joe Rogan, she spent the entire time talking in circles and outright denied points Joe makes which are supported by data.
She's the type that says exact what she needs to in order to maintain her key demographic audience.
Another thing is that maybe there should had been a YES, NO and UNDECIDED and the number of people voting to gather more accurate numbers and even allow for a tie if appropriate.
As a man I'm actually glad women are more independent because now I don't have to worry about meeting someone else's needs or feel pressure to have a family.
Same, as a man I actually want women to have the same rights as me so I don’t have to worry about them as often.
I don't want to have worry about women at all. I can keep all my money and move to Thailand.
For me as a man the double standard where women argue that you can't use the force of the state to extract my fertility (ban abortion), but I do think it is moral to use the force of the state to extract resources from men who are not related to my child is disgusting.
I'm a very caring man, I care for my nephews and I fully intend to care for my future wife and children, but the way women casually throw around the idea nowadays that we can just make the state (men) pay for their children makes my blood boil. Seems like to me that they want to take away all leverage that men have and give up nothing in return. Men wont put up with that for long, either they make themselves so useless that nothing can be extracted from them (we see clear signs of this already) or they go violent against the system they have no stake in.
How women stract resources form men they are not related? The state is women too, so You don't want to help women, perfect women just need to not pop out babies
I'd rather my tax dollars go towards caring for the children of my country than towards waging war in another country.
@@treacherousjslither6920 I agree, but that is a false dichotomy.
My issue is that women think men HAVE TO SUPPORT their bad decisions. To give you an example: Girl thinks working man is boring-yuck, wont touch that. Drug dealer is super cool, exciting. Lets fuck the drug dealer, then when he obviously wont support her. You the boring-yuck working man who she wont even acknowledge exists will have to pay for that bad decision, because the state sanctions it. This is happening and women want this optionality to continue and it is just unfair and men will opt-out of society if this is the only option they are given. That is my whole point.
There is and interesting duality to the American - highly self interested but unable to see that helping others is a long term investment in your own society (and is thus your own self interest).
@@redmaple1982 Good point
I thought Louise Perry won the debate. Her partner was of no use honestly. The opposition's argument is basically let's hop on the hedonism train and see what stop we get off at. If society is run like that, where do you think it will end?
Louise couldn't really say what she wanted to happen. It remained convoluted throughout. Bari tried to extract a more concrete viewpoint from her but never got it.
My favorite part is how they pretend to the be the empathetic ones always screeching about saving children but every single possible metric shows the impact of the sexual revolution (single motherhood) as being objectively worse for the outcomes of children.
Plan your families around your careers, but at what expense, at whose expense?
What I see these dsys is, people want their cake, they want to eat it, they want an elixir to undo all consequences, they want everyone to affirm what they chose to do, and they want someone else to pay for it.
We wanted Tim Dillons intro!!
The only reason I’m here.
Grimes is awful, she says like multiple times. She doesn’t understand her position. I couldn’t stand a single moment of her speaking.
Grimes seems to have great Utopian ideals like a nursery every place of employment, but then the question is who pays for it because employers certainly cannot afford that. I think the problem with untethering ourselves from tradition and things that have worked in the past and trying to come up with a brand new society as she seems to envision is that it leads to extremely bad outcomes because we are just not smart enough. We have seen this attempted in the Utopian ideals of the French revolution and communist revolution with a hundreds million of dead bodies in its wake.
And children being raised by (usually other lower paid women) in an institution is not a way for children or parents to develop secure bonds.
One of the goals of the sexual revolution was to decrease the amount that industrialists had to pay for labour. How to do that? Simple supply and demand. Increase the supply, reduce the demand and hence price. What pool of new workers could they call on to double the labour pool overnight? Women. Overnight the value of labour halved. That is why one person working a normal job cannot support a family anymore, now both parents must work for the same standard of living. When you throw in Edward Bernay's marketing scheme to make smoking a symbol of female empowerment to open up the other 50% of the market to the tobacco companies, you begin to see that mass movements like this are often in part orchestrated or at least co-opted by the powerful, however noble their stated aims may be. So often they're concocted in a boardroom by men in suits and SOLD to people by means of ingenious (albeit sociopathic) marketing techniques, and today people still talk about them as though they were organic movements arising from desires originating in the hearts of normal people, when actually sometimes they are planted there.
@chesneytube1 that's the hard pill to swallow for the modern liberal: accept that their most core believes and ideas were planted like a dream in The Inception, an engineered consensus to make us collaborate on our own enslavement. But few will understand this, unfortunately.
Working women aren't to blame for greedy people being greedy.
@@treacherousjslither6920no they’re certainly not to blame, the manipulators are to blame. But I also think “fool me once, shame on you…”
@@treacherousjslither6920 No but its important not to paint a cause as being achieved on a backdrop of altruism. That is what breeds fanaticism. Humans try to create altruistic systems and make altruistic actions. They are not pure altruists and through the process of compromise cannot fully create altruistic systems due to the way humankind interacts with scarcity.
Generations ago, women calling for suffrage probably did not anticipate that the market would manipulate future working women the way it does now; the original post makes a salient point about the way capitalism interacts with women. Is it wrong? I think it is, because capitalism eventually deteriorates into a sliding scale of the haves exploiting the have-nots, all to a backdrop of 'the most ruthless businessperson survives'. But then it has come with benefits as well as downsides, it would be stupid not to recognize both.
@@treacherousjslither6920but they are to blame for falling for the ......go be a slave to a strange company that will fire you when and if they feel like it....cause you know ...that's empowering...
This is my favorite debate of the last decade. Loved that it wasn't a monolithic argument for any of these four women though circumstantially they exist in a similar demographic. However, my biggest gripe is that "failure" wasn't 'defined' well enough. In a debate, something as conceptual as success or failure must be defined by the debators themselves, but I would have liked to see a baseline rubric scale. Such as: 'a' means wildly successful, 'b' means moderate success, 'c' means moderate failure, and 'd' means incomprehensible failure ( or something like that).
Hindsight, and all that...
Failure - Single motherhood rates, female (and male) depression rates, female STD rates, a decline in birthrates overall, fewer competent men from which straight women can select a life long partner, and the growing number of men who are travelling abroad to find quality women (I included.) This wasn't a debate concerning the perversity of the "sexual revolution", it was a debate concerning the perversity feminism. Feminists simply go by another name because they know their religion is responsible for all the bad things it has brought society.
Wasn't really a proper debate
The term ‘motte-and-Bailey’ came to mind
You can choose actions but you don't get to choose consequences. When American Society is eventually replaced by people that believe in ideas that actually promote families. What will we say then when we are dying as a culture. That we were free to destroy ourselves?
Yup. The replacement society will eventually reach the same point. We need a new way forward as a society. As a species. The old ways are outdated.
Thank you or posting this, been wanting to see this for more than a month.
This is a very important discussion because it will provide a number of perspectives for young women and men to consider with the current landscape of existing technologies as well as emerging technologies. It is a complex and fascinating debate that asks us to critically think about what on earth is going on and how did we get here. I believe that everyone at the table is correct in one shape of form because there are, and will be multiple outcomes from the intervention of technology on the human body and mind. We can not consider removing the elements of these technologies(birth pill, internet,etc) from the freedom that modern society allows us but we can limit the effect of everything on our own lives as individuals. At least we are now having the conversation and thats a start. I do think we need to consider how the chemical and digital revolution has altered the natural vector of evolution to some extent but we cannot turn back because we all understand the freedoms that existing technology provides us all. Asking for the internet sexual content to be censored is like taking your car keys away becuase everyone can relate to the freedom of the feeling of driving but whether a person decides to break the speed limit or put themselves or others at risk is something we try to police and use law enforcement to manage. Online content and behaviour is extremely difficult to police but the majority of people do move on from addictive content or behaviour eventually. I think that women who are suffering with unwanted sex or sexual acts need to listen to their bodies and take control of the choices they make as men need to also take responsibility for their behaviour. Sexual freedom is not the issue, it is what people decide to do with their sexual freedom that needs addressing so education is the first step. This debate is exactly that. One thing I will saya s a man watching women with very different views on very important matters of culture and society. It is refreshing to see that not once, did any speaker attack another speaker or take what another said out of context or try to convince the audience that another perspective is ridiculous or pathetic or futile or any other extremely unkind comment. It is clear that womens ability to be respectful and considerate and agreeable on foundational ethics is something that men are just incapable of doing when they have an audience. An excellent and well considered debate that I will watch many times and share with all the people I care for.
Please facilitate more debates! This is brilliant. This is what we want.
I have a comment that ties this debate, its essence, and the very core from which the other emanate: Women are not men, and men are not women. We're different *on average per individual* (with varying ratios effecting different expressions--e.g., people-oriented or paternal instincts, overall disagreeableness, etc.) at a very fundamental level. Postmodern-Queer feminists have tried to use gender as a way of trying to subvert this fundamental fact by showing a fluidity between men and women as mere symbols constructed and maintained by words and social performance. As for the Radical Feminists, they gaslight us all by insisting that we're hoodwinked by our common sense of the downstream effect of our respective sexes. They insist these normative instincts are mere social constructs born out of a unilateral agreement to accumulate power for one over the other. Hence, we get the sexual revolution where, no matter your feminist school of thought, society can be gaslit into role reversals, which ultimately failed.
This debate was absolutely awesome. More like these please
Redo this discussion with men.
What have we lost? Our futures. We're more single and childless than is sustainable for a civilization.
Well, there are 8 billion of us on this planet right now, with 140 million born each and every year. We're still overconsuming this planet, and the planet can afford us being some billions less.
Being single and childless is not the result of sexual revolution. It's the consequences of men's actions that women no longer want to put up with. I'm sure you're gonna put your hands up and say what actions? 🤷🏻♀️
Single and childfree not less is the best and it is happy decition
Humanity as a whole is doing better than ever. Immigration easily solves the replacement birth issue. For the time being anyway. If/when all countries reach socioeconomic equilibrium then I imagine we'll just vat grow new citizens as needed. We're kinda there already with the sperm banks and everything but once artificial wombs come online then it's game on.
@@treacherousjslither6920 The entire planet's fertility rate is dropping. Assuming current trends continue, we're back down to 4 billion in 60 years.
As with many revolutions, this one has reached a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" kind of a point. I don't think that free and informed people would choose loneliness, unworkable relationship models, utter chaos, gender tribalism, anti-natalism, fundamentalism, ghosting, etc. So the question should be why are the options open to us now so bad, and who are the new masters whove replaced the old ones?
Grimes was a mess just like her relationship.
Grimes talking about how the sexual revolution has impacted elder care is so important but her delivery needs practice
This was actually awesome and far exceeded my expectations! I was firmly in the "it has failed" camp... not sure I've switched sides 😂 but the opposing panel actually had some really good points. Usually they just talk rubbish 😅