When everybody participating in the discussion is civil and does not use anger as means of justifying their perspective, this kind of discourse is possible. Bravo 👏🏻
Louise was much more coherent in this discussion, and had a much better grasp of the bigger picture re impact of the sexual revolution on women. Aella seemed to be always arguing from personal experience. If Aella is happy with her life then good for her, but it's not relevant to what the discussion was supposed to be about.
The discussion was about the lived experience of women like Aella. We were privileged to have her willing to take part in the discussion so openly. Louise condensendingly persisted in chipping away with her academic frigid frightened version of what she insisted womens sexuality should be.
I think you may have missed the point of her argument, which she made clearly throughout. The point was to not throw the baby out with the bath water. That we should take into account individual circumstances, rather than playing god and prescribing from an ivory tower the same norms for every person - thus harming and chastising the minority who is well adapted and happy with their decision. And that we should consider that part of it could be that we may be doing to sex workers the same thing we did to gay people -claiming gays have higher suicide rates as evidence that homosexuality is a bad thing, while making their lives so miserable anyone would want to die in their place (which was the case for a lot of western human history.) They were both equally coherent, and almost completely in agreement from what I understood. But Aella kept highlighting that applying the suggested rules for society as a whole would be harmful for a minority which we shouldn’t ignore. She conceded that most people might not be suited for this life, she conceded that there are problems that arise for many people, she conceded that there must be protection in place, the same way there should be protections and regulations in any line of work. And was just pushing against generalizing the point and making a single prescription for everyone. There is no right and wrong answer in these questions that apply equally to all people. We ARE individuals, and whenever possible should be treated as such. Every time humans tried a collectivist approach to governance we got the most deadly genocides in our history. We’re not the right species to treat as a collective, ants are. The “bigger picture” in this issue seems to, invariably, in my personal experience at least, be an argument of “Sex trafficking is bad! Therefore, all sex works should be outlawed :) it’s to protect women.” And every time someone tries to focus on better regulation, better work conditions, more safety, and more choices in general, the counter argument is usually a straw-man in the form of “Are you in favor of sex traffic? Haven’t you heard of the the alcohol and drug abuse?” Without actually addressing the other side. Which always seems suspiciously close to a moralistic argument disguised as “protecting women” while what it’s actually doing is trying to take away their freedom to do what they want even when they have many other options. (Ps. Not claiming Louise did this in this case.) Aella’s point, from my understanding, is that humans should, 1. Have multiple options to experiment and do what they want. And 2. Not be stigmatized if, from all their options, they choose out of their own volition to do sex related work. And 3. In the case of more open sexual relations (polyamory and such) it could work for some of the population and wouldn’t be a bad thing, even if for most people it wouldn’t be their thing. And also we should consider that some of the lack of comfort with it may be due to stigma and not having the proper “rules” worked out too well as what works and what doesn’t. (If average success rates and happiness were a good argument, marriages should have been abolished ages ago.) She was arguing “from personal experience” **because her personal experience is representative of a large number of real people who are often swept under the carpet by the other side.** All while not ignoring all the problems that can come with it -in fact precisely the opposite, while trying to **address those problems** so people have better options and conditions rather than just casting the whole thing as inevitably bad because of hundred year old hypotheses that have not been well enough tested in modern times. I think they were both in 99% agreement though. But Louise kept (mostly) ignoring 30% of the population on her statements, and Aella kept saying “hey, there are 30% of people to who that doesn’t apply, let’s have a more nuanced conversation.” -numbers are for argument’s sake, and I’m generalizing here, not making precise statements. This was just my understanding of it though. PS.: I’m not saying that I either agree or disagree with either “side” of this discussion, whatever you may perceive said sides to be. I’m just trying to convey here how I understood the dynamic of their interaction, in context of having watched many debates on this topic over the years.
@@somerandom686 Thing is, people don't find averages hard to understand at all, it's just motivated reasoning at play. When averages don't support people's beliefs, they cherry-pick outliers instead.
As a man, I got a lot from this discussion. Many of the points made were well outside of my experiential wheelhouse and I greatly valued both perspectives. Lots here for men to think about. One of the greatest losses of our current politically polarised world, is that frank open discussions like this are now quite rare. More of this content, please.
@@mvjh2277 her work is to please women and provide sexual stimuli for them behind their wives and girlfriends backs ripping their lives and many children's lives apart. Where is her shame? This is not a personal choice it's a crime.
I'm completely impressed with these women for having a civil discussion, despite having different viewpoints on such a controversial topic. Thank you for being adults.
In the 90s I had enough sense to never become a sex worker because I knew that money would never buy back my self esteem. I was 18, broke living in South Beach & NYC.
I got close but it was like I was drowning at the time and reaching for branches(I was in an unsafe homing situation, car broke down, and moving to get out) thankfully the little bit of family came through and helped(I just have 2 brother and 2 sets aunt and uncle). I understand that not everybody can afford middle-class morality and thankful that I am not one of them.
@@walkingtheline1729and this is exactly what is wrong with Society I bet you never stopped to pause and think about what your words typed. How did you put it? Your middle class morality... That is the problem with the stigmatization. The stigmatization appears directed against people who those i society like you has deemed beneath them; the poorer classes. Your belief that only a certain type of person will do this. It sticks in your craw when someone who comes from an upper or middle class family can be what they think is something degrading. Oh, the scandal! Most of your pretty little middle/upper class girls will do this out of rebellion, for fun, for likes, b/c tiktok... But, the lower class (you know the ones you were blessed not to be a part of because they're beneath you?!? No, really what was your point in making a class statement? Ignorance? Well, job well done...) many of these young ladies were often horribly abused or in other ways traumatized. Yet, the upper middle class of society (and, don't get me started on the upper middle class women...) will look down their noses at those women because of their abuse. Their men in authority won't hear their stories of abuse, and that's if they're not the ones abusing them. All unknowingly (or, knowingly...) work to keep those they've deemed unworthy stuck in a hole they cannot get out of, then stigmatize them for the way they have to survive. This world is reaping what it sows...
@@ialwaysbesingin You're just biased because you don't like her views. But she's very easy to understand (and understanding does not necessay mean approval..).
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Understandable, have a nice ad hominem. How easy it is for you to project on this guy's question the value judgment that (1) he dislikes Aella, and (2) because he does (which is false, he just asked you to argue how she is articulate), a fortiori he is biased. He did not state any opinion and the bias part is unwarranted. Other than that, both interviewees are easy to understand. How does being easy to understand implies being articulate? Being articulate can be sophisticated or simple. You at most expressed your personal opinion that being articulate means easy to understand. But that's just one side of the coin. The other interviewee is sophisticated, but still easy to understand. So I will ask the same question above. How is Aella articulate? I can make you a list of the dozen of arguments that she begun with "I feel like...". How is that a symbol of articulateness? Where she argues how she feels like OTHERS feel (or her), the other interviewee argues about tendencies and established statistical facts. This conversation is very enticing exactly because of the higher ceiling raised by Louise Perry.
@@globalcitizen2677 Louise is a scientist, so she's obviously not only more articulate than Aella but than most people. Footballers don't speak like scientists, but that doesn't stop them from being good at what they do. Aella speaks like an intelligent woman and she's definitely more articulate than the average football player 😄
I’d like to see this conversation when Aella reaches 50. The female perspective on these issues change over time. I would be interested to see her perspective once she has lost her outward appearance and fertility.
She'll probably still be in denial. Intelligent people who make hefty mistakes tend to marshall just enough reasoning to justify their mistake as an actual good.
i've watched parts of aella's interview with lex fridman. she comes across as highly attuned to the confines of the small bubble she carefully created for herself. she largely justifies sex work in terms of niche customers, ignoring the reality that most sex work is highly dangerous, not to mention the industry as a whole is pretty much built on broken people most of whom will never escape the social stigma attached to them.
@@maggyfrog " _...built on broken people most of whom will never escape the social stigma attached to them._ " Attaching social stigma to broken people, just because you can, sounds insanely sadistic and toxic to me. I'd highly commend to stay away from any people doing this kind of marginalization.
@@careneh33 it's almost the entirety of society that stigmatizes sex work. i think you misunderstood my post. it's not trauma that society stigmatizes. it's prostitution and porn.
I don't understand why the process of 'checking in with yourself' to 'find what you truly want' has any particular merit at defining the way things actually are, and what's good for society vs. bad. Social norm structures directly affect the results of self-reflection, and people can still get it wrong.
Attempt at less controversial example: joining the military. "I know I'm a coward so I shouldn't join the military". Analogy to sex work: "I'm more emotional than average so sex work would probably not be good for me" and "I might be autistic so sex work will probably be better than my factory job." "Even though I could hold down a middle class job now, I enjoyed the sex work better so I might go back to it."
we need both. a society where individuals never check in with themselves is a society of people who follow the crowd no matter the cost. no growth happens, society stagnates, and eventually crumbles because it is taken over by a more balanced society that rewards its geniuses and free thinkers. a society of individuals who never check in with each other is a narcisisstic, disconnected society that crumbles because no one can work together.
@@grannyannie2948 particularly as it relates to sexual identity. Postmodernism seems less obsessed with individuality when it comes to what's really important, everyone MUST believe the same thing in regards to their woke BS
Louise: History, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, sociology all seem to indicate that over thousands of years human society has done better with monogamy being the prevailing norm and we should reconsider what we are promoting for young men and women. Aella: Yeah, but me and some of the people I know really, like, enjoy having sex with many people. I don't know what the consequences will be for me or them because I am too young to see what those will be. We have the pill now though, so it will be okay and I'm doing just fine.
Aella , is obviously very articulate and attractive ( no wonder she's the face and unofficial spokesperson for poly / sex work) but its like judging the acting industry based on the experiance of Brad Pitt rather than say Charlie Sheen, it give a misleading impression. Most actors actual work in restaurant's / coffee shops, most sex workers don't have Aella's experience of the sex industry. At the level she is involved in it stigma is a greater concern than physical safety, she's not representative.
@@MaterialSquid But the stigma is not an inherent part of sex work. Only a few decades ago having a divorce carried a great shame. Today we seen it as a practical solution to a non-working relationship. Sex work could and should reach the same status - as a practical solution to sexual needs and with no shame or stigma. Few would today argue against the idea of a divorce with the idea of "just totally change yourself to be more attractive to your partner", "tough it out" or "being in a happy relationship is not a human right". But sex workers and their customers face all of these rather condescending attitudes.
Aella is totally outgunned here. In particular, she has it backwards at 26:10. Sexual liberation has resulted in competition among females for a small group of high status males, not the other way around. Louise correctly identifies female hypergamy + sexual liberation as not only bad for women but bad for society in general.
Monogamy is sexual socialism for lower status males. A means to placate the mass of those who would not otherwise have an opportunity to procreate. Top percentage males still have sexual diversity, but are forced to keep it more covert. In a sexually more free and open system, porn, prostitutes and maybe eventually sexbots fill that male-ranking sex gap.
Right at the end - "I feel like I'm defending people like me" against the shaming. Read the evidence which suggests that women shame promiscuous women because they drive down the price of sex for all women.
Oh yes, that's a great point. The same could be said about men shaming or hostilizing other men who rape or deceive women, because they're getting sex and the possibility of reproducing without paying the price that men are supposed to pay for sex and an offspring. They're cheating at the game that everybody has to play, and nobody likes a cheater...Although this is more likely to be true in a pre-sexual revolution society where sex isn't as cheap for men to get
@@alexpotts6520 I think it makes sense when you consider that women engaging in promiscuous casual sex reduces the likelihood of paternity certainty for men, who don't want to make the great investment in raising a child that isn't theirs.
This was a really nice discussion. The interviewer probed politely and gave the guests lots of time to respond. The guests expressed themselves well and were respectful of each other. This should be the norm but these days it isn't. Great job everyone.
The whole sexual revolution was a complete and utter disaster, and went way too far in many countries, particularly in my home country NL, where at a certain point even paedophiles could do whatever they wanted (yes, in Amsterdam you had children working in prostitution, and child pornography was openly available in sex shops in the 80s). It has made lots of people very unhappy and wreaked havoc on children, as they quite often ended up with just one parent to take care of them.
Ecclesiastes post needs to go viral. A larger paragraph of gibberish or naivety would be hard to source. The 60s-70's ''sexual revolution''' was focused on females being given equal access to sexual behaviour. In the broadest sense. Nothing to do with ''children''! Although you inadvertently raise the contentious subject of age of consent, which appears to be anywhere between 11-25 or marriage, across the world today!
@@grannyannie2948 People here in Australia do not believe me when I tell them how far it went. So I point them to the "Man-Boy Love Association" that arose in the USA and here in Oz. It existed. It was public and it was not howled down. In Oz, it was infiltrated by the police and shut down.
@@damienmills293 I have never heard of this. I don't disbelieve you. I grew up next door to a Labor MP and knew Keith Wright amoung others. Ofcourse he offered me a job, lucky I smelt a rat when he offered my 12 yo sister one as well. The TV show I mentioned above was the Mike Walsh Mid-day Show.
While I admire Aella's openness ,it's her apparent justifications for her career choice and her emotional 'disconnect ' that stands out most to me. Her preference for human contact in sex work over 'only fans' needed further questioning -as a valuable insight into Aella , the person, was lost. This may have been a defining moment in the conversation... The question remains as to whether this generation of young women, who're used to engaging in casual, emotionless encounters, will ever be able to allow themselves to be vulnerable enough to fall in love ? The cat's out of the bag, so to speak ,and it looks like feminism untied the knot...
Only a truly foolish man would allow himself to be vulnerable enough to fall in love with someone he knows, in his heart, he can't trust. Repeatedly and recklessly indulging in 'emotionless encounters' is an unfavorable insight into a woman's character...
Halfway through watching this very good discussion. I love how respectful and receptive they are to eachother's points-- this is excellent debating!! That being said I find it interesting that for Ariella, ones moral compass basically is found only by "checking in with yourself" and seeing what your OWN needs are. So far, there has been little to no mention of children- most healthy societies don't just "check in" with everyone's own private whims and desires- they are looking at what will be the optimal conditions for the **next generation**, I.e. the children.
An interesting point. One reason for that might be that in the US (Aella's location), bearing & raising children is not the great driving factor behind the culture as it once was. This is true of western nations in general as well as of Japan. Not everyone feels they have to get married, pop out a baby or two, & then slave away in their jobs & save every dime possible in order to raise those children into functional (& hopefully decent) adults.
I think “the next generation” implies not just your own children but the one’s in the greater community. You hope that they will be happy, healthy, and ethical rather than angry, desparate, and amoral. As far as “checking in”, I think morals require some agreement by society as a whole, otherwise you’re just stating your personal wants and desires.
@@schechter01 exactly. many people simply should not be parents. i think people get it into their heads that parenthood is this ultimate end goal, and because it might be THEIR end goal, they think it should be everyone's. but not everyone should have kids. look around! i don't want half these people to have kids. some people's lines deserve to end. let's let them die out.
I don’t think Aella understands the conversation is about the game, not the player. This conversation could be compared to debating capitalism as it’s not about particular individuals & what’s the proposed alternative? It’s a game we play with rules that benefit society, & in monogamy’s case, especially children. Outliers should always be tolerated & accepted because tbh it’s more trouble not to. But I don’t think a world full of Aellas would be a net positive for society. As she mentioned, she was raised in an almost cult-like environment & now her line of work is atypical, including acquaintances. In my opinion, this shows while she’s a capable woman, her level of emotional investment & commitment to others isn’t typical. It’s actually kind of perverse when you think about it, we’re talking about sex but barely mentioning children/family. Now, I’m not going to police who people have sex with but how can you have children with a man who can’t be emotionally available for even an adult woman? There’s huge power in mate selection & it benefits children, & consequently, society. Aella has an almost autistic blindness to this reality. Aella doesn’t understand that allowing men to come & go as they please is only power while you’re “the hot one”, there’s no sustainable power for women & mothers in that world & it’s certainly not an environment that encourages emotional stability in children. Men & women have to value each other if we’re even going to begin to talk utopian ideals.
Thank you for your very insightful comment. This is a thought I had about Ayella. There have always been women throughout history who were not able to form a long term relationship with a high status male (because there was a scarcity of them) but nonetheless could get access to their sperm by offering them sex, thereby raising the odds of having “high quality” offspring which IS the evolutionary purpose of sex. It would make sense that nature would “ select” women who had the emotional components, like Ayella has, that did not require exclusive male commitment. They are more male-like in their emotional makeup specifically regarding sex. They serve a valued purpose in society (valued by males anyway) and now due the pill they can even make a career out of it, albeit temporary. The thing Ayella, as well informed and intelligent as she is, is missing is that the overwhelming majority of women by nature, prefer a long lasting, stable relationship with a man with whom to raise children. Need a poll or study to back that statement up. That’s how I see it.
Yes, autistic like/self centered blindness to the big picture and seems to me a very childish outlook on just making a “new world” where we do everything all different than ever before. Snap! Like a kindergartner’s understanding level although she was obviously incredibly intelligent.
It’s refreshing to see two intelligent women with opposite views respectfully discuss their perspectives without lowering themselves to insulting and escalation. Well done 👏🏻
Aella: "it's like well from my experience.... like" Louise: "well according to my research (proceeds to give a very detailed explanation of what she is trying to convey)
That bit irritated me. The way she talked about it was 1. Disrespectful to those who work in factories, many of which manufacture beneficial goods to society such as food and medicine, and 2. Ridiculous, as if she escaped some oppressive regime. I understand her choices must've been limited but if she found it to be that awful she could've waited tables, stacked shelves, etc.
Aella's story needs to be told in context (IMO). Go back to Freddie's interview with her, some months back. Synopsis: Aella wants to go to college. Aella's parents, who make too much money, are unwilling to help her. Aella, still being declared dependent on them, cannot garner enough governmental financial aid. This is integral to her choices. But, instead of using her sex work earnings to put herself through school, she declares that she wants to "make the most money for the least amount of work". The interview with Freddie presents a panoramic view of her adult life and choices.
@@amalek2750 I think this is a large part of the discussion. Aella feels (possibly disingenuously) that her personal choices are being attacked, she defends her choices as the best she could have made in a broken system and supports other women making similar decisions. But Louise isn't attacking her choices, she's arguing for another system where such choices would not have been the least worst option.
It’d be interesting to hold another discussion with Aella and Louise 10 or 20 years from now. It’s fine when a woman like Aella is young, fertile and attractive. Probably very different when she’s older, childless with no pair bond. Collateral damage from the sexual revolution is only now becoming apparent. Ladies like Aella will be no better off than the 80% at the bottom of the male status hierarchy. There’s always another batch of polyamorous young women.
Aella as an individual is exceptional. She might get what is good for her. The mistake is to think that there is no price to 'all' in giving the 'few' freedoms.
Louise has a great understanding of history, human nature and flaws, and where things tend to lead when social norms are broken down. Her prediction that hook-up culture will eventually lead back to polygamy is absolutely correct.
It already has, but contemporary polygamy is very different from what it used to look like. Today women are not dependent on their husbands for survival, they also feel they have a right to agree or disagree to certain martial arrangements, or agree and then withdraw their agreement if they feel it's not working for them. I can't imagine most women ever getting on board with polygamy out of their own free will. Polygamy as a dominant model was, and still is, coupled with depravation of women's rights.
@@marciamartins1992 Absolute nonsense. Polygamy was popular because men like having multiple sexual partners and in a society where they can get away with it they will. For evolutionary reasons men are not nearly as picky about sexual partners as women are, since men can theoretically impregnate a woman every day of the year while women can only be pregnant once at a time we've evolved to want to spread our genes around as much as possible while women have evolved to be more selective. A society that allows men to sleep around promiscuously with no social consequences will result in polygamy naturally because that's what men want.
Yikes. That bit where Aella was talking about married men who paid her for sex. What actually happened: she accepted money to enable men to cheat on their wives. How she's framed it in her mind: "I actually probably saved their marriages!" That is some serious mental gymnastics to cope with having aided and profited off of immoral behavior.
As a prostitute you'd be killing your business if you turned away married men. It'd be like a casino turning away gambling addicts, noone is going to do that.
@Natalia Romanova I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make. I never said she was responsible for it. I said she aided and profited off of it. You appear to be attempting to rebut a claim that I didn't actually make. Obviously the men made the decision to cheat on their wives. That doesn't change the fact that her trying to reframe her participation in that behavior as some kind of virtuous act is gross.
@Natalia Romanova That last sentence is complete horseshit. It's not anything like an "objective fact" that marriages were saved because of the husbands hiring a prostitute. There's no evidence presented that that happened even once. That was just Aella's headcanon about what she hoped was the outcome with men she never spoke to again after they paid her for sex. It's her attempt to try to reframe what you refer to as a neutral act as a morally good act instead. Not just a business exchange, vagina for cash, but actually a valuable service that helps marriages! But she has no proof that that's true, she merely hopes that it is because it allows her to be a hero in her own mind instead of a simple sex mercenary. The real truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. There are probably married men she had sex with whose wives never found out about it and maybe it helped those men find an outlet they weren't getting in the marriage. But for every one of those there's going to be another one whose wife found out about her husband hiring prostitutes and that's what blew up the marriage. She's likely destroyed as many relationships that could have worked it out otherwise as she's helped.
Aella points out that the women who get into sex work is disproportionately high among women who are struggling in some way. Maybe instead of offering sex-work as the only way out we need to start changing things about the society that puts women in a place where sex-work becomes the only option.
haven't we already? there's a lot of colleges and corporations with positions only for women. it's called affirmative action. and i think we have enough of it already.
Men and women of limited ability in poverty have few options. Women have the advantage that they usually have the option of sex work. Or, perhaps, of finding a partner to look after them financially. Taking away the option of sex work would not obviously help their situation.
@@SaintNektarios "Allowing"? I do not feel I have the right to force someone else to live according to my morality, or to tell her that I consider her choices "degrading". And if a man chooses to pay a consenting woman for sex, at a price she decides, I am not sure who is being taken advantage of.
As a counsellor, I see that young women are unbelievably naive about everything discussed here. They still want to believe in their Knight and happily ever after. More discussions like this would be a great thing.
Not necessarily naïve - maybe the young girls that you see want to see the best in society. Perhaps we SHOULD be teaching boys/young men to behave like 'Knights' and also for girls and young women to be taught to appreciate and value men, and for this to be supported and applauded, and then most men and women would be happy with each other. OR, we can just let this whole mess continue and stand back and watch men and women become more unhappy and distant from each other, with all the consequential effects that flow from that (think about declining marriage rates, increases in single parent homes, and the rise in anxiety in females, and suicide in men). Addition: I also think that we should try to reinvent marriage - 'Marriage 2.0' , in which the best elements of long-term dating and marriage are preserved (think 1950s /1960s etc) and the worst elements are removed. If societies woke up to the idea that this is a good thing then maybe marriage would become cool again, which ultimately benefits children but also society as a whole.
@@garypalmer1122 - How on earth can you expect men to "behave like knights" when feminism and the mainstream media constantly tell us that all of society's ills are due to "toxic masculinity" and the so-called "patriarchy"?
Agreed, the number of women I have met who are shocked when I tell them men have no interest in women who have slept around. They still want the marriage and kids thing. And they hate me for it.
Aella does not appear to have thought about this much at all and is simply taking the position of "don't cramp my style" rather than approaching the questions themselves.
Commercialized sex is worse in some ways than the tobacco or drug trades. Living with herself depends on not thinking about the exploitative harm she engaged in for her income.
@@AP-qb2xn Perry has written a book on this issue, which indicates she’s thought deeply about it and done her homework too. Has aella written a book about it? She seems like a smart woman, you’d think if she really had the courage of her convictions, writing a book about her experiences would be the right thing to do.
I think what I’m just now starting to realize is that the most detrimental attribute of the last 3-4 generations has been hubris. We foolishly deluded ourselves into thinking that values and traditions that had developed over hundreds of years in our society were completely arbitrary or were simply tools of oppression and, therefore, could and should be completely discarded. We neglected to even consider the possibility that these values and traditions served important functions in our society and removing them would have deleterious effects. I know from personal experience that on an individual level, when you compromise on your values and remove self-imposed restrictions, your life can very quickly spiral out of control. I have no doubt that the same is true on the societal level. That being said, we have also made tremendous strides as a society in certain areas, and that progress would not have been made without breaking with tradition to some degree. There doesn’t seem to be an easy way to know what will or will not be beneficial long term, however, I can’t imagine that casual sex with many different partners could be beneficial for men or women.
"I can’t imagine that casual sex with many different partners could be beneficial for men or women"? So you think people in a purity-based, puritan and prude society were better prepared for marriage. And knew exactly what they wanted out of intimate contact with another being?
Women don't experience love for a man as we do for women. Women's respect for a man equals the 'love'. If a woman is able to have a lot of casual sex with a lot of different men, I would debate she lacks respect for men in general.
@Ziplokk found the incel. don't project your inabilities on to the general population. many of us are not pathetic like you and have easily found love and commitment.
You can clearly see the intellectual and moral difference between the two. Louise arguments are based in sociology, anthropology, evolution psychology and her concerns are for society at large. Aella, on the other hand, only has anecdotal evidence that she interprets through her own self validating lens. Her concerns are only for herself, her own pleasure in a vacuum.
Which really sums up the thinking between the kind of person who intelligently appraises their life, sex, love and relationships and makes a mindful decision to operate well in a good paradigm, and someone who just does what they want with who they want, and if there are enough of these people then society goes off a cliff. And currently it's going off a cliff
On men’s sites, there is a saying: “Woman want the advantages of being a man, the privileges of being a woman, and the responsibility of being a child.” Feminism has given woman the freedom to act more like a man and has given men the freedom to be free of being providers and protectors. Some women and men may benefit from these new freedoms but it may be fatal for society.
They are not based on the most crucial aspect, that women did this to themselves. Responsibility is women’s Kryptonite and nothing is going to change for them until they have the humility to accept what they did and take responsibility for solving the problem that they created.
@@jefferytokarsky1930 Are women fighting for the divorce laws, child custody laws, domestic violence laws and false accusations laws to be made fairer to men?
i love how they try to justify that her facilitating men to stay in loveless marriages by providing an outlet from them to cheat is a good thing. this convo is two on one and the one is crushing it well done louisa.
@RFM Recordings emphasis on the MIGHT. as in you don't know and i don't know that it will, thus to spin it one way or the other is stupid so putting a positive spin is silly. and i would argue that the probability skews towards it not being positive in the majority of cases.
I hated her saying she saved marriages. Most egotistical and delusional statement she said the whole debate. Marriages fail and shouldn't be taped together with lies and cheating. Enabling poor and damaging behaviors isn't SAVING anyone. Just an opportunistic way to make money with no integrity or respect to women.
@@Saylessdomore109 right couldn't agree more if your a good partner and you significant other won't put out despite your best efforts and knowing you have needs then you have the right to walk away.
We should aim to end situations where people have to do sex work to pursue their material ambitions. But first, we should aim to help people to fulfill their lives with less stuff...
First, people should stop 'caring' so much about how people earn a living (if that living is not physically harming someone against their will).. It's the people that 'care' that are the cruel collective control freak Goody-Goodies that always commit the most mass oppression, mass atrocities while starting and prolonging the most wars... -- Always a Go(o)d, moral crusade, with PERCEIVED 'good intentions'... 'WE', or more precisely, you Lefty and Righty control freaks should EFF OFF AND DIE! No joke!.. Personal Property Rights are a cornerstone of Individual Liberty. You sound like a danger to society. -- You sound like someone that agrees with Mass Forced Hyper-Sales Scams pushed by crusading, righteous CON MEN, not just 'WE' oppressing everyone's HUMAN NATURE.
@@keylanoslokj1806 Nah, disagree. We should aim to get people more stuff. There is a minimum level of material comfort required to actually unlock the higher rungs of Maslow's hierarchy, and even in the rich West there are an awful lot of people who are below that threshold.
@@alexpotts6520 the tribalists and ascetics and home steaders prove it's all unecessary. In normal living conditions at least. In the West it's never enough. Now if you want you can send me 30k to return back to nature
@@KingJalance thank you very much. God is guiding my daughters and my wife. But not me. I'm atheist, but i'm not glad, that it is so. I'd rather believe.
HAHAHAHAAHA YES WHEN SHE SAID “if you PLUMB like, people don’t want to date you” AAAAHHHHH but like it’s chill, it doesn’t need to be traumatizing, the fact that you won’t try prostitution like it’s plunging the toilet is actually what is causing the trauma of sex workers cause like, some people are like, totally chill like, not abused at all 🫠
For some women, if you give them enough time, they will eventually tell on themselves. Aella was making some good points at first, but then she made some wild comments that made me lose trust in her overall argument
@@sayat_nova It's ironic considering that even she, who says that there is a safe way to do sex work, admits to being on the receiving end of violence.
Jumped out at me too! I was like - wow you really don’t understand most women and how damaging selling sex for money just once would be for I would guess just the vast, vast majority of us.
she acts like it's something you can just 'try' and then go back to being normal. Yeah no. That's like saying "try getting gender reassignment surgery and see if you like it"
I am mystified by Aella's claim that her only options were factory work or sex work. Why?? And she said she didn't have access to an education (no public school?)?? Couldn't go to college? What a hopeless message to convey to other young women. I wish the others had challenged that a bit.
I was wondering about this myself. Obviously you can't argue with someone's own life since it's unfalsifiable but it does seem like she had other options that she could've pursued.
Not everybody does well at school. Some would like us all to believe we are blank slates and can be academic success if we have a work ethic. Nobody likes to think about the Idiocracy having kids that are impossible to teach advanced subjects.
It’s rationalization, she was very likely badly abused or neglected as a child and has to find some reason why she gravitated to a professional that allows her to reenact her trauma over and over so she could develop a sense of control over it.
A bit shocking to hear someone saying that men cheating on their wives with a prostitute allows them to have deeper longer relationships by avoiding divorce. A relationship that continues based on fraud is not a deeper relationship, its not a relationship at all because one of the parties has to lie for the relation to exist. Those women would divorce their husbands if they knew the betrayal. Its a mirage, not a marriage.
Shame is the thing that used to keep society in check. Now that it's gone or diminished, people are taking a more subjective view of morals and now we are reaping what we sow.
@@garypalmer1122 because the psychology movement has pathologised it so they can provide people with “treatments” to help them repress their feelings of shame and cover them up with medication.
Yes. It's noteworthy how Aella case came down to "don't make me feel the the shame of what I'm doing". It's as if the culture has started to think the sense of shame is the problem instead of a symptom. If we can avoid feeling the shame, then we can live as if the reason for it isn't there. But that's like trying to get thru life without feeling pain. Eventually you destroy yourself because you can't feel all the damage you are doing.
Shame is biological fonction that keeps us connected with someone where there has been deep trauma. Shame is fundamental in the way in keeps us socially and culturally connected. If we loose that connection it would be like death. When you lift up the lid of shame and unleash pandora you will find a stream of all the other emotions as grief, anger, fear, etc. and the real hidden trauma.
Great discussion, and obviously not tailored to create maximum polarization, which is the norm for much journalism... neither calculated nor condescending, and thoughtful arguments presented. Thank you for creating a space for actual mature exchange of thoughts.
Monogamy is most fulfilling when there is genuine commitment and each person places their partner’s satisfaction above their own. It’s not that difficult, just stop being so selfish. Love is not a feeling, it’s a choice. Of course, that’s just my opinion and you are welcome to agree or disagree as passionately as you’d like.
This is a little nitpicky but. I would argue that it IS difficult. But that society at large focuses too much on romance and desire, forgetting how difficult BUT worthwhile it is to put forward the effort to be a good partner and to appreciate your partner.
@@ThePaintedHope Fair point but, for the sake of clarity, I did say “It’s not that difficult,” implying there is a degree of difficulty. After 14 years of marriage and 4 children, We have had our fair share of difficulties. I will say, though, that a personal choice to hold myself absolutely accountable and to genuinely desire the best for my wife, the difficulties have grown fewer and farther between. She knows I would not only give my life for her, but that I will lay down my life (set aside my own desires) daily for her good and for good of the children.
Thank you, people seem so transactional about relationships these days. There’s nothing beautiful about a life where you’re thinking “What does this person have to offer me and can I get someone better?” A life where you and your partner care about each other and sacrifice for each other is beautiful.
Aella is arguing from a privileged position, I'm not sure I heard her state that. She's saying "Because this has worked out for me so well, it's bad to shame others or warn them of the dangers". Kind of like a functioning alcoholic who says "I don't see the big deal with drinking, I still get all my work done... so it's disingenuous to warn others of the dangers". Either way, great episode.
She literally said we should explicitly tell women about the dangers of sex work and allow them to understand the consequences before going into it... Quotes are used for something a person has actually said not what the imaginary strawman you built in your head. You obviously either didn't listen or didn't even watch video
@@zedrockiby Well, you get to see the difference between the 2 ladies. Aella - good use of jargon to mask her contradictory, nonsensical responses. Louise Perry - more sensible, but she makes the common error of blaming male hypersexuality as if women can only be nurterers who are incapable of hypersex without empathy. Wrong! Sex and hypersex without empathy (including the worst aspects like rape) are common behaviors of narcissists. This personality is equal among the genders (50/50), the only reason that hypersexuality is perceived as more masculine is because society gives men permission to be sexually overt and male anatomy gives them a physical advantage. Female hypersexuality may look like male hypersexuality some of the time. But I believe just like women look physically different to men, female hypersexuality will look different most of the time. It is less recognizable because of the male bias, but it is there, and it won't present like Aella does. I believe it is more subtle and more psychological. For instance, many hypersexual women don't go around making videos about this aspect of their personality. So, the generalizability of this video is limited. But it does reveal what is missing (omitted), at least for me. Hypersexuality "is" a problem for the same reasons that other behaviors by narcissists are a problem for society -- the con games, lying, smearing, being litigous, using violence -- all tools just so the narcissist can get his/her own way with others.
@@riverman837 You’re correct in bringing it back to root psychological causes (narcissism), but incorrect in your understanding of Louise Perry’s argument. She never says that women are incapable of hypersexuality. What she does say is that hypersexuality and a proclivity for casual sex are mainly a masculine trait / behavior, which is 100% true. She criticizes modern feminism’s tendency to see a constant progress in the way we view genders, and to see a theoretical “end game” future scenario where women get to behave exactly like men. This is what is happening, and her argument is that it is bad for women.
@@tomlabooks3263 Women are just as hypersexual as men, but if you make the societal mistake that Ms. Perry does, by defining hypersexuality by how men behave, you will constantly perpetuate this myth that it is a mostly male practice. But women get Brazilian butt lifts, silicone breast implants, tummy tucks, liposuction, and all sorts of plastic surgery procedures, in larger numbers than men do. This is hypersexual behavior too. And again, this hypersexuality (plastic surgery) is common among narcissists.
@@riverman837 We need to understand what we mean by “hypersexual”, otherwise this remains a sterile back and forth. While the behavior (implants, surgery) can be the same for women and for men, the sexual desire is biologically and naturally stronger in men than in women.
I was willing to give Aella the benefit of the doubt for most of the discussion until near the end, when she started praising OnlyFans for being a way for women to work their way out of desperate circumstances. I'm sorry, but this is like the food bank discourse all over again. Yes, of course, given that some people even in wealthy countries are going hungry, it is better that food banks exist than if they didn't, but overall we all desperately wish to live in a society where food banks aren't necessary because nobody wants for food. The same is true for OnlyFans - while it might be better that vulnerable women are selling their bodies when the alternative is being evicted we shouldn't be celebrating the fact that anyone is being forced to whore themselves out to make rent. Don't we all want to live in a world where nobody ever has to make such a miserable choice?
Or when she suggested that women should just try prostitution to see if they like it - wow. Sure, if all the suburban housewives who have tried to make money in MLMs instead started turning tricks while their husbands were at work, I'll bet there'd still be enough willing customers to give them all a decent supplementary income instead of losing money. And if most of them would be understandably disgusted by the idea, it's just because their repressive culture has conditioned them to be prudes? Opening up a discussion about the economics of OF and online porn could be interesting if they brought in, say, Nina Paley or anyone from copyright-critical movements. There's a glut of naked pictures and videos available online for free, so what makes anyone think she's entitled to require anyone to pay for hers? Does she put more work into her videos than those who share theirs for free? Should there be some kind of policy that requires you to register for some paywall service if you're going to be an exhibitionist online? Is it that men are willing to pay more for exclusive access and the illusion of intimacy, and is that a bit of market logic to simply be accepted with no questions as to its morality? I'd be inclined to give Aella more of the benefit of the doubt after she's lived another 10 years, and/or gone back to school to get an advanced degree in something like biology, or gone and tried to ply her trade outside of the First World.
As a genXer, I'm used to men arguing that prostitution and other forms of "sex work" are the oldest professions and will never go away because such services represent what men want, have always wanted and will always want. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having spent time in N. America, S. America and W. Europe, it sounds like men want prostitutes, breastaurants, p0rn, strip clubs, sexually explicit video games, phone/web sex and other entertainment, to always be available, but at no/low cost or accountability for themselves. And I have the suspicion that the only acceptable status of a sex worker in a lot of people's minds is to be desperate and down on her luck so that men can have their cheap sex market, but that the majority of other young women are shamed and discouraged benefiting at all.
@@orangecat999 I'm maybe on the tail end of GenX (in my 40s) and I've heard the same thing. Yes, there's a constant demand for all of this with minimal cost and accountability: that's the basest part of male desire operating. Just because it is a constant demand and potential market doesn't justify it or make it virtuous. There's always money to be made pandering to people's basest vices. But it's interesting, how digital media makes this weird opportunity for free sharing. You can't multiply free drugs on the internet, but you can share free pictures of yourself naked. Why should you get upset if someone makes a use of such opportunity to look at all the free stuff that people are willing to share, instead of properly paying all those women who want to be considered entrepreneurs and feel entitled to a certain level of pay just for their exhibitionism?
@@charlesstanford1310 Yes I agree here as a middle Millennial generation. I think that men demand it to be cheap because it actually is a renewable resource and the supply actually does outweigh the demand. The OnlyFans market explains this well on how 90% of those on the platform make very little money. It got saturated so quickly that it is now very cheap to see videos/pictures of these women and then are able to share it over the digital media. It is a service, but it is also not actual work or providing any real benefit to society like majority of jobs do. That is the main reason it is frowned upon. That and the social morality reason. However, there is a demand for it since it is a basic vice of men so it will always exist. To your point, it doesn't make it justified at all though.
Aella is so naive if she believes all those guys who tell her their wives don't want to sleep with them anymore. Ha ha ha. That is one of the oldest lies used by guys as an excuse for cheating!
It's not uncommon for women to lose interest in sex with their long term partner though. And its worse if the marrige is dysfunctional. Some men use that as an excuse to cheat which is inexcusable. But its a real thing.
I was very surprised that someone defending polyamory and working in the sex industry was so unaware of the very well known data around behaviour diffences between men and women. The fact women regard only 20% of men to be average or better when men see 60% of women this way. Women regarding 8% of men desirable while men see 40% of women that way.
@@blackpow3r No, women tend to be more discerning - and that's exactly what Louise says also: Men are happy to have sex with many different women, women are much more choosy, as they should be in line with their psychology and biology.
I wish more discussions were like this. There are so many topics that need discussion. This topic itself is so deep that it can be spoken about for months
I feel this interview downplays the negative consequences for men for the sexual revolution. I understand this interview is from a female perspective, but it feels unfair to downplay the effect it has had on men, such as myself. Women are less inclined to want to marry or have a long term partner, that the 1% of men get most of the women, that the isolation and loneliness feels like a destructive place to live. I am deeply thankful to hear a femanist fairly question the sex positivity movement. The effect on my life has been profoundly devistating. Thank you for bringing a challenge and idea change to the sexual revolution ideas.
I don't mean to be rude but take Jordan Peterson advice and clean your own room before you start making a prognosis on the world. There are plenty of women who want a long term relationship. It could be the circles you are running in or in need of some deeper self analysis that could be a factor in why the opposite sex is not finding you to be a good life partner. To immediately blame the wider world for your own problems could be inhibiting self improvement. A failed business man cant keep blaming the wider public for not buying there product.
Let me fix it for you from a real feminist perspective (Louise is not a feminist, neither Aella in fact). You are devastated because the artificial system created by patriarchy which artificially gave all men access to women by denying women the ability to choose and consent given that they were forbidden to work/have income/education etc, and therefore dependent on a men, is collapsing. Most men only had access to women historically bc women were forced to marry - when we aren’t, what is happening? We are choosing to be alone, with cats and books, anything really rather than being with the vast majority of men, and you are all upset about it because you aren’t good, desirable enough to attract and keep a woman even with all the privileges you are still afforded in society just by being a man. Well in nature, in most societies with sexed reproduction, there is a large percentage of what’s called surplus males, males who don’t make the cut, who loose in the competition for female attention and access, who aren’t chosen/picked by women. That’s normal. That’s natural, not patriarchy. So perhaps we are going back to it since the artificial system built by patriarchy is slowly being dismantled. But of course we aren’t simply animals, we are rational, we create culture so we aren’t 100% slaves to our biology, we can in fact override it through socialization and culture, so we could potentially create a new paradigm for relationships and “mating”. The issue here is: men aren’t doing their part. You are simply expecting things to go back to what it was before with all men having almost guaranteed access to women. And that’s bot going to happen. We don’t need men to be providers and protectors - which you never where for real anyway since it was always males protecting from who? Other males. We don’t need you anymore (we never truly did, we were forced into it). And you are not making yourselves desirable. That’s 100% on you, and while you sit there and complain and blame women on the internet, you are doing nothing to change it, you are doing yourself no favor, bc you aren’t going to gaslight us into lowering our standards, we won’t suddenly change our minds and start choosing you, you will die alone and unhappy. And while we will also die alone, we will do so because we actively and consciously chose to, bc we rather be alone than being with you, and bc we all know women without men thrive, live longer, healthier, happier, build community with other women, we are never really alone just bc we are single. You are. You are unaliving yourselves. You are dying alone in the hospices and hospitals. Women aren’t. And that’s all 100% on you.
It is not true though that 1% of men get most women. Most women would be more than half, or are we talking about them relatively getting the most women when compared to others? The latter though is quite logical and therefore certainly not bad per se. What you might mean is that 1% of men are desired by most women. But then again most of them understand that they are out of their league. Don‘t only think about the few female influencers with idiotically high aspirations. They are not representative!
Yes it's been harmful to society, including women. Most women don't have exciting careers. They have dead end jobs and few can afford to be primary care givers to their children anymore.
Women's liberation seemed to be subsumed to the sexual revolution. I think may older feminists did feel they had been duped by this promise of freedom it was just another form of oppression
Aella lives in her own bubble, literally all she can bring to the conversation are her own personal experiences to justify her decisions and life choices. When she mentions that she did what she did because she thought it was the best option for her what she is really saying is she took the easiest path to getting lots of money.She didn't want to do the other options because she probably thought they were boring or too hard. In other words she avoided something everybody has to go through out of selfishness. Keep in mind her success is an exception and not the norm. I also wonder what she would have done if she was ugly and fat 🤔 or maybe see her try to live life as a man with no straightforward easy path to lots of money. Another thing that was not mentioned is that there are many women who came from impoverished backgrounds much like her but unlike her they didn't resort to selling their bodies for easy money. Instead they made something of themselves through hard work and therefore recieved greater rewards. That's the thing about life it's hard but it's pushing through those hard times that is important because that is when you will recieve the fruits of your labor.
Because everyone has different experiences. One doesn’t always identify with the other. People like yourself don’t care to hear both positive and negative experiences. You’d rather just hear the negative.
@@lustrousandlovely6847 That's not what the data shows, people who make such claims are either in denial, lying, narcissistic or straight up sociopaths and psychopaths.
I agree, but keep in mind the sex differences between men and women. Women aren't supposed to be working, women are supposed to be taken care of by the men of the tribe (without control) and create a strong inner environment. So saying "it's important to push through hard times" is ascribing the male role (hard work and becoming a man) to the female, who naturally has an easier path. Life is hard for women today because men stopped taking care of women and the tribe. So women have two options: work or get married. Among those options, if a woman chooses work, she can do manual labor (again, unnatural for female biology), business/ creative field, or she can do sex work. Women with no particular skill or business talent will choose sex work. Though Aella seems to have business talent, I doubt she believes much in her ability to sell anything of value, so she chooses to sell her sexual energy due to low self worth and lack of desire to heal that. Women don't naturally "work", women create strong communities and strong spiritual cores of tribal units.
@@queengoblin that should be work. service jobs, HR, media, nuns, childcare, marketing or whatever else. just get a job. we all need to contribute something. or just stay on welfare, plenty of women do that anyway.
Louise keeps talking about 'we've done away with such norms' etc. whilst providing no sufficient evidence that this is even the case. At one point she references something akin to 'we don't really have a monogamous marriage system anymore, not since the sexual revolution.' at 23:10. This is patently false in both a UK and wider western context - The reason being that the wider set of societal and cultural norm(s), that is still widely enforced, in both the entirety of the UK and the wider Western world, is that people will invariably (whether straight or LGBTQ+) be expected to date etc. find the one (ie. an exclusively monogamous relationship) , settle down, get married and have kids. And the majority of people in such societies, including the newest generations, by a wide majority, statistically speaking, abide to such societal norms. Notice that a large part of such societal norms is very clearly and strictly the monogamous relationship part (finding the one, settling down) part of which often includes marriage (ie. monogamous marriage system). To argue 'we don't really have it anymore' is patently, laughably absurd. She also characterises way too much a society that has essentially supposedly 'done away' with the norms she identifies with having particular positive effects, whilst providing insufficient evidence as to this being the case. Quote on quote 'if we removed all the norms ; well, they're basically gone anyway'. If you want to argue that such norms are being eroded or pushed back, then sure, I don't know anyone that could in good faith disagree with that assertion. But to say they have been essentially, removed, I'm afraid she patently does not provide sufficient evidence to back up such assertions.
Aella's arguments are mostly fallacies. A couple examples: I only have two choices: factory work or sex work = false dilemma fallacy. Me and my mates love sex work so we should normalize it = faulty generalization. Failing to be virtuous makes me feel shame so I should be a prostitute = sunk cost, nirvana, & hurt my feelings fallacies. Sex isn't free. Never has been, never will be. Thank you Louise for calmly and competently stating the obvious.
It sounds like you have got your understanding of feminism from Tucker Carlson types picking apart straw-man arguments, rather than actually listening to feminists.
@@scottcarroll9201unsure where you’ve seen this but every platform I could find states that Louise sees herself as a feminist. This is also very clear from all her stances which centre women and women’s issues.
@@anapiedade7993 You presume that centering women and women's issues necessarily makes one a feminist. There are lots of commentators who talk about those issues and consider the term "feminist" irrevocably tainted. As for Louise, I listened to an episode of her podcast with Mary Harrington (who prefers the term "reactionary feminist") where Louise stated that she struggles with what exactly to call herself in relation to feminism.
I’m curious how Aella will reflect on her life choices 10 years from now, and then again when she doesn’t have her youth and beauty to fall back on. Will she still think it was worth it? I’m just curious.
Louise Perry over an over again refers to the socio-sexual markers of the average woman in a normal distribution, i.e 50% of women clustered around the median, where as Aella by her own description is at the very tail end of the curve, she is still young and so successful very few other only fans sex workers come close her success, Aella’s experience is an exception and not the rule, even for sex workers, the problem with today’s culture is that the interest of the average women are sacrificed by the interest of the exceptional few, we can’t keep doing that, most of women prefer to be in committed relationships rather than participating in hookup culture, that is a fact, the vast differences between these two sets of interests ie Aellas vs Average woman are so diametrically different that beyond this engagement one can’t help thinking it’s a bit pointless to do it again.. wish Aella well, but we have different battles to fight..
Well said! It felt like two separate conversations. Louise talking about the big picture, averages, and data, and Aella talking about her very unusual individual experience with some anecdotal information thrown in. I appreciated the respect that they both came to the conversation with, though. That was really nice to see.
all three women are to young to have any objective opinion on this rediculous you should ask all the survivor's and victims of the feminist movement from the 1970s and 1980s all the children that grew up with no fathers and had to endure the violence and animosity of horrible divorces and the latch key kids who had to look after them selves the feminist movement has simply turned women into consumers and tax cows for the government at the expense of them being mothers to their children
I'm a child of the 70s & 80s. My parents were traditional and married for life. They were bothiserable and you can't hide that from your children. Whilst I like the idea of a union that lasts, staying together when you don't actually like the other person was awful for my parents and for me.
My mother and her friends were 1970s feminists, I liken them to a coven of witches plotting how to destroy society for their children and grandchildren
Also, Aella's point that not all people have access to alternative 'jobs' that are readily available and do not require heavy credentials is so so valid. In times past, many women were allowed to be homemakers, for eg., without it being a social disgrace and without 18 years of university or a stellar I.Q. I think often many women are 'forced' into sex work by a system that makes getting a job so arduous, expensive and requiring so many talents or abilities that not all people are either capable of acquiring or truly want to acquire that sex work can seem like the 'better' option even if truly unwanted. Makes sense and I don't think Louise Perry addresses this issue quite comprehensively enough. It's big. She focuses again on the dangers of sex work without, I think, replying to the reason women might get into it in the first place.
From the very beginning with "sex positive" versus "sex negative" you are mislabeling Louise Perrys position and falsely insinuating that a monogamous relationship and a more selective "mating behaviour" automatically implies a negative attitude towards sex.
This is a good point. The abortion debate came up with actually reasonable, unbiased terms for the two sides. "Pro-life" people aren't motivated by a desire to control women, more a belief that a foetus is a human and therefore that abortion is murder. Conversely, "pro-choice" people aren't exactly enthusiastic about abortion itself so much as abortion *rights,* they believe it is a sad state of affairs that is nevertheless sometimes the best available option, and that nobody but the would-be mother should be in control of that decision. We need an equivalent for the two branches of feminism. "Sex-positive" is fine; such people genuinely believe that (consensual) sex is good in and of itself, and the more of it, the better. But I agree "sex-negative" is a little bit of a straw man - part of the reason they want a chaster sexual culture is because they believe it would lead to *better* sex rather than endless unfulfilling hookups. Perhaps "love-positive" would be a better term? I think that gets at the core of what folks like Louise Perry believe
Got to admire Aella's guts for being openly and unapologetically honest about her promiscuous lifestyle. Not many women in her situation would raise her head above the parapet in this public way lest it got chopped off. However, no matter how she tries to minimise the risks and normalise the lifestyle, she is playing with fire. Sex should always come with the warning to 'handle with care'.
I think the big case made here is that exceptions will always exist, the margins will never fully go away (and when attempts to eradicate it are made it leads to horrific results), BUT in culture today the exception has become to rule (or at least is being narratively pushed as one) and that's where the harm lies. The attempts to flip everything upside down post sexual-revolution is causing a lot more harm to women (and men). Louise Perry is pointing out that conservative insight which people are too afraid or unwilling to give credence to; in many respects monogamy, dating decency/courtship, and some semblance of sanctity towards sex, relationships, and the recognition of the vulnerability of women was a benefit to women and we've lost that in a lot of ways as a culture.
Louise is a fantastic communicator and accurately detailed the pitfalls of where we are and continue to head in society. Even if we agree that in these poly relationships when are available to deal with ‘lesser males’ the doesn’t bode well either. Who wants to be the pity fck for someone who feels they can do better? Furthermore, if you asked me, it’s much more likely that the ‘lesser girlfriends’ of these alpha men will simply join multiple harems rather than be available (even partially) to lower status males. Also it seems the OF girls surveys and anecdotes are biased towards people who are inclined to engage in her same lifestyle choices. I love the line that if sex isn’t special then neither is rape. That’s is a truth and concept people don’t want to contend with. (Obviously both sex and rape are very serious).
Excellent comment comparing sex and rape. I'm of the opinion that there are an awful lot of men in this world who either don't understand the comparison, or just as likely, simply don't care. There are many societies in this world in which men treat females not much differently than common barnyard livestock, or even worse, factory farm opportunities. Intellectual discussions abound about how when women were treated more as chattel property, the crime of sexual assault was considered to be against her grandfather, father, brother, cousin - and hardly against her person at all. And of course, the men gathered together and got interesting results dealing with the perpetrator. The trope delivered on this is that if it were to return full force, many more men would take seriously the violence against women. Personally, I think the whole thing is garbage. We might interview the tens of thousands of males raped in our prisons for their point of view on this tender subject. We might learn a few things we thought we already knew. But we never do, do we? As if we don't want to know. As if we're illuminated enough.
Not quite, what is considered ''moral'' is radically different across cultures, sub cultures, land masses, or time and space. Or more psycho - dynamically, personality variables dictate ones own values. Incidentally if you randomly sampled 10,000 females aged 20-60 and asked them would they rather be 'female' now or pre the 70's, I doubt more than 10-15% would opt for the latter!
@@miketomlin6040 you miss the point. It doesn’t matter how “ radically different” the morals are, as long as they are there. And “ personal morality” doesn’t come into it when we are talking about what is culturally acceptable. And as for asking females whether they’d rather be women pre 70s or now, how the hell would any of them know unless they were there? So then your sample has to be only women in their 60s. And a damn big slice of them are the ones who caused the problem. How many of them are going to admit to holding completely wrong and destructive moral values for all those years? Very very few. Sorry, your argument is erroneous .
@@warriorpoet9629 Have you studied Moral Philosophy or Social Psychology, ideally both. I suspect not. You also appear to be a little dim, to put it midly. You would with this 10k sample inform them as to options, realities, data......ie give them an ''informed choice'' when asking them which set of variables they believe would be their preference/s. ps what is a ''destructive moral value''? eating meat, wearing clothes with labels on, going to a football match, listening to Mozart, having a utube account.........you tell me?
@@miketomlin6040 I have a BA and an MA and philosophy was my subject. I can see that you are scrambling here because I made a fool of you. Your premise is all wrong and a half educated person would know it. “ informing “ people of historic “values and norms” then asking them to make a judgement on that has absolutely no intellectual merit. You don’t know the difference between personal morality and cultural morality, you don’t even know the different between a judgement made on lived experience and one made on a subjective opinion. I suspect you are trying to appear educated. It isn’t working.
@@warriorpoet9629 Of course you do, call me Kant! Meanwhile on terra firma I notice due to the avoiding of these subjects at college, or books in general, you are unable to find or identify a ''destructive moral value''. To help you out here, one that is widely mooted is Cannibalism, due to recent findings eating human flesh is not a positive health wise, unless starving perhaps.
Oh Aella, vapid vacuous, narcissistic, sophistry on parade, they could have had a mannikin on with more personality, what a stark contrast to Louise's intelligence, class and poise.
That was interesting to watch. Something kept popping in to my head. In matters of depth, be that sex, love, politics or religion. My respect is reserved for those who cannot be bought.
That was honestly cool as hell to see a true discussion between intelligent people. Factual information delivered respectfully on both sides of the issue. This is how people are supposed to have discourse, and is not how many currently do. Bravo ladies, I appreciated the content.
noam chomsky still said it best and i can't find any reasonable and ethical argument against his statement, that the sex industry is inherently exploitative.
Aella and Louise both agree that women who enjoy sex work and feel comfortable within it are probably a small percentage of the overall group -- they both seem concerned about the wrong women getting into "the business". Aella might have a libido that's closer to that of a typical male, and thus it makes sense that she'd want to have sex for a living. The bigger question is: what will she do when she's older, and perhaps less of a "draw" to available males? (probably marry a client) (I've heard stories) Thank you for this important interview!
I think it's obvious that if the tiny % of women who liked sex work were the only sex workers, the price would be too high and men would be complaining about that as well. Society goes in circles on this point--- which is that there is a cost to sex no matter how you slice it.
Yes, people get older. Physically demanding careers are shorter. But Nina Hartley still stays on. Angela White, Dee Williams, Cherie Deville etc can outlive many tennis pros stopping because of knee injuries. Getting enough money on the bank when the money runs dry is key.
So while she was in the OF house bubble everything seemed fine, but when she left that bubble she had an epiphany that she was now damaged from a mental and reputation standpoint? HHHMMmmm.
The problem, as I see it, is that Aella assumes that narratives are value-neutral, and thus arbitrary when it comes to fulfilling one’s individual desires. I think this doesn’t accord well with anthropology, much less psychology, or more so, our biology.
I’m wondering how different Aella really is from other women. I’m struggling to understand how ‘polyamory’ can be an identity, she says that that’s who she is, but does that mean anything more than that’s how she’s chosen to live her life? Or would she argue that there are structures in her mind or her brain that makes her the sort of person who seeks out multiple partners? Would that then make her a proxy man? There’s a biological basis for men’s desire for variety in sexual partners, but I’m wondering what could be the biological basis for a woman seeking variety. I don’t think there is one. Even it could be granted that she has a higher sex drive than the average woman, I don’t think you can make the leap from there to polyamory. I do think it’s an attempt to define herself and her ‘identity’ in such a way that retrospectively justifies or rationalises her decision to enter into prostitution. My guess would be that she might also just be very good at compartmentalising, or ignoring her own emotions. People can become very good at numbing themselves to emotions and feelings they find distressing, and if you’ve practised it for long enough it gets easier. But I shudder to think of the long term effects her lifestyle will have on her.
It means her personality is broken/fractured. She's the opposite of being whole/holy. Stay away, or these types will steal a part of your soul and leave you just as broken!!! ✌️
The only biological basis I can think of is to have a variety of strengths in her offspring. Certain female animals do it. Octopi will mate with the strongest males but also the sneakiest (smartest / best at evading). This ensures a variety of strategies for survival. But biological basis doesn't justify human behavior in the end. There is biology and then there is what we decide to aim for as a species and civilization.
@@Laurefin fair enough, but at what point does the biological imperative to be extremely choosy with regard to who a women will sleep with override that biological urge for variety in strengths for her offspring. It also seems more reasonable to me that the drive would be to choose a single man that has all those qualities, as opposed to seeking them out in variety of partners, especially given the fact that most of those partners aren’t likely to make much contribution to raising those offspring. I think foremost among all the qualities women look for in men is the capacity to help with raising infants over the long term and the capacity to provide. And yes you’re right, biology in and of itself doesn’t justify human behaviour. Even with men, their instinct to seek out variety doesn’t justify it in their case, it’s still damaging to them in the long run.
There's something really unnerving and malevolent about Aella's gaze. It's as if there's "nobody home" in some sense, almost dead, which isn't necessarily the best phrasing as both Aella and Louise are very articulate and intelligent.
Aella's overly-smiling strikes me as a cope. It feels like she's extra-trying to make her case with a subconscious feeling of "look how happy I am, and don't notice that I need this to be ok so I can do what I'm doing more easily," how easy do you need things to be? The social stigma is there for reasons. The stigmas wouldn't be there if there weren't negativities to notice and pick up on through time. I feel like when anyone is trying to make the case for "don't judge me," all I hear is "turn off your awareness and don't learn so I can benefit from your naivity." Sorry, it will never not feel like that. I have a sinking feeling the people who say don't judge me are likely the easiest ones to judge.
I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the notion that social stigma is like some sort of evolved social group function enabling accurate assessments of destructive behaviour patterns leading to the exclusion of individuals exhibiting such traits. Remember when being a practitioner of science used to be extremely stigmatized? Would you propose the same rationale in defence of that stigmatization? Stigmatization may often be used to leverage social power and is by no means a phenomenon that's an accurate predictor of actual pathological behaviour. You mention her smiling a lot being a coping mechanism for her to be more okay with her situation, and her needing this to be okay. Such assessments are likely to be extremely inaccurate, no matter how much of a "people reader" you may purport yourself to be. You're more likely to project your own bias onto her traits and interpret her personality in such a manner which YOU need to be the case to fit into your narrative.
@siversteinshamn6777 Aside from the word "accurate," your first sentence is exactly what stigma is, it's sometimes accurate and sometimes inaccurate, like with most everything. I never said all social stigmas are always 100% accurate all the time, but social stigma is exactly every other word you used to describe what you're not aware of it being. I assume your point was hinging on that word since the rest of the sentence described exactly what social stigma is. When scientists were stigmatized by the church, it was for them to try to keep their influence and control over the ignorance of the collective, and not allow the scientists to teach contradictory things to the people that the church was claiming opposing things. It's a case by case basis whether stigma is right or wrong, and in this case, that would be my rationale. I'm an agnostic atheist, i have come to the conclusion after watching many debates and lectures and reading/listening to books that religious texts are written, or at the very least, used by people with powertrips. Bad actors can use the truths of science to twist and manipulate to serve their agendas, bad people often have to take chuncks of truths for their shit to seem correct to laymen, and sprinkle in the pivotal parts strategically so people don't catch on as easily, but that doesn't mean that whole well of information they pulled from is now poisoned, that doesn't mean the truths they used are now somehow tainted, you don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater. She's glamorizing and trying to normalize a thing that leads all but the top earners, and even some of them, into ruin and depression. It's a dangerous game full of shame and blurred lines of consent and ethic, and your integrity and psychology being questionable to the majority of men and women not in that industry. The second a girl does a sex scene, they ruin their prospect for most men to be able to take her seriously. Men don't want their significant other to be able to be seen getting railed by other people, it brings shame on his image, reputation is just as much a thing for men as it is for women, but women mistake they'll be desired and looked at like the studs are looked at if they do the same things guys do, but that's short-sighted because men and women's sexual desirabilities are two different sides of the coin. When it's so easy for women to get sexual access, and so hard for them to resist the temptation of intimate attention, and often misinterpret a man's sexual interest for serious interest, it's not impressive at all to have lots of sex, the display of discipline for women is actually in refraining from all the free access they get, and restraining herself, that's what shows a woman is thinking about what men see rather than just having an itch for selfish self-centeredness lapping up all the attention from all the guys. Vice versa, it's hard for a guy to get lots of sexual access because girls are so picky, which they should be to be safe, the guys who get easier sexual access have things women find valuable, if it's not his genes, it's his money and social status, so when men have had lots of sex with lots of girls, girls notice that as he has the things girls look for, he must have worth, then they get intimately interested in him. I can't believe i have to explain this to you, whether it's the way things should be or not, it simply is what it is. I'm not saying i like any of it or not, I'm accepting that this is how human nature goes. We respect and admire that which is difficult to acheive, there's no respect or admiration for things that are simple that anyone can do, we often call those things lame and pathetic. When the man or woman does things to benefit themselves that have no benefit for the other gender, they become unattractive, a guy being lazy is not working hard, making just enough money to have a place to sleep, watch the game and play video games in, there's nothing for women to attach their experience and reputation to, same goes for the female sex worker, she's not thinking about the ruined, laughed at reputation he'll have if he takes her seriously, her pair-bonding psychology will have been ruined for him from all the chemicals her psyche experienced with all these other guys who didn't care about her but were dominating her for the camera when she orgasmed with them from having the false perception of bonding or desire for her rather than just him wanting to have sex in general, plus we know most of the time, even though the man's money is the woman's money, the woman's money isn't the man's money, even if she did make a lot of money from prostituting herself, it's not like the man is really gonna benefit from that, sex workers slowly come to these realizations after it's too late, and she has to make herself ok with promoting a thing that ruins most girls' chances of a happy respectable healthy life. It's crazy to me that people want to normalize these things that destroy us. It's not just a male-centric issue, look at how disappointed and broken mothers can be too when they find out their babies are going into this depraved dangerous industry, to act like men don't know what they're saying when they say they want nothing serious to do with someone whose done sex work isn't sexist, it's just reading the room and keeping yourself out of crazy issues brought on by people making hasty decisions in their youth that will change their mentality, especially in a relationship sense, forever. Her smile is either a lie, or ignorant.
@@Vindicador01the stigma against virgin men is women perceive them to be worthless, they don't have the genes or resources to provide protection or status enough to get the attention of other girls. Most women say they don't want virgin guys, and that they're weird and creepy. It's only creepy to them because it creeps them out to attach their reputation and image to a guy who all the other girls will recognize as not beneficial, so they'll know she's not getting perks or experiences out of that guy, which won't make the rest of the girls jealous, and no girl wants a guy that no other girls want, the male is the status symbol of how desirable she seems to be based on how valuable he is, and he still chose her over all the others, and pours effort and resources into making her happy, that's what girls get jealous over. So the stigma of a virgin male isn't good as you said, it's bad to be a virgin guy, girls expect there are things wrong with the guys other girls don't pay attention to, girls would rather share a desirable man than feel stuck with an undesirable one, see celebrities and leaders to see examples of that. Virgin men are stigmatized as impotent losers, because it's easy to be a virgin man, and hard to be a man women throw themselves at unless you lucked out and got a stupidly attractive face and body type that women want their kids to look like, but since your reproductive abilities come easy to you if you're ridiculously good-looking, you're susceptible to becoming a bum because you get lazy from not having to work at becoming valuable in other ways when the fundamental human desire is being met for you without effort.
Oh honey and you think that’s a flex? That’s just you men recognizing how men are the problem: most are either absent or horrible fathers. You aren’t very smart LOL
Deeply saddened by the state of mind of this young lady who thinks sex work is okay. I can feel the guilt in her that she is trying hard to suppress and portraying herself to be a happy woman. I am from India, and as a child I really looked up to western culture. I was always told that the west is more civilized than the rest of the world, 30 years later, I am beginning to understand the catastrophe western civilzation has brought upon after abandoning religious morality. We with all our wekanesses can never guide ourselves out of misery without the intervention of divine law. The law of the creator.
@yasar1 addurrahman - Very astute criticism of the West even though I don't share your religious perspective. The woman in this video who believes "sex work" (note the euphemism) is okay is representative of the state of mind of many young, feminist-addled Western women nowadays, unfortunately. You're right NOT to look up to the West "as more civilised than the rest of the world," particularly when it comes to issues such as sexuality and identity. The West is a grab bag of neuroses, psychological dysfunction, and confusion.
@@wiseonwords And I really believe that the solution lies in the revival of a conciousness of God. The idea that there is a supreme being who made everything and then didnt just leave the creation unguided, instead sent guidance on how to live.
Whether is God or not, the west does need a moral compass again. Degeneracy is rampant, and parents who aren't actively protecting their children should be.
To an atheist, one who believes that humans also invented God, this is far from compelling - given that assumption the argument reduces to anthropogenic morality, versus anthropogenic morality with an extra step.
seriously, an Indian that has a problem with sexual liberation? the Indian civilization was destroyed by puritanism and the creator says that kind of cognitive dissonance over morality will only make things worse.
respectfully @bluebottle, you've missed a bit : Also feminist : sex job is just like working in a factory. For other women. where you think you've spotted a hypocrisy, there's actually an unstated rule, sex work is for other women ( poor / working class) not the ( middle class wealthy affluent ) feminist herself. they are not actually hypocrites', they are actually successfully destroying women on the lower social and wealth scales to keep them suppressed , and unable to compete for the affluent men. the feminist battle here is not women verses men ( equality) its rich women versus poor women.
@@emilyh7912I'm trying to assume the best here, but I think he's trying to emphasize that even women that want prostitution to be completely destigmatized would still be insulted if someone tried to buy sex from them; and probably a lot more than being told to do something else that's not their job. E.g. if that secretary was more insulted by being told to have sex for money than cleaning a toilet, that implies that even she has a stigma against it. I can definitely see this as a probability. I don't think the stigma will ever fully go away, and I doubt most women who insist it should be destigmatized would ever sell sex even if their situation was as safe as possible. That was my take on what he's saying. I tried to turn it from a vague meme to something coherent. I still think it should be fully legal tho.
@@emilyh7912 i can understand that sex workers are there explicitly and willingly for sex while the secretary's jos description does not mention anything about this type of services. However, if we consider sex just another enjoyable activity that we do in company, why the outrage if the boss, or any other colleague for that matter, propose it? I don't get offended when my boss asks me if I would like to have lunch together, actually I think it's nice and I also feel free to say no. Sex, instinctively is another matter. Even a touch on the back, a random jock or an unintentional double meaning is considered herrasmen. It is definitely not the same. I also believe that even the most open minded man would have second thoughts about dating a former postitute, let alone a current one. So, yes there is a huge hypocrisy here or at least a logical inconsistency.
@Natalia Romanova Actually the job description for some secretaries is quite open and it includes other unspecified activities. Your reactions are completely out of proportion. I would suggest checking your mental state.
I really like how respectful Louise Perry was. A lot of these conversations end up like: "You're wrong. You're sexuality is wrong. Be normal." It's nice that, although she morally disagrees with it, she can respect Aellas' stance.
I'm not sure she even morally disagrees with it, but just sees the downsides and wants to get the message out that it is okay to put a certain amount of value on sexual relationships in this day and age.
As someone who worked in manufacturing for many years I can tell you that most jobs in the industry have the reputation of paying a living wage but the day to day conditions are hopeless and terrible.
Aella is kinda like a billionaire who inherited all her wealth (her good looks and female youth) through a successful family business that is profiting from the destruction of our environment (the norms necessary to civilization) and who is too addicted to being on top of the world to acknowledge the impending economic and ecological disaster headed her way (her looks rapidly declining and society possibly violently course correcting in our lifetimes).
Because Aella's personal choices are so powerful that they will bring down civilisation itself!! That is a tremendous amount of power you imbuing her with.
@@hooligan9794 Aella is simply one of many. Just like a single irresponsible company owner is unlikely to cause climate change on their own, a large number of them gearing the economy a certain way, absolutely can.
@@jollypolly1686 The analogy is bad. The environment is a shared thing. If I dump waste in the environment, it directly affects everyone else. She isn't doing that.
What a silly discussion! One person is arguing whether it benefitted her personally and another is arguing whether it benefitted majority women. Not being a woman, I don't want to pronounce any judgement on whether it has been good for majority women or not, but can certainly say that this has been one pointless discussion.
@@TP-om8of No. I am saying for any discussion to have a point, all parties should be on the same topic. These two were discussing completely different topics. It was comical, like in a P. G. Wodehouse novel.
Well the fault lies with the person trying to constantly bring things back to her personal experience. The debate was about whether sexual liberation has been good for society, and women in particular, not about anecdotal experience.
I very much look forward to when Louise's book arrives in the US. I think many feminists here will welcome her message. Many of my female friends, all of them feminists, don't want children and even they still very much want loving pair bonds and monogamous relationships with men.
@@alwaysright3943 Well, there was supposed to be something in it for all parties, Loyalty, a partner for life, the social melding of both the parents into a single unit, its supposed to make dedicated husbands and dedicated wives that are loyal to one another.
A century ago, in his work Ressentiment, Max Scheler predicted that industrial societies will turn non productive 'feminine' women into prostitutes. I am amazed how much Aella personifies the same. And how ironic that she should think her job change a subversive gesture. I mean tobacco industry uses this kind of reverse psychology all the time. On the one hand, she admits to her trade being a lesser evil choice and hence hardly a free choice, while on the other hand she wants to defend it to the hilt which makes me feel she is not defending the sex industry but her own safety which is rather sad. Louise, on the other hand, has a more refined, subtle and freely chosen approach to commercialising sex. Obviously, she knows her stance cannot practically foster chastity/monogamy: instead, its intended effect is to make men feel guilty of their promiscuity and hopefully in return keep the conventional benefits of womanhood accessible to feminists which is a typical reluctant feminist wishfulness of having it both ways. And make no mistake, her starcrossing of promiscuity serves the function of making it even more desirable in the same way 'Dangerous Liaisons' are so much more erotic than just liaisons , or 'Fatal Attractions' are so much more erotic than mere attractions. In fact, it is this element of danger branding of promiscuity that gaslights the Aellas of this world into internalising their false choices. Again, if it is indeed the fate of some women in certain socio-economic circumstances to embrace prostitution as a profession, isn't Louis paradoxically positioning herself as the ideal 'madam' to look after the safety and interests of her girls? Go to 00:49, she says 'Thankyou for having us'. She is literally speaking for Aella! Summing up- Aella is a housewife in her being presented as prostitute in our world where as Louise is a temptress ('transhumanist finally have their way' eh?) in her being presented as the prude in our world. Such is the tragiocomic, inverted, bizarro times we live in! PS- Don't buy the naturalist arguments one bit. It is hardly a theory and more of an assertion finding acceptance due to the naturalist roots of popular feminism in anglophone world on one level (cf. slogans such as - Sex is a biological fact whereas gender is not; TERF etc etc) and on a deeper level due to class propaganda motivated popularisation of Spencer's misanthropic interpretation of evolutionary theory (whereas there are even aesthete interpretations of evolutionary biology possible- cf. Leroi-Gourhan works). Takeaway for myself - feminism needs to be defended from matriarchy no less than patriarchy. Characteristic traits of matriarch masquerading as a feminist- 1) Turns gender into caste so that only women are allowed to speak for women. 2) Turns question of equality into question of identity. 3) Demands equal empowerment and not equal disempowerment which would have rid us of the miasmic toxic impostures and let us live in the truth of the powerlessness of human condition. I just hope feminism can overcome its cynical obsession with empowerment (Hillary kinda) and return to its original moving vital force the love of knowledge and the great Victorian love of love disentangled from power relations.
That you for hosting a discussion where people actually disagree in a meaningful way. It's SO refreshing. Almost nobody is doing this any more.
Idk, it seems moot. You have a diminished number of traditional women and an ever increasing amount of porn stars.
My thoughts as well
I agree Randy. I appreciated this conversation. And kudos to the moderator.
Theres plenty, just get off the TV US media and left wing youtube
When everybody participating in the discussion is civil and does not use anger as means of justifying their perspective, this kind of discourse is possible. Bravo 👏🏻
This is another model of how people with differing perspectives should talk to each other. Well done.
Louise was much more coherent in this discussion, and had a much better grasp of the bigger picture re impact of the sexual revolution on women. Aella seemed to be always arguing from personal experience. If Aella is happy with her life then good for her, but it's not relevant to what the discussion was supposed to be about.
The discussion was about the lived experience of women like Aella. We were privileged to have her willing to take part in the discussion so openly. Louise condensendingly persisted in chipping away with her academic frigid frightened version of what she insisted womens sexuality should be.
I think you may have missed the point of her argument, which she made clearly throughout.
The point was to not throw the baby out with the bath water. That we should take into account individual circumstances, rather than playing god and prescribing from an ivory tower the same norms for every person - thus harming and chastising the minority who is well adapted and happy with their decision.
And that we should consider that part of it could be that we may be doing to sex workers the same thing we did to gay people -claiming gays have higher suicide rates as evidence that homosexuality is a bad thing, while making their lives so miserable anyone would want to die in their place (which was the case for a lot of western human history.)
They were both equally coherent, and almost completely in agreement from what I understood.
But Aella kept highlighting that applying the suggested rules for society as a whole would be harmful for a minority which we shouldn’t ignore. She conceded that most people might not be suited for this life, she conceded that there are problems that arise for many people, she conceded that there must be protection in place, the same way there should be protections and regulations in any line of work. And was just pushing against generalizing the point and making a single prescription for everyone.
There is no right and wrong answer in these questions that apply equally to all people. We ARE individuals, and whenever possible should be treated as such. Every time humans tried a collectivist approach to governance we got the most deadly genocides in our history. We’re not the right species to treat as a collective, ants are.
The “bigger picture” in this issue seems to, invariably, in my personal experience at least, be an argument of “Sex trafficking is bad! Therefore, all sex works should be outlawed :) it’s to protect women.”
And every time someone tries to focus on better regulation, better work conditions, more safety, and more choices in general, the counter argument is usually a straw-man in the form of “Are you in favor of sex traffic? Haven’t you heard of the the alcohol and drug abuse?” Without actually addressing the other side. Which always seems suspiciously close to a moralistic argument disguised as “protecting women” while what it’s actually doing is trying to take away their freedom to do what they want even when they have many other options. (Ps. Not claiming Louise did this in this case.)
Aella’s point, from my understanding, is that humans should,
1. Have multiple options to experiment and do what they want.
And
2. Not be stigmatized if, from all their options, they choose out of their own volition to do sex related work.
And
3. In the case of more open sexual relations (polyamory and such) it could work for some of the population and wouldn’t be a bad thing, even if for most people it wouldn’t be their thing. And also we should consider that some of the lack of comfort with it may be due to stigma and not having the proper “rules” worked out too well as what works and what doesn’t.
(If average success rates and happiness were a good argument, marriages should have been abolished ages ago.)
She was arguing “from personal experience” **because her personal experience is representative of a large number of real people who are often swept under the carpet by the other side.**
All while not ignoring all the problems that can come with it -in fact precisely the opposite, while trying to **address those problems** so people have better options and conditions rather than just casting the whole thing as inevitably bad because of hundred year old hypotheses that have not been well enough tested in modern times.
I think they were both in 99% agreement though. But Louise kept (mostly) ignoring 30% of the population on her statements, and Aella kept saying “hey, there are 30% of people to who that doesn’t apply, let’s have a more nuanced conversation.” -numbers are for argument’s sake, and I’m generalizing here, not making precise statements.
This was just my understanding of it though.
PS.: I’m not saying that I either agree or disagree with either “side” of this discussion, whatever you may perceive said sides to be. I’m just trying to convey here how I understood the dynamic of their interaction, in context of having watched many debates on this topic over the years.
@@SteviePow Aella doesn't read these comments, so she not going to sleep with you for white knighting her. Go touch some grass pal.
@@somerandom686 Thing is, people don't find averages hard to understand at all, it's just motivated reasoning at play. When averages don't support people's beliefs, they cherry-pick outliers instead.
@@alexpotts6520 exactly! Thank you, everyone can understand the averages but some don’t want to.
As a man, I got a lot from this discussion. Many of the points made were well outside of my experiential wheelhouse and I greatly valued both perspectives. Lots here for men to think about. One of the greatest losses of our current politically polarised world, is that frank open discussions like this are now quite rare.
More of this content, please.
yeah. also, it doesnt hurt that they're all easy on the eye ;)
Louise is so insightful. She comes off as having put a lot of thought into these issues. Great conversation.
I’m new to Lousie but I definitely like her ideas and her ability to express herself. Need more women like her
Aella is insightful too, no?
@@laturista1000 Yes she is, to be fair. I’m familiar with her talking points though. So it’s easy, perhaps, to take her for granted.
@@shookone568 Aella work is to please, to not judge, to normalize deviancy, to always feel good about her “critical individual assessment”.
@@mvjh2277 her work is to please women and provide sexual stimuli for them behind their wives and girlfriends backs ripping their lives and many children's lives apart. Where is her shame? This is not a personal choice it's a crime.
I'm completely impressed with these women for having a civil discussion, despite having different viewpoints on such a controversial topic. Thank you for being adults.
In the 90s I had enough sense to never become a sex worker because I knew that money would never buy back my self esteem. I was 18, broke living in South Beach & NYC.
But you were close to do that?
I got close but it was like I was drowning at the time and reaching for branches(I was in an unsafe homing situation, car broke down, and moving to get out) thankfully the little bit of family came through and helped(I just have 2 brother and 2 sets aunt and uncle). I understand that not everybody can afford middle-class morality and thankful that I am not one of them.
@@walkingtheline1729and this is exactly what is wrong with Society I bet you never stopped to pause and think about what your words typed. How did you put it? Your middle class morality... That is the problem with the stigmatization. The stigmatization appears directed against people who those i society like you has deemed beneath them; the poorer classes. Your belief that only a certain type of person will do this. It sticks in your craw when someone who comes from an upper or middle class family can be what they think is something degrading. Oh, the scandal! Most of your pretty little middle/upper class girls will do this out of rebellion, for fun, for likes, b/c tiktok... But, the lower class (you know the ones you were blessed not to be a part of because they're beneath you?!? No, really what was your point in making a class statement? Ignorance? Well, job well done...) many of these young ladies were often horribly abused or in other ways traumatized. Yet, the upper middle class of society (and, don't get me started on the upper middle class women...) will look down their noses at those women because of their abuse. Their men in authority won't hear their stories of abuse, and that's if they're not the ones abusing them. All unknowingly (or, knowingly...) work to keep those they've deemed unworthy stuck in a hole they cannot get out of, then stigmatize them for the way they have to survive. This world is reaping what it sows...
😂😂😂😂😂
Gosh...Louise is so intelligent, refined and elegant, it makes my heart flutter.
Thankfully women like her still exist.
To be honest, BOTH of these women are pretty articulate.
The rest is a matter of ideology and personal choice.
@@goofygrandlouis6296 how is Aella, like, articulate? Like
@@ialwaysbesingin You're just biased because you don't like her views.
But she's very easy to understand (and understanding does not necessay mean approval..).
@@goofygrandlouis6296 Understandable, have a nice ad hominem. How easy it is for you to project on this guy's question the value judgment that (1) he dislikes Aella, and (2) because he does (which is false, he just asked you to argue how she is articulate), a fortiori he is biased. He did not state any opinion and the bias part is unwarranted. Other than that, both interviewees are easy to understand. How does being easy to understand implies being articulate? Being articulate can be sophisticated or simple. You at most expressed your personal opinion that being articulate means easy to understand. But that's just one side of the coin. The other interviewee is sophisticated, but still easy to understand. So I will ask the same question above. How is Aella articulate? I can make you a list of the dozen of arguments that she begun with "I feel like...". How is that a symbol of articulateness? Where she argues how she feels like OTHERS feel (or her), the other interviewee argues about tendencies and established statistical facts. This conversation is very enticing exactly because of the higher ceiling raised by Louise Perry.
@@globalcitizen2677 Louise is a scientist, so she's obviously not only more articulate than Aella but than most people. Footballers don't speak like scientists, but that doesn't stop them from being good at what they do. Aella speaks like an intelligent woman and she's definitely more articulate than the average football player 😄
I’d like to see this conversation when Aella reaches 50. The female perspective on these issues change over time. I would be interested to see her perspective once she has lost her outward appearance and fertility.
She'll probably still be in denial. Intelligent people who make hefty mistakes tend to marshall just enough reasoning to justify their mistake as an actual good.
She will hit the wall like a worn out shoe on a sidewalk.
i've watched parts of aella's interview with lex fridman. she comes across as highly attuned to the confines of the small bubble she carefully created for herself. she largely justifies sex work in terms of niche customers, ignoring the reality that most sex work is highly dangerous, not to mention the industry as a whole is pretty much built on broken people most of whom will never escape the social stigma attached to them.
@@maggyfrog " _...built on broken people most of whom will never escape the social stigma attached to them._ "
Attaching social stigma to broken people, just because you can, sounds insanely sadistic and toxic to me. I'd highly commend to stay away from any people doing this kind of marginalization.
@@careneh33
it's almost the entirety of society that stigmatizes sex work. i think you misunderstood my post. it's not trauma that society stigmatizes. it's prostitution and porn.
This has to be one of the best conversations around this topic I've ever heard. Knowledgeable, polite participants. Thank you for this.
A model for discussion everywhere.
I don't understand why the process of 'checking in with yourself' to 'find what you truly want' has any particular merit at defining the way things actually are, and what's good for society vs. bad.
Social norm structures directly affect the results of self-reflection, and people can still get it wrong.
It's the post modern obsession with individual identities
Attempt at less controversial example: joining the military. "I know I'm a coward so I shouldn't join the military". Analogy to sex work: "I'm more emotional than average so sex work would probably not be good for me" and "I might be autistic so sex work will probably be better than my factory job." "Even though I could hold down a middle class job now, I enjoyed the sex work better so I might go back to it."
we need both. a society where individuals never check in with themselves is a society of people who follow the crowd no matter the cost. no growth happens, society stagnates, and eventually crumbles because it is taken over by a more balanced society that rewards its geniuses and free thinkers. a society of individuals who never check in with each other is a narcisisstic, disconnected society that crumbles because no one can work together.
@@grannyannie2948 particularly as it relates to sexual identity. Postmodernism seems less obsessed with individuality when it comes to what's really important, everyone MUST believe the same thing in regards to their woke BS
@@humanerror7 I agree
Louise: History, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, sociology all seem to indicate that over thousands of years human society has done better with monogamy being the prevailing norm and we should reconsider what we are promoting for young men and women.
Aella: Yeah, but me and some of the people I know really, like, enjoy having sex with many people. I don't know what the consequences will be for me or them because I am too young to see what those will be. We have the pill now though, so it will be okay and I'm doing just fine.
LoL, pretty much.
But we haven't been monogamous for thousands of years, it's a relatively "new" invention
@@johnklevsater5671 where did I say we had?
Aella , is obviously very articulate and attractive ( no wonder she's the face and unofficial spokesperson for poly / sex work) but its like judging the acting industry based on the experiance of Brad Pitt rather than say Charlie Sheen, it give a misleading impression. Most actors actual work in restaurant's / coffee shops, most sex workers don't have Aella's experience of the sex industry. At the level she is involved in it stigma is a greater concern than physical safety, she's not representative.
@@MaterialSquid But the stigma is not an inherent part of sex work. Only a few decades ago having a divorce carried a great shame. Today we seen it as a practical solution to a non-working relationship. Sex work could and should reach the same status - as a practical solution to sexual needs and with no shame or stigma. Few would today argue against the idea of a divorce with the idea of "just totally change yourself to be more attractive to your partner", "tough it out" or "being in a happy relationship is not a human right". But sex workers and their customers face all of these rather condescending attitudes.
Aella is totally outgunned here. In particular, she has it backwards at 26:10. Sexual liberation has resulted in competition among females for a small group of high status males, not the other way around. Louise correctly identifies female hypergamy + sexual liberation as not only bad for women but bad for society in general.
Monogamy is sexual socialism for lower status males. A means to placate the mass of those who would not otherwise have an opportunity to procreate. Top percentage males still have sexual diversity, but are forced to keep it more covert.
In a sexually more free and open system, porn, prostitutes and maybe eventually sexbots fill that male-ranking sex gap.
We only need to compare today's society of that of 50 years ago to see that the sexual revolution had negative effects on society.
What is a ''high status male''? A Philosopher?
@@miketomlin6040 In this instance, definitely not a philosopher!))
@@miketomlin6040 A man with a good career
Right at the end - "I feel like I'm defending people like me" against the shaming. Read the evidence which suggests that women shame promiscuous women because they drive down the price of sex for all women.
Sex is their sword and its being exposed with onlyfans
Oh yes, that's a great point. The same could be said about men shaming or hostilizing other men who rape or deceive women, because they're getting sex and the possibility of reproducing without paying the price that men are supposed to pay for sex and an offspring. They're cheating at the game that everybody has to play, and nobody likes a cheater...Although this is more likely to be true in a pre-sexual revolution society where sex isn't as cheap for men to get
That behaviour makes sense. What mystifies me is that men also slut-shame when that clearly runs against their self-interest.
@@alexpotts6520 I think it makes sense when you consider that women engaging in promiscuous casual sex reduces the likelihood of paternity certainty for men, who don't want to make the great investment in raising a child that isn't theirs.
Interesting insight, Miss Duggan. Thanks for this comment as Í Believe it portrays an often misrepresented and authentic female perspective
This was a really nice discussion. The interviewer probed politely and gave the guests lots of time to respond. The guests expressed themselves well and were respectful of each other. This should be the norm but these days it isn't. Great job everyone.
The whole sexual revolution was a complete and utter disaster, and went way too far in many countries, particularly in my home country NL, where at a certain point even paedophiles could do whatever they wanted (yes, in Amsterdam you had children working in prostitution, and child pornography was openly available in sex shops in the 80s). It has made lots of people very unhappy and wreaked havoc on children, as they quite often ended up with just one parent to take care of them.
I'm Australian, and I agree.
Ecclesiastes post needs to go viral. A larger paragraph of gibberish or naivety would be hard to source. The 60s-70's ''sexual revolution''' was focused on females being given equal access to sexual behaviour. In the broadest sense. Nothing to do with ''children''! Although you inadvertently raise the contentious subject of age of consent, which appears to be anywhere between 11-25 or marriage, across the world today!
@@grannyannie2948 People here in Australia do not believe me when I tell them how far it went. So I point them to the "Man-Boy Love Association" that arose in the USA and here in Oz. It existed. It was public and it was not howled down. In Oz, it was infiltrated by the police and shut down.
@@damienmills293 I have never heard of this. I don't disbelieve you. I grew up next door to a Labor MP and knew Keith Wright amoung others. Ofcourse he offered me a job, lucky I smelt a rat when he offered my 12 yo sister one as well. The TV show I mentioned above was the Mike Walsh Mid-day Show.
My comment has disappeared, despite being non controversial, I will try again later.
While I admire Aella's openness ,it's her apparent justifications for her career choice and her emotional 'disconnect ' that stands out most to me. Her preference for human contact in sex work over 'only fans' needed further questioning -as a valuable insight into Aella , the person, was lost. This may have been a defining moment in the conversation...
The question remains as to whether this generation of young women, who're used to engaging in casual, emotionless encounters, will ever be able to allow themselves to be vulnerable enough to fall in love ? The cat's out of the bag, so to speak ,and it looks like feminism untied the knot...
You should check out her interview on the Mr Girl channel. Pretty intimate.
Umm that question is even more pertinent for men.. will MEN ever be able to allow themselves to be vulnerable enough to fall in love?
Only a truly foolish man would allow himself to be vulnerable enough to fall in love with someone he knows, in his heart, he can't trust. Repeatedly and recklessly indulging in 'emotionless encounters' is an unfavorable insight into a woman's character...
@@sadiemakesmesmile Women use men's vulnerability against then, so no.
@@jayc342009 #notallwomen - you seem to only know toxic women
Halfway through watching this very good discussion. I love how respectful and receptive they are to eachother's points-- this is excellent debating!!
That being said I find it interesting that for Ariella, ones moral compass basically is found only by "checking in with yourself" and seeing what your OWN needs are. So far, there has been little to no mention of children- most healthy societies don't just "check in" with everyone's own private whims and desires- they are looking at what will be the optimal conditions for the **next generation**, I.e. the children.
Aella is a manifestation of late liberalism. Her telos is simply self gratification. Dont mention responsibility, let alone a family.
An interesting point. One reason for that might be that in the US (Aella's location), bearing & raising children is not the great driving factor behind the culture as it once was. This is true of western nations in general as well as of Japan. Not everyone feels they have to get married, pop out a baby or two, & then slave away in their jobs & save every dime possible in order to raise those children into functional (& hopefully decent) adults.
I think “the next generation” implies not just your own children but the one’s in the greater community. You hope that they will be happy, healthy, and ethical rather than angry, desparate, and amoral. As far as “checking in”, I think morals require some agreement by society as a whole, otherwise you’re just stating your personal wants and desires.
@@schechter01 exactly. many people simply should not be parents. i think people get it into their heads that parenthood is this ultimate end goal, and because it might be THEIR end goal, they think it should be everyone's. but not everyone should have kids. look around! i don't want half these people to have kids. some people's lines deserve to end. let's let them die out.
@@schechter01very true, the west had a good run but time to pass the torch.
I don’t think Aella understands the conversation is about the game, not the player. This conversation could be compared to debating capitalism as it’s not about particular individuals & what’s the proposed alternative? It’s a game we play with rules that benefit society, & in monogamy’s case, especially children. Outliers should always be tolerated & accepted because tbh it’s more trouble not to. But I don’t think a world full of Aellas would be a net positive for society. As she mentioned, she was raised in an almost cult-like environment & now her line of work is atypical, including acquaintances. In my opinion, this shows while she’s a capable woman, her level of emotional investment & commitment to others isn’t typical. It’s actually kind of perverse when you think about it, we’re talking about sex but barely mentioning children/family. Now, I’m not going to police who people have sex with but how can you have children with a man who can’t be emotionally available for even an adult woman? There’s huge power in mate selection & it benefits children, & consequently, society. Aella has an almost autistic blindness to this reality. Aella doesn’t understand that allowing men to come & go as they please is only power while you’re “the hot one”, there’s no sustainable power for women & mothers in that world & it’s certainly not an environment that encourages emotional stability in children. Men & women have to value each other if we’re even going to begin to talk utopian ideals.
Because she makes bank filters her opinion of 'power' i suspect.
Not to mention that the single biggest threat to a child is mom’s boyfriend. Non-paternal infanticide is common among primates
Thank you for your very insightful comment. This is a thought I had about Ayella. There have always been women throughout history who were not able to form a long term relationship with a high status male (because there was a scarcity of them) but nonetheless could get access to their sperm by offering them sex, thereby raising the odds of having “high quality” offspring which IS the evolutionary purpose of sex. It would make sense that nature would “ select” women who had the emotional components, like Ayella has, that did not require exclusive male commitment. They are more male-like in their emotional makeup specifically regarding sex. They serve a valued purpose in society (valued by males anyway) and now due the pill they can even make a career out of it, albeit temporary. The thing Ayella, as well informed and intelligent as she is, is missing is that the overwhelming majority of women by nature, prefer a long lasting, stable relationship with a man with whom to raise children. Need a poll or study to back that statement up. That’s how I see it.
Yes, autistic like/self centered blindness to the big picture and seems to me a very childish outlook on just making a “new world” where we do everything all different than ever before. Snap! Like a kindergartner’s understanding level although she was obviously incredibly intelligent.
@@margasnyder254 Very well articulated.
It’s refreshing to see two intelligent women with opposite views respectfully discuss their perspectives without lowering themselves to insulting and escalation. Well done 👏🏻
Good and, alas, rare.
Aella: "it's like well from my experience.... like"
Louise: "well according to my research (proceeds to give a very detailed explanation of what she is trying to convey)
The abolition of sex will be the final solution.
The Party will be the one deciding who is male/female and who should have sex with whom.
You aren't giving Sells enough credit. She has very complex datasets based on her research (surveys) as well.
This. Everyone needs to shut up and Trust The Science.
@@sdjc1 She does do her own research, but it clearly doesn't back up her own opinions because she didn't refer to it at all in this discussion.
Research shows xyz is good for the masses. Therefore if you are not one of the masses, screw you.
That is how I often see LP's research.
Aella: I had to work in a factory before escaping into sex work
Men who still work in factory: 😕
must be there male privilege to work for minimum wage in a monotonous factory rather than make millions selling photos of their dangly bits online
That bit irritated me. The way she talked about it was 1. Disrespectful to those who work in factories, many of which manufacture beneficial goods to society such as food and medicine, and 2. Ridiculous, as if she escaped some oppressive regime. I understand her choices must've been limited but if she found it to be that awful she could've waited tables, stacked shelves, etc.
Aella's story needs to be told in context (IMO).
Go back to Freddie's interview with her, some months back.
Synopsis:
Aella wants to go to college.
Aella's parents, who make too much money, are unwilling to help her.
Aella, still being declared dependent on them, cannot garner enough governmental financial aid.
This is integral to her choices.
But, instead of using her sex work earnings to put herself through school, she declares that she wants to "make the most money for the least amount of work".
The interview with Freddie presents a panoramic view of her adult life and choices.
@@amalek2750 I think this is a large part of the discussion. Aella feels (possibly disingenuously) that her personal choices are being attacked, she defends her choices as the best she could have made in a broken system and supports other women making similar decisions. But Louise isn't attacking her choices, she's arguing for another system where such choices would not have been the least worst option.
@@amalek2750 so instead of getting connections,which should be easier if her parents are rich, she became a prostitute? Lol
It’d be interesting to hold another discussion with Aella and Louise 10 or 20 years from now. It’s fine when a woman like Aella is young, fertile and attractive. Probably very different when she’s older, childless with no pair bond. Collateral damage from the sexual revolution is only now becoming apparent. Ladies like Aella will be no better off than the 80% at the bottom of the male status hierarchy. There’s always another batch of polyamorous young women.
Aella as an individual is exceptional. She might get what is good for her.
The mistake is to think that there is no price to 'all' in giving the 'few' freedoms.
Aella has stated elsewhere that she is looking for a husband to have children with, in a poly context though
@@entengummitiger1576
Yes a sperm donor who she will dump once she don't need him any more
Young, attractive and cocksure - same old same old.
I’d be interested to hear them talk again in as little as two years. Aella is likely not a mentally healthy individual.
This is my first time visiting this channel. The interviewer is outstanding: great questions and clarifications without speaking over the guests.
Louise has a great understanding of history, human nature and flaws, and where things tend to lead when social norms are broken down. Her prediction that hook-up culture will eventually lead back to polygamy is absolutely correct.
Arranged marriage maybe, not polygamy. Polygamy was popular because women died in child birth a lot back inthe day.
It already has, but contemporary polygamy is very different from what it used to look like. Today women are not dependent on their husbands for survival, they also feel they have a right to agree or disagree to certain martial arrangements, or agree and then withdraw their agreement if they feel it's not working for them.
I can't imagine most women ever getting on board with polygamy out of their own free will. Polygamy as a dominant model was, and still is, coupled with depravation of women's rights.
@@marciamartins1992 Absolute nonsense. Polygamy was popular because men like having multiple sexual partners and in a society where they can get away with it they will. For evolutionary reasons men are not nearly as picky about sexual partners as women are, since men can theoretically impregnate a woman every day of the year while women can only be pregnant once at a time we've evolved to want to spread our genes around as much as possible while women have evolved to be more selective. A society that allows men to sleep around promiscuously with no social consequences will result in polygamy naturally because that's what men want.
@@frusia123 you're forgetting that women can be polygamous too. Hardly depriving them of rights if they choose and enjoy that lifestyle.
@@AlinaVossArt I'm not forgetting that, I just think this applies to such a small number of women that it's more of an exception to the rule
Yikes. That bit where Aella was talking about married men who paid her for sex. What actually happened: she accepted money to enable men to cheat on their wives. How she's framed it in her mind: "I actually probably saved their marriages!" That is some serious mental gymnastics to cope with having aided and profited off of immoral behavior.
Gotta be honest, if a married man buys sex, then the person in the wrong is the man, not the hooker who is just doing her job.
As a prostitute you'd be killing your business if you turned away married men. It'd be like a casino turning away gambling addicts, noone is going to do that.
@Natalia Romanova I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make. I never said she was responsible for it. I said she aided and profited off of it. You appear to be attempting to rebut a claim that I didn't actually make. Obviously the men made the decision to cheat on their wives. That doesn't change the fact that her trying to reframe her participation in that behavior as some kind of virtuous act is gross.
@Natalia Romanova That last sentence is complete horseshit. It's not anything like an "objective fact" that marriages were saved because of the husbands hiring a prostitute. There's no evidence presented that that happened even once. That was just Aella's headcanon about what she hoped was the outcome with men she never spoke to again after they paid her for sex. It's her attempt to try to reframe what you refer to as a neutral act as a morally good act instead. Not just a business exchange, vagina for cash, but actually a valuable service that helps marriages! But she has no proof that that's true, she merely hopes that it is because it allows her to be a hero in her own mind instead of a simple sex mercenary.
The real truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. There are probably married men she had sex with whose wives never found out about it and maybe it helped those men find an outlet they weren't getting in the marriage. But for every one of those there's going to be another one whose wife found out about her husband hiring prostitutes and that's what blew up the marriage. She's likely destroyed as many relationships that could have worked it out otherwise as she's helped.
Aella destroys relationships and marriages with her sex work.
Aella points out that the women who get into sex work is disproportionately high among women who are struggling in some way. Maybe instead of offering sex-work as the only way out we need to start changing things about the society that puts women in a place where sex-work becomes the only option.
haven't we already? there's a lot of colleges and corporations with positions only for women. it's called affirmative action. and i think we have enough of it already.
Men and women of limited ability in poverty have few options. Women have the advantage that they usually have the option of sex work. Or, perhaps, of finding a partner to look after them financially. Taking away the option of sex work would not obviously help their situation.
@@jrd33 Allowing men to take advantage of them and degrade them is a better option?
@@SaintNektarios "Allowing"? I do not feel I have the right to force someone else to live according to my morality, or to tell her that I consider her choices "degrading". And if a man chooses to pay a consenting woman for sex, at a price she decides, I am not sure who is being taken advantage of.
@@jrd33 I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. There is nothing wrong with discussion and persuading people to live differently.
As a counsellor, I see that young women are unbelievably naive about everything discussed here. They still want to believe in their Knight and happily ever after. More discussions like this would be a great thing.
Not necessarily naïve - maybe the young girls that you see want to see the best in society. Perhaps we SHOULD be teaching boys/young men to behave like 'Knights' and also for girls and young women to be taught to appreciate and value men, and for this to be supported and applauded, and then most men and women would be happy with each other. OR, we can just let this whole mess continue and stand back and watch men and women become more unhappy and distant from each other, with all the consequential effects that flow from that (think about declining marriage rates, increases in single parent homes, and the rise in anxiety in females, and suicide in men).
Addition: I also think that we should try to reinvent marriage - 'Marriage 2.0' , in which the best elements of long-term dating and marriage are preserved (think 1950s /1960s etc) and the worst elements are removed. If societies woke up to the idea that this is a good thing then maybe marriage would become cool again, which ultimately benefits children but also society as a whole.
As a counselor, you are wrong. Most young women watch tiktok and only fans and want to imitate the power that those people have on those platforms.
@@garypalmer1122 the problem is that men want unlimited sex and women want to put a cap on that. While women then go out and gain unlimited sex lol
@@garypalmer1122 - How on earth can you expect men to "behave like knights" when feminism and the mainstream media constantly tell us that all of society's ills are due to "toxic masculinity" and the so-called "patriarchy"?
Agreed, the number of women I have met who are shocked when I tell them men have no interest in women who have slept around. They still want the marriage and kids thing. And they hate me for it.
Aella does not appear to have thought about this much at all and is simply taking the position of "don't cramp my style" rather than approaching the questions themselves.
But it's a nice promotional appearance.
Aella has both thought about and experienced these issues more than Perry, Perry is simply better at sounding more thoughtful
Commercialized sex is worse in some ways than the tobacco or drug trades. Living with herself depends on not thinking about the exploitative harm she engaged in for her income.
@@AP-qb2xn Perry has written a book on this issue, which indicates she’s thought deeply about it and done her homework too. Has aella written a book about it? She seems like a smart woman, you’d think if she really had the courage of her convictions, writing a book about her experiences would be the right thing to do.
@@niandralades2 promotional for what? Aella isn't selling anything at the moment. seriously
I think what I’m just now starting to realize is that the most detrimental attribute of the last 3-4 generations has been hubris. We foolishly deluded ourselves into thinking that values and traditions that had developed over hundreds of years in our society were completely arbitrary or were simply tools of oppression and, therefore, could and should be completely discarded. We neglected to even consider the possibility that these values and traditions served important functions in our society and removing them would have deleterious effects. I know from personal experience that on an individual level, when you compromise on your values and remove self-imposed restrictions, your life can very quickly spiral out of control. I have no doubt that the same is true on the societal level.
That being said, we have also made tremendous strides as a society in certain areas, and that progress would not have been made without breaking with tradition to some degree. There doesn’t seem to be an easy way to know what will or will not be beneficial long term, however, I can’t imagine that casual sex with many different partners could be beneficial for men or women.
Well said. Modern society seems to be little more than a real-world application of Chesterton's Fence.
"I can’t imagine that casual sex with many different partners could be beneficial for men or women"? So you think people in a purity-based, puritan and prude society were better prepared for marriage. And knew exactly what they wanted out of intimate contact with another being?
Very well said. Getting older is realizing that traditional values may be there for a reason.
@@pera.j.andersson go back to your grave, boomer.
@@pera.j.anderssonyou must be a follower of Aella ... madarchod
How can you talk about this for nearly an hour without ever mentioning the word love?
Love.. what's that ??
I thought this too. This is perhaps the big difference between men and women, and sex before and after the sexual revolution
Women don't experience love for a man as we do for women. Women's respect for a man equals the 'love'.
If a woman is able to have a lot of casual sex with a lot of different men, I would debate she lacks respect for men in general.
@Ziplokk found the incel. don't project your inabilities on to the general population. many of us are not pathetic like you and have easily found love and commitment.
Perhaps it may mean we have to speak of spirituality? Just a thought.
You can clearly see the intellectual and moral difference between the two. Louise arguments are based in sociology, anthropology, evolution psychology and her concerns are for society at large. Aella, on the other hand, only has anecdotal evidence that she interprets through her own self validating lens. Her concerns are only for herself, her own pleasure in a vacuum.
Which really sums up the thinking between the kind of person who intelligently appraises their life, sex, love and relationships and makes a mindful decision to operate well in a good paradigm, and someone who just does what they want with who they want, and if there are enough of these people then society goes off a cliff.
And currently it's going off a cliff
Just started and I thought that this is exactly how it was going to play out...
On men’s sites, there is a saying: “Woman want the advantages of being a man, the privileges of being a woman, and the responsibility of being a child.” Feminism has given woman the freedom to act more like a man and has given men the freedom to be free of being providers and protectors. Some women and men may benefit from these new freedoms but it may be fatal for society.
They are not based on the most crucial aspect, that women did this to themselves. Responsibility is women’s Kryptonite and nothing is going to change for them until they have the humility to accept what they did and take responsibility for solving the problem that they created.
@@jefferytokarsky1930
Are women fighting for the divorce laws, child custody laws, domestic violence laws and false accusations laws to be made fairer to men?
i love how they try to justify that her facilitating men to stay in loveless marriages by providing an outlet from them to cheat is a good thing. this convo is two on one and the one is crushing it well done louisa.
@RFM Recordings emphasis on the MIGHT. as in you don't know and i don't know that it will, thus to spin it one way or the other is stupid so putting a positive spin is silly. and i would argue that the probability skews towards it not being positive in the majority of cases.
I hated her saying she saved marriages. Most egotistical and delusional statement she said the whole debate. Marriages fail and shouldn't be taped together with lies and cheating. Enabling poor and damaging behaviors isn't SAVING anyone. Just an opportunistic way to make money with no integrity or respect to women.
@@Saylessdomore109 right couldn't agree more if your a good partner and you significant other won't put out despite your best efforts and knowing you have needs then you have the right to walk away.
depends what you mean by cheat. most of these guys only want sex and not a relationship.
@@Saylessdomore109 Aella is destroying relationships and marriages with sex work. She doesn't respect women. She is helping men cheat on women!
We should aim to end situations where people have to do sex work to pursue their material ambitions. But first, we should aim to help people to fulfill their lives with less stuff...
First, people should stop 'caring' so much about how people earn a living (if that living is not physically harming someone against their will).. It's the people that 'care' that are the cruel collective control freak Goody-Goodies that always commit the most mass oppression, mass atrocities while starting and prolonging the most wars...
--
Always a Go(o)d, moral crusade, with PERCEIVED 'good intentions'... 'WE', or more precisely, you Lefty and Righty control freaks should EFF OFF AND DIE! No joke!.. Personal Property Rights are a cornerstone of Individual Liberty. You sound like a danger to society.
--
You sound like someone that agrees with Mass Forced Hyper-Sales Scams pushed by crusading, righteous CON MEN, not just 'WE' oppressing everyone's HUMAN NATURE.
How about stop buying cheap Chinese shit and support your locally owned farm?
There are tribal people in Africa who literally possess nothing and are happy as heaven
@@keylanoslokj1806 Nah, disagree. We should aim to get people more stuff. There is a minimum level of material comfort required to actually unlock the higher rungs of Maslow's hierarchy, and even in the rich West there are an awful lot of people who are below that threshold.
@@alexpotts6520 the tribalists and ascetics and home steaders prove it's all unecessary. In normal living conditions at least. In the West it's never enough. Now if you want you can send me 30k to return back to nature
Dads, give your daughters lots of hugs and tell them you love them. Build their self worth and try your best to be the man you want them to marry.
My dad is a bum
@@JJenkins-j9k Mine was too, sorry. I can’t change that, but I can be better for my daughters.
I'm really trying😊 i have three daughters
@@Staremperor What a task bro. Stay strong. Let GOD guide you.
@@KingJalance thank you very much. God is guiding my daughters and my wife. But not me. I'm atheist, but i'm not glad, that it is so. I'd rather believe.
That plumbing analogy was wild af 😫
…
“Try prostitution once or twice”…
hmmm yeah I’ll pass
HAHAHAHAAHA YES WHEN SHE SAID “if you PLUMB like, people don’t want to date you” AAAAHHHHH
but like it’s chill, it doesn’t need to be traumatizing, the fact that you won’t try prostitution like it’s plunging the toilet is actually what is causing the trauma of sex workers cause like, some people are like, totally chill like, not abused at all 🫠
For some women, if you give them enough time, they will eventually tell on themselves. Aella was making some good points at first, but then she made some wild comments that made me lose trust in her overall argument
@@sayat_nova It's ironic considering that even she, who says that there is a safe way to do sex work, admits to being on the receiving end of violence.
Jumped out at me too! I was like - wow you really don’t understand most women and how damaging selling sex for money just once would be for I would guess just the vast, vast majority of us.
she acts like it's something you can just 'try' and then go back to being normal. Yeah no. That's like saying "try getting gender reassignment surgery and see if you like it"
I am mystified by Aella's claim that her only options were factory work or sex work. Why?? And she said she didn't have access to an education (no public school?)?? Couldn't go to college? What a hopeless message to convey to other young women. I wish the others had challenged that a bit.
I was wondering about this myself. Obviously you can't argue with someone's own life since it's unfalsifiable but it does seem like she had other options that she could've pursued.
Yes! Exactly!
Not everybody does well at school. Some would like us all to believe we are blank slates and can be academic success if we have a work ethic. Nobody likes to think about the Idiocracy having kids that are impossible to teach advanced subjects.
It’s rationalization, she was very likely badly abused or neglected as a child and has to find some reason why she gravitated to a professional that allows her to reenact her trauma over and over so she could develop a sense of control over it.
@@utah20gflyer76well, at least she doesnt blame others for her choices in Life
A bit shocking to hear someone saying that men cheating on their wives with a prostitute allows them to have deeper longer relationships by avoiding divorce. A relationship that continues based on fraud is not a deeper relationship, its not a relationship at all because one of the parties has to lie for the relation to exist. Those women would divorce their husbands if they knew the betrayal. Its a mirage, not a marriage.
I think the implicit point was the desirability of maintaining the marriage until the children are grown...
Very eloquent, Louise, well done. Such an important message that women need to hear!
Love hearing respectful conversations with people who disagree, thank you!
Shame is not always as bad thing when it shows us we are doing something that goes against our soul.
Shame is the thing that used to keep society in check. Now that it's gone or diminished, people are taking a more subjective view of morals and now we are reaping what we sow.
@@garypalmer1122 because the psychology movement has pathologised it so they can provide people with “treatments” to help them repress their feelings of shame and cover them up with medication.
Yes. It's noteworthy how Aella case came down to "don't make me feel the the shame of what I'm doing". It's as if the culture has started to think the sense of shame is the problem instead of a symptom. If we can avoid feeling the shame, then we can live as if the reason for it isn't there. But that's like trying to get thru life without feeling pain. Eventually you destroy yourself because you can't feel all the damage you are doing.
Shame is biological fonction that keeps us connected with someone where there has been deep trauma. Shame is fundamental in the way in keeps us socially and culturally connected. If we loose that connection it would be like death.
When you lift up the lid of shame and unleash pandora you will find a stream of all the other emotions as grief, anger, fear, etc. and the real hidden trauma.
Shame can be a learnt thing. Freeing yourself from that can be very liberating.
Great discussion, and obviously not tailored to create maximum polarization, which is the norm for much journalism... neither calculated nor condescending, and thoughtful arguments presented. Thank you for creating a space for actual mature exchange of thoughts.
Idk, the porn girl was way too defensive, she never even thought about what she is and who she works for
Monogamy is most fulfilling when there is genuine commitment and each person places their partner’s satisfaction above their own. It’s not that difficult, just stop being so selfish. Love is not a feeling, it’s a choice. Of course, that’s just my opinion and you are welcome to agree or disagree as passionately as you’d like.
You are correct.
This is a little nitpicky but. I would argue that it IS difficult.
But that society at large focuses too much on romance and desire, forgetting how difficult BUT worthwhile it is to put forward the effort to be a good partner and to appreciate your partner.
@@ThePaintedHope Fair point but, for the sake of clarity, I did say “It’s not that difficult,” implying there is a degree of difficulty.
After 14 years of marriage and 4 children, We have had our fair share of difficulties. I will say, though, that a personal choice to hold myself absolutely accountable and to genuinely desire the best for my wife, the difficulties have grown fewer and farther between. She knows I would not only give my life for her, but that I will lay down my life (set aside my own desires) daily for her good and for good of the children.
Thank you, people seem so transactional about relationships these days. There’s nothing beautiful about a life where you’re thinking “What does this person have to offer me and can I get someone better?” A life where you and your partner care about each other and sacrifice for each other is beautiful.
@@JLDenelsbeck beautiful! You could give many of these bitter men in this comments section a lesson in how to be masculine.
Aella is arguing from a privileged position, I'm not sure I heard her state that. She's saying "Because this has worked out for me so well, it's bad to shame others or warn them of the dangers". Kind of like a functioning alcoholic who says "I don't see the big deal with drinking, I still get all my work done... so it's disingenuous to warn others of the dangers".
Either way, great episode.
She literally said we should explicitly tell women about the dangers of sex work and allow them to understand the consequences before going into it... Quotes are used for something a person has actually said not what the imaginary strawman you built in your head. You obviously either didn't listen or didn't even watch video
This is a really intelligent way to talk about these sensitive topics, and a very countercultural one. Keep up the great work.
But what did it actually achieve?
@@zedrockiby Well, you get to see the difference between the 2 ladies. Aella - good use of jargon to mask her contradictory, nonsensical responses. Louise Perry - more sensible, but she makes the common error of blaming male hypersexuality as if women can only be nurterers who are incapable of hypersex without empathy. Wrong!
Sex and hypersex without empathy (including the worst aspects like rape) are common behaviors of narcissists. This personality is equal among the genders (50/50), the only reason that hypersexuality is perceived as more masculine is because society gives men permission to be sexually overt and male anatomy gives them a physical advantage.
Female hypersexuality may look like male hypersexuality some of the time. But I believe just like women look physically different to men, female hypersexuality will look different most of the time. It is less recognizable because of the male bias, but it is there, and it won't present like Aella does.
I believe it is more subtle and more psychological. For instance, many hypersexual women don't go around making videos about this aspect of their personality. So, the generalizability of this video is limited. But it does reveal what is missing (omitted), at least for me.
Hypersexuality "is" a problem for the same reasons that other behaviors by narcissists are a problem for society -- the con games, lying, smearing, being litigous, using violence -- all tools just so the narcissist can get his/her own way with others.
@@riverman837 You’re correct in bringing it back to root psychological causes (narcissism), but incorrect in your understanding of Louise Perry’s argument. She never says that women are incapable of hypersexuality. What she does say is that hypersexuality and a proclivity for casual sex are mainly a masculine trait / behavior, which is 100% true. She criticizes modern feminism’s tendency to see a constant progress in the way we view genders, and to see a theoretical “end game” future scenario where women get to behave exactly like men. This is what is happening, and her argument is that it is bad for women.
@@tomlabooks3263 Women are just as hypersexual as men, but if you make the societal mistake that Ms. Perry does, by defining hypersexuality by how men behave, you will constantly perpetuate this myth that it is a mostly male practice.
But women get Brazilian butt lifts, silicone breast implants, tummy tucks, liposuction, and all sorts of plastic surgery procedures, in larger numbers than men do. This is hypersexual behavior too. And again, this hypersexuality (plastic surgery) is common among narcissists.
@@riverman837 We need to understand what we mean by “hypersexual”, otherwise this remains a sterile back and forth. While the behavior (implants, surgery) can be the same for women and for men, the sexual desire is biologically and naturally stronger in men than in women.
I was willing to give Aella the benefit of the doubt for most of the discussion until near the end, when she started praising OnlyFans for being a way for women to work their way out of desperate circumstances.
I'm sorry, but this is like the food bank discourse all over again. Yes, of course, given that some people even in wealthy countries are going hungry, it is better that food banks exist than if they didn't, but overall we all desperately wish to live in a society where food banks aren't necessary because nobody wants for food. The same is true for OnlyFans - while it might be better that vulnerable women are selling their bodies when the alternative is being evicted we shouldn't be celebrating the fact that anyone is being forced to whore themselves out to make rent. Don't we all want to live in a world where nobody ever has to make such a miserable choice?
Nah. Only fans just makes regular women into whores.
Or when she suggested that women should just try prostitution to see if they like it - wow.
Sure, if all the suburban housewives who have tried to make money in MLMs instead started turning tricks while their husbands were at work, I'll bet there'd still be enough willing customers to give them all a decent supplementary income instead of losing money. And if most of them would be understandably disgusted by the idea, it's just because their repressive culture has conditioned them to be prudes?
Opening up a discussion about the economics of OF and online porn could be interesting if they brought in, say, Nina Paley or anyone from copyright-critical movements. There's a glut of naked pictures and videos available online for free, so what makes anyone think she's entitled to require anyone to pay for hers? Does she put more work into her videos than those who share theirs for free? Should there be some kind of policy that requires you to register for some paywall service if you're going to be an exhibitionist online? Is it that men are willing to pay more for exclusive access and the illusion of intimacy, and is that a bit of market logic to simply be accepted with no questions as to its morality?
I'd be inclined to give Aella more of the benefit of the doubt after she's lived another 10 years, and/or gone back to school to get an advanced degree in something like biology, or gone and tried to ply her trade outside of the First World.
As a genXer, I'm used to men arguing that prostitution and other forms of "sex work" are the oldest professions and will never go away because such services represent what men want, have always wanted and will always want. Correct me if I'm wrong, but having spent time in N. America, S. America and W. Europe, it sounds like men want prostitutes, breastaurants, p0rn, strip clubs, sexually explicit video games, phone/web sex and other entertainment, to always be available, but at no/low cost or accountability for themselves. And I have the suspicion that the only acceptable status of a sex worker in a lot of people's minds is to be desperate and down on her luck so that men can have their cheap sex market, but that the majority of other young women are shamed and discouraged benefiting at all.
@@orangecat999 I'm maybe on the tail end of GenX (in my 40s) and I've heard the same thing. Yes, there's a constant demand for all of this with minimal cost and accountability: that's the basest part of male desire operating. Just because it is a constant demand and potential market doesn't justify it or make it virtuous. There's always money to be made pandering to people's basest vices.
But it's interesting, how digital media makes this weird opportunity for free sharing. You can't multiply free drugs on the internet, but you can share free pictures of yourself naked. Why should you get upset if someone makes a use of such opportunity to look at all the free stuff that people are willing to share, instead of properly paying all those women who want to be considered entrepreneurs and feel entitled to a certain level of pay just for their exhibitionism?
@@charlesstanford1310 Yes I agree here as a middle Millennial generation. I think that men demand it to be cheap because it actually is a renewable resource and the supply actually does outweigh the demand. The OnlyFans market explains this well on how 90% of those on the platform make very little money. It got saturated so quickly that it is now very cheap to see videos/pictures of these women and then are able to share it over the digital media. It is a service, but it is also not actual work or providing any real benefit to society like majority of jobs do. That is the main reason it is frowned upon. That and the social morality reason. However, there is a demand for it since it is a basic vice of men so it will always exist. To your point, it doesn't make it justified at all though.
Both women are making and thoughtful human beings. Once again Unherd pulls off a great forum for a sensitive topic.
Both?
Aella is so naive if she believes all those guys who tell her their wives don't want to sleep with them anymore. Ha ha ha. That is one of the oldest lies used by guys as an excuse for cheating!
Some wives lose their mojo before their husbands do.
It's not uncommon for women to lose interest in sex with their long term partner though. And its worse if the marrige is dysfunctional. Some men use that as an excuse to cheat which is inexcusable. But its a real thing.
It's also one of the oldest truths.
@@GeorgePrice-wf5lx they could just divorce. Cheating is just being greedy wanting to prostitute and the steady comfort that the married lives provide
I was very surprised that someone defending polyamory and working in the sex industry was so unaware of the very well known data around behaviour diffences between men and women.
The fact women regard only 20% of men to be average or better when men see 60% of women this way. Women regarding 8% of men desirable while men see 40% of women that way.
Women want the best and throw away the trash, while men typically turn trash into treasure
That's such a huge difference, wow. Women tend to be MUCH more shallow it seems. 🤔
Men look for a reason to find a woman attractive. Women look for a reason to reject a man. Is it any wonder of the outcome?
@@blackpow3r No, women tend to be more discerning - and that's exactly what Louise says also: Men are happy to have sex with many different women, women are much more choosy, as they should be in line with their psychology and biology.
@@frusia123 Those are synonyms in this context so I agree with you lol
I wish more discussions were like this. There are so many topics that need discussion. This topic itself is so deep that it can be spoken about for months
I feel this interview downplays the negative consequences for men for the sexual revolution. I understand this interview is from a female perspective, but it feels unfair to downplay the effect it has had on men, such as myself. Women are less inclined to want to marry or have a long term partner, that the 1% of men get most of the women, that the isolation and loneliness feels like a destructive place to live. I am deeply thankful to hear a femanist fairly question the sex positivity movement. The effect on my life has been profoundly devistating. Thank you for bringing a challenge and idea change to the sexual revolution ideas.
I don't mean to be rude but take Jordan Peterson advice and clean your own room before you start making a prognosis on the world. There are plenty of women who want a long term relationship. It could be the circles you are running in or in need of some deeper self analysis that could be a factor in why the opposite sex is not finding you to be a good life partner. To immediately blame the wider world for your own problems could be inhibiting self improvement. A failed business man cant keep blaming the wider public for not buying there product.
Let me fix it for you from a real feminist perspective (Louise is not a feminist, neither Aella in fact). You are devastated because the artificial system created by patriarchy which artificially gave all men access to women by denying women the ability to choose and consent given that they were forbidden to work/have income/education etc, and therefore dependent on a men, is collapsing. Most men only had access to women historically bc women were forced to marry - when we aren’t, what is happening? We are choosing to be alone, with cats and books, anything really rather than being with the vast majority of men, and you are all upset about it because you aren’t good, desirable enough to attract and keep a woman even with all the privileges you are still afforded in society just by being a man. Well in nature, in most societies with sexed reproduction, there is a large percentage of what’s called surplus males, males who don’t make the cut, who loose in the competition for female attention and access, who aren’t chosen/picked by women. That’s normal. That’s natural, not patriarchy. So perhaps we are going back to it since the artificial system built by patriarchy is slowly being dismantled. But of course we aren’t simply animals, we are rational, we create culture so we aren’t 100% slaves to our biology, we can in fact override it through socialization and culture, so we could potentially create a new paradigm for relationships and “mating”. The issue here is: men aren’t doing their part. You are simply expecting things to go back to what it was before with all men having almost guaranteed access to women. And that’s bot going to happen. We don’t need men to be providers and protectors - which you never where for real anyway since it was always males protecting from who? Other males. We don’t need you anymore (we never truly did, we were forced into it). And you are not making yourselves desirable. That’s 100% on you, and while you sit there and complain and blame women on the internet, you are doing nothing to change it, you are doing yourself no favor, bc you aren’t going to gaslight us into lowering our standards, we won’t suddenly change our minds and start choosing you, you will die alone and unhappy. And while we will also die alone, we will do so because we actively and consciously chose to, bc we rather be alone than being with you, and bc we all know women without men thrive, live longer, healthier, happier, build community with other women, we are never really alone just bc we are single. You are. You are unaliving yourselves. You are dying alone in the hospices and hospitals. Women aren’t. And that’s all 100% on you.
It is not true though that 1% of men get most women. Most women would be more than half, or are we talking about them relatively getting the most women when compared to others? The latter though is quite logical and therefore certainly not bad per se. What you might mean is that 1% of men are desired by most women. But then again most of them understand that they are out of their league. Don‘t only think about the few female influencers with idiotically high aspirations. They are not representative!
False, 1% of men dont procure all the women. Women are not responsible for they loneliness of men.
Yes. Same as women's "liberation".
Yes it's been harmful to society, including women. Most women don't have exciting careers. They have dead end jobs and few can afford to be primary care givers to their children anymore.
Women's liberation seemed to be subsumed to the sexual revolution. I think may older feminists did feel they had been duped by this promise of freedom it was just another form of oppression
Aella lives in her own bubble, literally all she can bring to the conversation are her own personal experiences to justify her decisions and life choices. When she mentions that she did what she did because she thought it was the best option for her what she is really saying is she took the easiest path to getting lots of money.She didn't want to do the other options because she probably thought they were boring or too hard. In other words she avoided something everybody has to go through out of selfishness. Keep in mind her success is an exception and not the norm. I also wonder what she would have done if she was ugly and fat 🤔 or maybe see her try to live life as a man with no straightforward easy path to lots of money. Another thing that was not mentioned is that there are many women who came from impoverished backgrounds much like her but unlike her they didn't resort to selling their bodies for easy money. Instead they made something of themselves through hard work and therefore recieved greater rewards. That's the thing about life it's hard but it's pushing through those hard times that is important because that is when you will recieve the fruits of your labor.
Amen!
Because everyone has different experiences. One doesn’t always identify with the other. People like yourself don’t care to hear both positive and negative experiences. You’d rather just hear the negative.
@@lustrousandlovely6847 That's not what the data shows, people who make such claims are either in denial, lying, narcissistic or straight up sociopaths and psychopaths.
I agree, but keep in mind the sex differences between men and women. Women aren't supposed to be working, women are supposed to be taken care of by the men of the tribe (without control) and create a strong inner environment. So saying "it's important to push through hard times" is ascribing the male role (hard work and becoming a man) to the female, who naturally has an easier path. Life is hard for women today because men stopped taking care of women and the tribe. So women have two options: work or get married. Among those options, if a woman chooses work, she can do manual labor (again, unnatural for female biology), business/ creative field, or she can do sex work. Women with no particular skill or business talent will choose sex work. Though Aella seems to have business talent, I doubt she believes much in her ability to sell anything of value, so she chooses to sell her sexual energy due to low self worth and lack of desire to heal that. Women don't naturally "work", women create strong communities and strong spiritual cores of tribal units.
@@queengoblin that should be work. service jobs, HR, media, nuns, childcare, marketing or whatever else. just get a job. we all need to contribute something. or just stay on welfare, plenty of women do that anyway.
Louise keeps talking about 'we've done away with such norms' etc. whilst providing no sufficient evidence that this is even the case. At one point she references something akin to 'we don't really have a monogamous marriage system anymore, not since the sexual revolution.' at 23:10. This is patently false in both a UK and wider western context - The reason being that the wider set of societal and cultural norm(s), that is still widely enforced, in both the entirety of the UK and the wider Western world, is that people will invariably (whether straight or LGBTQ+) be expected to date etc. find the one (ie. an exclusively monogamous relationship) , settle down, get married and have kids. And the majority of people in such societies, including the newest generations, by a wide majority, statistically speaking, abide to such societal norms. Notice that a large part of such societal norms is very clearly and strictly the monogamous relationship part (finding the one, settling down) part of which often includes marriage (ie. monogamous marriage system). To argue 'we don't really have it anymore' is patently, laughably absurd. She also characterises way too much a society that has essentially supposedly 'done away' with the norms she identifies with having particular positive effects, whilst providing insufficient evidence as to this being the case. Quote on quote 'if we removed all the norms ; well, they're basically gone anyway'. If you want to argue that such norms are being eroded or pushed back, then sure, I don't know anyone that could in good faith disagree with that assertion. But to say they have been essentially, removed, I'm afraid she patently does not provide sufficient evidence to back up such assertions.
Aella's arguments are mostly fallacies. A couple examples: I only have two choices: factory work or sex work = false dilemma fallacy. Me and my mates love sex work so we should normalize it = faulty generalization. Failing to be virtuous makes me feel shame so I should be a prostitute = sunk cost, nirvana, & hurt my feelings fallacies. Sex isn't free. Never has been, never will be. Thank you Louise for calmly and competently stating the obvious.
Amazing conversation & moderation. All three women are incredibly articulate and intelligent. Hats off.
If the disgust,the "yuck" factor, is lower in women it becomes even *more* obvious that sex work of any kind is largely coercive.
You had me at "Firm grip on a slippery issue" lol.
It usually leads to a sticky mess.
Depending on how you look at it, the phrasing was either extremely unfortunate or felicitous.
First time I've heard a feminist make much sense. Although this lady isn't a biology denialist and is well informed, which is why.
It sounds like you have got your understanding of feminism from Tucker Carlson types picking apart straw-man arguments, rather than actually listening to feminists.
@@alexpotts6520 real feminists are cringe af, wtf is your point.
I assume you're speaking about Louise, and she has stated that she no longer considers herself to be a feminist.
@@scottcarroll9201unsure where you’ve seen this but every platform I could find states that Louise sees herself as a feminist. This is also very clear from all her stances which centre women and women’s issues.
@@anapiedade7993 You presume that centering women and women's issues necessarily makes one a feminist. There are lots of commentators who talk about those issues and consider the term "feminist" irrevocably tainted.
As for Louise, I listened to an episode of her podcast with Mary Harrington (who prefers the term "reactionary feminist") where Louise stated that she struggles with what exactly to call herself in relation to feminism.
Very cool interview. Glad to see a discussion where both sides aren't trying to "win"
That was probably the most civilized conversation I’ve seen in years.
Yup. It lead to the destruction of the family unit.
It really did.
no breastfeeding, childcare leads to destruction of the family
@@ellisdewal Do you mean being a Mother repeals the husband?
Succinctly put, but true.
No men destroyed the family
Louise said something very insightful at 21:44. You cannot live a fulfilled life when there are secrets from the people closest to you.
Everyone keeps secrets tho.
@@gumdeo Some secrets weigh heavier than others
I learned to read Arabic and Russian. I can't tell my west Texas family about it. They would disown me.
Cute but not true, not for everyone.
This is very interesting. I'm so glad to hear both sides of this story.
It would be really interesting to check in with both women in 25 years.
I’m curious how Aella will reflect on her life choices 10 years from now, and then again when she doesn’t have her youth and beauty to fall back on. Will she still think it was worth it? I’m just curious.
if she makes good money and invests it wisely she can retire early. it's not like she needs to be doing OF when she's 55.
She will be glad she doesn't have some moody teen complaining that they never asked to be born.
Louise Perry over an over again refers to the socio-sexual markers of the average woman in a normal distribution, i.e 50% of women clustered around the median, where as Aella by her own description is at the very tail end of the curve, she is still young and so successful very few other only fans sex workers come close her success, Aella’s experience is an exception and not the rule, even for sex workers, the problem with today’s culture is that the interest of the average women are sacrificed by the interest of the exceptional few, we can’t keep doing that, most of women prefer to be in committed relationships rather than participating in hookup culture, that is a fact, the vast differences between these two sets of interests ie Aellas vs Average woman are so diametrically different that beyond this engagement one can’t help thinking it’s a bit pointless to do it again.. wish Aella well, but we have different battles to fight..
Well said!
It felt like two separate conversations. Louise talking about the big picture, averages, and data, and Aella talking about her very unusual individual experience with some anecdotal information thrown in.
I appreciated the respect that they both came to the conversation with, though. That was really nice to see.
@@neepers22 100% agree
The anchor just was amazing cuz she let both Louise and Aella continue their conversation without interfering with them.
all three women are to young to have any objective opinion on this
rediculous
you should ask all the survivor's and victims of the feminist movement from the 1970s and 1980s
all the children that grew up with no fathers and had to endure the violence and animosity of horrible divorces
and the latch key kids who had to look after them selves
the feminist movement has simply turned women into consumers and tax cows for the government at the expense of them being mothers to their children
Women accepting accountability.....mkay.
I'm a child of the 70s & 80s. My parents were traditional and married for life. They were bothiserable and you can't hide that from your children. Whilst I like the idea of a union that lasts, staying together when you don't actually like the other person was awful for my parents and for me.
My mother and her friends were 1970s feminists, I liken them to a coven of witches plotting how to destroy society for their children and grandchildren
The feminists from the 60 and 70, cry about how their drunk dad touched them and how they want to destroy society because of it
@@grannyannie2948 every argument I've ever heard, usually ends with "this is my personal experience"
These two would make a great team talking in public and taking it on the road about an issue that is, in my opinion, very important.
Also, Aella's point that not all people have access to alternative 'jobs' that are readily available and do not require heavy credentials is so so valid. In times past, many women were allowed to be homemakers, for eg., without it being a social disgrace and without 18 years of university or a stellar I.Q. I think often many women are 'forced' into sex work by a system that makes getting a job so arduous, expensive and requiring so many talents or abilities that not all people are either capable of acquiring or truly want to acquire that sex work can seem like the 'better' option even if truly unwanted. Makes sense and I don't think Louise Perry addresses this issue quite comprehensively enough. It's big. She focuses again on the dangers of sex work without, I think, replying to the reason women might get into it in the first place.
From the very beginning with "sex positive" versus "sex negative" you are mislabeling Louise Perrys position and falsely insinuating that a monogamous relationship and a more selective "mating behaviour" automatically implies a negative attitude towards sex.
This is a good point. The abortion debate came up with actually reasonable, unbiased terms for the two sides. "Pro-life" people aren't motivated by a desire to control women, more a belief that a foetus is a human and therefore that abortion is murder. Conversely, "pro-choice" people aren't exactly enthusiastic about abortion itself so much as abortion *rights,* they believe it is a sad state of affairs that is nevertheless sometimes the best available option, and that nobody but the would-be mother should be in control of that decision.
We need an equivalent for the two branches of feminism. "Sex-positive" is fine; such people genuinely believe that (consensual) sex is good in and of itself, and the more of it, the better. But I agree "sex-negative" is a little bit of a straw man - part of the reason they want a chaster sexual culture is because they believe it would lead to *better* sex rather than endless unfulfilling hookups.
Perhaps "love-positive" would be a better term? I think that gets at the core of what folks like Louise Perry believe
Got to admire Aella's guts for being openly and unapologetically honest about her promiscuous lifestyle. Not many women in her situation would raise her head above the parapet in this public way lest it got chopped off. However, no matter how she tries to minimise the risks and normalise the lifestyle, she is playing with fire. Sex should always come with the warning to 'handle with care'.
All 3 women did a really good job very interesting discussion. Thank You
I think the big case made here is that exceptions will always exist, the margins will never fully go away (and when attempts to eradicate it are made it leads to horrific results), BUT in culture today the exception has become to rule (or at least is being narratively pushed as one) and that's where the harm lies. The attempts to flip everything upside down post sexual-revolution is causing a lot more harm to women (and men). Louise Perry is pointing out that conservative insight which people are too afraid or unwilling to give credence to; in many respects monogamy, dating decency/courtship, and some semblance of sanctity towards sex, relationships, and the recognition of the vulnerability of women was a benefit to women and we've lost that in a lot of ways as a culture.
I am also glad the point is made that margins exist, so we must let them be. Don't try to force them to increase, don't try to wipe them out.
Louise is a fantastic communicator and accurately detailed the pitfalls of where we are and continue to head in society.
Even if we agree that in these poly relationships when are available to deal with ‘lesser males’ the doesn’t bode well either. Who wants to be the pity fck for someone who feels they can do better? Furthermore, if you asked me, it’s much more likely that the ‘lesser girlfriends’ of these alpha men will simply join multiple harems rather than be available (even partially) to lower status males.
Also it seems the OF girls surveys and anecdotes are biased towards people who are inclined to engage in her same lifestyle choices.
I love the line that if sex isn’t special then neither is rape. That’s is a truth and concept people don’t want to contend with. (Obviously both sex and rape are very serious).
Excellent comment comparing sex and rape. I'm of the opinion that there are an awful lot of men in this world who either don't understand the comparison, or just as likely, simply don't care.
There are many societies in this world in which men treat females not much differently than common barnyard livestock, or even worse, factory farm opportunities.
Intellectual discussions abound about how when women were treated more as chattel property, the crime of sexual assault was considered to be against her grandfather, father, brother, cousin - and hardly against her person at all. And of course, the men gathered together and got interesting results dealing with the perpetrator.
The trope delivered on this is that if it were to return full force, many more men would take seriously the violence against women.
Personally, I think the whole thing is garbage.
We might interview the tens of thousands of males raped in our prisons for their point of view on this tender subject. We might learn a few things we thought we already knew.
But we never do, do we? As if we don't want to know.
As if we're illuminated enough.
Of course it was a disaster. For women. And for society as a whole. Moral boundaries are the glue that keeps a culture from eating itself.
Not quite, what is considered ''moral'' is radically different across cultures, sub cultures, land masses, or time and space. Or more psycho - dynamically, personality variables dictate ones own values. Incidentally if you randomly sampled 10,000 females aged 20-60 and asked them would they rather be 'female' now or pre the 70's, I doubt more than 10-15% would opt for the latter!
@@miketomlin6040 you miss the point. It doesn’t matter how “ radically different” the morals are, as long as they are there. And “ personal morality” doesn’t come into it when we are talking about what is culturally acceptable. And as for asking females whether they’d rather be women pre 70s or now, how the hell would any of them know unless they were there? So then your sample has to be only women in their 60s. And a damn big slice of them are the ones who caused the problem. How many of them are going to admit to holding completely wrong and destructive moral values for all those years? Very very few. Sorry, your argument is erroneous .
@@warriorpoet9629 Have you studied Moral Philosophy or Social Psychology, ideally both. I suspect not. You also appear to be a little dim, to put it midly. You would with this 10k sample inform them as to options, realities, data......ie give them an ''informed choice'' when asking them which set of variables they believe would be their preference/s. ps what is a ''destructive moral value''? eating meat, wearing clothes with labels on, going to a football match, listening to Mozart, having a utube account.........you tell me?
@@miketomlin6040 I have a BA and an MA and philosophy was my subject. I can see that you are scrambling here because I made a fool of you. Your premise is all wrong and a half educated person would know it. “ informing “ people of historic “values and norms” then asking them to make a judgement on that has absolutely no intellectual merit. You don’t know the difference between personal morality and cultural morality, you don’t even know the different between a judgement made on lived experience and one made on a subjective opinion. I suspect you are trying to appear educated. It isn’t working.
@@warriorpoet9629 Of course you do, call me Kant! Meanwhile on terra firma I notice due to the avoiding of these subjects at college, or books in general, you are unable to find or identify a ''destructive moral value''. To help you out here, one that is widely mooted is Cannibalism, due to recent findings eating human flesh is not a positive health wise, unless starving perhaps.
Oh Aella, vapid vacuous, narcissistic, sophistry on parade, they could have had a mannikin on with more personality, what a stark contrast to Louise's intelligence, class and poise.
That was interesting to watch.
Something kept popping in to my head.
In matters of depth, be that sex, love, politics or religion.
My respect is reserved for those who cannot be bought.
That was honestly cool as hell to see a true discussion between intelligent people. Factual information delivered respectfully on both sides of the issue. This is how people are supposed to have discourse, and is not how many currently do. Bravo ladies, I appreciated the content.
Bless Louise for keeping composed and dignified through this, I wouldn’t have had the patience
noam chomsky still said it best and i can't find any reasonable and ethical argument against his statement, that the sex industry is inherently exploitative.
Indeed, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!
Aella and Louise both agree that women who enjoy sex work and feel comfortable within it are probably a small percentage of the overall group -- they both seem concerned about the wrong women getting into "the business". Aella might have a libido that's closer to that of a typical male, and thus it makes sense that she'd want to have sex for a living. The bigger question is: what will she do when she's older, and perhaps less of a "draw" to available males? (probably marry a client) (I've heard stories)
Thank you for this important interview!
I would rather watch Lousie talk to a wrinkled old madam from Las Vegas. I suspect we would be hearing a very different discussion then.
I think it's obvious that if the tiny % of women who liked sex work were the only sex workers, the price would be too high and men would be complaining about that as well. Society goes in circles on this point--- which is that there is a cost to sex no matter how you slice it.
Yes, people get older. Physically demanding careers are shorter. But Nina Hartley still stays on. Angela White, Dee Williams, Cherie Deville etc can outlive many tennis pros stopping because of knee injuries. Getting enough money on the bank when the money runs dry is key.
So while she was in the OF house bubble everything seemed fine, but when she left that bubble she had an epiphany that she was now damaged from a mental and reputation standpoint? HHHMMmmm.
The problem, as I see it, is that Aella assumes that narratives are value-neutral, and thus arbitrary when it comes to fulfilling one’s individual desires. I think this doesn’t accord well with anthropology, much less psychology, or more so, our biology.
"me having sex these married men actually helped saved their marriages!" the chutzpah of this lop-eyed prozzer
I’m wondering how different Aella really is from other women. I’m struggling to understand how ‘polyamory’ can be an identity, she says that that’s who she is, but does that mean anything more than that’s how she’s chosen to live her life? Or would she argue that there are structures in her mind or her brain that makes her the sort of person who seeks out multiple partners? Would that then make her a proxy man?
There’s a biological basis for men’s desire for variety in sexual partners, but I’m wondering what could be the biological basis for a woman seeking variety. I don’t think there is one. Even it could be granted that she has a higher sex drive than the average woman, I don’t think you can make the leap from there to polyamory. I do think it’s an attempt to define herself and her ‘identity’ in such a way that retrospectively justifies or rationalises her decision to enter into prostitution.
My guess would be that she might also just be very good at compartmentalising, or ignoring her own emotions. People can become very good at numbing themselves to emotions and feelings they find distressing, and if you’ve practised it for long enough it gets easier. But I shudder to think of the long term effects her lifestyle will have on her.
POWER!!!!
It means her personality is broken/fractured. She's the opposite of being whole/holy.
Stay away, or these types will steal a part of your soul and leave you just as broken!!! ✌️
I 100% agree.
The only biological basis I can think of is to have a variety of strengths in her offspring. Certain female animals do it. Octopi will mate with the strongest males but also the sneakiest (smartest / best at evading). This ensures a variety of strategies for survival. But biological basis doesn't justify human behavior in the end. There is biology and then there is what we decide to aim for as a species and civilization.
@@Laurefin fair enough, but at what point does the biological imperative to be extremely choosy with regard to who a women will sleep with override that biological urge for variety in strengths for her offspring. It also seems more reasonable to me that the drive would be to choose a single man that has all those qualities, as opposed to seeking them out in variety of partners, especially given the fact that most of those partners aren’t likely to make much contribution to raising those offspring. I think foremost among all the qualities women look for in men is the capacity to help with raising infants over the long term and the capacity to provide.
And yes you’re right, biology in and of itself doesn’t justify human behaviour. Even with men, their instinct to seek out variety doesn’t justify it in their case, it’s still damaging to them in the long run.
There's something really unnerving and malevolent about Aella's gaze. It's as if there's "nobody home" in some sense, almost dead, which isn't necessarily the best phrasing as both Aella and Louise are very articulate and intelligent.
In Healthcare we call her look the "dead-eyed druggie stare." She is on something and deeply trying to get through this interview.
Her gaze reminds me of a narcissistic personality disorder ridden ex gf of mine.
*cold shivers*
Aella's overly-smiling strikes me as a cope. It feels like she's extra-trying to make her case with a subconscious feeling of "look how happy I am, and don't notice that I need this to be ok so I can do what I'm doing more easily," how easy do you need things to be? The social stigma is there for reasons. The stigmas wouldn't be there if there weren't negativities to notice and pick up on through time. I feel like when anyone is trying to make the case for "don't judge me," all I hear is "turn off your awareness and don't learn so I can benefit from your naivity." Sorry, it will never not feel like that. I have a sinking feeling the people who say don't judge me are likely the easiest ones to judge.
it's just an autist
Ok explain the stigma against virgin men and why is good
I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the notion that social stigma is like some sort of evolved social group function enabling accurate assessments of destructive behaviour patterns leading to the exclusion of individuals exhibiting such traits.
Remember when being a practitioner of science used to be extremely stigmatized? Would you propose the same rationale in defence of that stigmatization?
Stigmatization may often be used to leverage social power and is by no means a phenomenon that's an accurate predictor of actual pathological behaviour.
You mention her smiling a lot being a coping mechanism for her to be more okay with her situation, and her needing this to be okay. Such assessments are likely to be extremely inaccurate, no matter how much of a "people reader" you may purport yourself to be. You're more likely to project your own bias onto her traits and interpret her personality in such a manner which YOU need to be the case to fit into your narrative.
@siversteinshamn6777 Aside from the word "accurate," your first sentence is exactly what stigma is, it's sometimes accurate and sometimes inaccurate, like with most everything. I never said all social stigmas are always 100% accurate all the time, but social stigma is exactly every other word you used to describe what you're not aware of it being. I assume your point was hinging on that word since the rest of the sentence described exactly what social stigma is.
When scientists were stigmatized by the church, it was for them to try to keep their influence and control over the ignorance of the collective, and not allow the scientists to teach contradictory things to the people that the church was claiming opposing things. It's a case by case basis whether stigma is right or wrong, and in this case, that would be my rationale. I'm an agnostic atheist, i have come to the conclusion after watching many debates and lectures and reading/listening to books that religious texts are written, or at the very least, used by people with powertrips.
Bad actors can use the truths of science to twist and manipulate to serve their agendas, bad people often have to take chuncks of truths for their shit to seem correct to laymen, and sprinkle in the pivotal parts strategically so people don't catch on as easily, but that doesn't mean that whole well of information they pulled from is now poisoned, that doesn't mean the truths they used are now somehow tainted, you don't just throw the baby out with the bathwater.
She's glamorizing and trying to normalize a thing that leads all but the top earners, and even some of them, into ruin and depression. It's a dangerous game full of shame and blurred lines of consent and ethic, and your integrity and psychology being questionable to the majority of men and women not in that industry. The second a girl does a sex scene, they ruin their prospect for most men to be able to take her seriously. Men don't want their significant other to be able to be seen getting railed by other people, it brings shame on his image, reputation is just as much a thing for men as it is for women, but women mistake they'll be desired and looked at like the studs are looked at if they do the same things guys do, but that's short-sighted because men and women's sexual desirabilities are two different sides of the coin. When it's so easy for women to get sexual access, and so hard for them to resist the temptation of intimate attention, and often misinterpret a man's sexual interest for serious interest, it's not impressive at all to have lots of sex, the display of discipline for women is actually in refraining from all the free access they get, and restraining herself, that's what shows a woman is thinking about what men see rather than just having an itch for selfish self-centeredness lapping up all the attention from all the guys. Vice versa, it's hard for a guy to get lots of sexual access because girls are so picky, which they should be to be safe, the guys who get easier sexual access have things women find valuable, if it's not his genes, it's his money and social status, so when men have had lots of sex with lots of girls, girls notice that as he has the things girls look for, he must have worth, then they get intimately interested in him. I can't believe i have to explain this to you, whether it's the way things should be or not, it simply is what it is. I'm not saying i like any of it or not, I'm accepting that this is how human nature goes. We respect and admire that which is difficult to acheive, there's no respect or admiration for things that are simple that anyone can do, we often call those things lame and pathetic. When the man or woman does things to benefit themselves that have no benefit for the other gender, they become unattractive, a guy being lazy is not working hard, making just enough money to have a place to sleep, watch the game and play video games in, there's nothing for women to attach their experience and reputation to, same goes for the female sex worker, she's not thinking about the ruined, laughed at reputation he'll have if he takes her seriously, her pair-bonding psychology will have been ruined for him from all the chemicals her psyche experienced with all these other guys who didn't care about her but were dominating her for the camera when she orgasmed with them from having the false perception of bonding or desire for her rather than just him wanting to have sex in general, plus we know most of the time, even though the man's money is the woman's money, the woman's money isn't the man's money, even if she did make a lot of money from prostituting herself, it's not like the man is really gonna benefit from that, sex workers slowly come to these realizations after it's too late, and she has to make herself ok with promoting a thing that ruins most girls' chances of a happy respectable healthy life. It's crazy to me that people want to normalize these things that destroy us. It's not just a male-centric issue, look at how disappointed and broken mothers can be too when they find out their babies are going into this depraved dangerous industry, to act like men don't know what they're saying when they say they want nothing serious to do with someone whose done sex work isn't sexist, it's just reading the room and keeping yourself out of crazy issues brought on by people making hasty decisions in their youth that will change their mentality, especially in a relationship sense, forever. Her smile is either a lie, or ignorant.
@@Vindicador01the stigma against virgin men is women perceive them to be worthless, they don't have the genes or resources to provide protection or status enough to get the attention of other girls. Most women say they don't want virgin guys, and that they're weird and creepy. It's only creepy to them because it creeps them out to attach their reputation and image to a guy who all the other girls will recognize as not beneficial, so they'll know she's not getting perks or experiences out of that guy, which won't make the rest of the girls jealous, and no girl wants a guy that no other girls want, the male is the status symbol of how desirable she seems to be based on how valuable he is, and he still chose her over all the others, and pours effort and resources into making her happy, that's what girls get jealous over. So the stigma of a virgin male isn't good as you said, it's bad to be a virgin guy, girls expect there are things wrong with the guys other girls don't pay attention to, girls would rather share a desirable man than feel stuck with an undesirable one, see celebrities and leaders to see examples of that. Virgin men are stigmatized as impotent losers, because it's easy to be a virgin man, and hard to be a man women throw themselves at unless you lucked out and got a stupidly attractive face and body type that women want their kids to look like, but since your reproductive abilities come easy to you if you're ridiculously good-looking, you're susceptible to becoming a bum because you get lazy from not having to work at becoming valuable in other ways when the fundamental human desire is being met for you without effort.
Guys really don't want a girl that's had dozens of guys. That doesn't bode well for future relationships and guys will look elsewhere.
A wise man once asked, "What's your relationship like with your father?"
Oh honey and you think that’s a flex? That’s just you men recognizing how men are the problem: most are either absent or horrible fathers. You aren’t very smart LOL
In Aella's case, her father was some overbearing Bible thumper.
Just like many reddit atheist's dads.
Deeply saddened by the state of mind of this young lady who thinks sex work is okay. I can feel the guilt in her that she is trying hard to suppress and portraying herself to be a happy woman. I am from India, and as a child I really looked up to western culture. I was always told that the west is more civilized than the rest of the world, 30 years later, I am beginning to understand the catastrophe western civilzation has brought upon after abandoning religious morality. We with all our wekanesses can never guide ourselves out of misery without the intervention of divine law. The law of the creator.
@yasar1 addurrahman - Very astute criticism of the West even though I don't share your religious perspective. The woman in this video who believes "sex work" (note the euphemism) is okay is representative of the state of mind of many young, feminist-addled Western women nowadays, unfortunately. You're right NOT to look up to the West "as more civilised than the rest of the world," particularly when it comes to issues such as sexuality and identity. The West is a grab bag of neuroses, psychological dysfunction, and confusion.
@@wiseonwords And I really believe that the solution lies in the revival of a conciousness of God. The idea that there is a supreme being who made everything and then didnt just leave the creation unguided, instead sent guidance on how to live.
Whether is God or not, the west does need a moral compass again. Degeneracy is rampant, and parents who aren't actively protecting their children should be.
To an atheist, one who believes that humans also invented God, this is far from compelling - given that assumption the argument reduces to anthropogenic morality, versus anthropogenic morality with an extra step.
seriously, an Indian that has a problem with sexual liberation? the Indian civilization was destroyed by puritanism and the creator says that kind of cognitive dissonance over morality will only make things worse.
Boss to secretary: coffee and b*job
Feminist: OMG!!!! Harassment!!
Also feminist : sex job is just like working in a factory.
@@emilyh7912 Because it's a simple random person ln the internet
respectfully @bluebottle, you've missed a bit : Also feminist : sex job is just like working in a factory. For other women. where you think you've spotted a hypocrisy, there's actually an unstated rule, sex work is for other women ( poor / working class) not the ( middle class wealthy affluent ) feminist herself. they are not actually hypocrites', they are actually successfully destroying women on the lower social and wealth scales to keep them suppressed , and unable to compete for the affluent men. the feminist battle here is not women verses men ( equality) its rich women versus poor women.
@@emilyh7912I'm trying to assume the best here, but I think he's trying to emphasize that even women that want prostitution to be completely destigmatized would still be insulted if someone tried to buy sex from them; and probably a lot more than being told to do something else that's not their job. E.g. if that secretary was more insulted by being told to have sex for money than cleaning a toilet, that implies that even she has a stigma against it.
I can definitely see this as a probability. I don't think the stigma will ever fully go away, and I doubt most women who insist it should be destigmatized would ever sell sex even if their situation was as safe as possible.
That was my take on what he's saying. I tried to turn it from a vague meme to something coherent. I still think it should be fully legal tho.
@@emilyh7912 i can understand that sex workers are there explicitly and willingly for sex while the secretary's jos description does not mention anything about this type of services. However, if we consider sex just another enjoyable activity that we do in company, why the outrage if the boss, or any other colleague for that matter, propose it? I don't get offended when my boss asks me if I would like to have lunch together, actually I think it's nice and I also feel free to say no. Sex, instinctively is another matter. Even a touch on the back, a random jock or an unintentional double meaning is considered herrasmen. It is definitely not the same. I also believe that even the most open minded man would have second thoughts about dating a former postitute, let alone a current one. So, yes there is a huge hypocrisy here or at least a logical inconsistency.
@Natalia Romanova Actually the job description for some secretaries is quite open and it includes other unspecified activities. Your reactions are completely out of proportion. I would suggest checking your mental state.
This woman’s voice relaxes me so much while I’m trying to make this deadline!!!
I really like how respectful Louise Perry was. A lot of these conversations end up like: "You're wrong. You're sexuality is wrong. Be normal."
It's nice that, although she morally disagrees with it, she can respect Aellas' stance.
I'm not sure she even morally disagrees with it, but just sees the downsides and wants to get the message out that it is okay to put a certain amount of value on sexual relationships in this day and age.
As someone who worked in manufacturing for many years I can tell you that most jobs in the industry have the reputation of paying a living wage but the day to day conditions are hopeless and terrible.
Aella is kinda like a billionaire who inherited all her wealth (her good looks and female youth) through a successful family business that is profiting from the destruction of our environment (the norms necessary to civilization) and who is too addicted to being on top of the world to acknowledge the impending economic and ecological disaster headed her way (her looks rapidly declining and society possibly violently course correcting in our lifetimes).
Because Aella's personal choices are so powerful that they will bring down civilisation itself!!
That is a tremendous amount of power you imbuing her with.
@@hooligan9794 Aella is simply one of many. Just like a single irresponsible company owner is unlikely to cause climate change on their own, a large number of them gearing the economy a certain way, absolutely can.
@@jollypolly1686 The analogy is bad. The environment is a shared thing. If I dump waste in the environment, it directly affects everyone else.
She isn't doing that.
@@hooligan9794 You clearly haven't listened to the video.
@@jollypolly1686 I definitely listened to the video.
What a silly discussion!
One person is arguing whether it benefitted her personally and another is arguing whether it benefitted majority women.
Not being a woman, I don't want to pronounce any judgement on whether it has been good for majority women or not, but can certainly say that this has been one pointless discussion.
So you’re saying women’s talk is just pointless.
@@TP-om8of No. I am saying for any discussion to have a point, all parties should be on the same topic. These two were discussing completely different topics. It was comical, like in a P. G. Wodehouse novel.
@@conscious_being Then I’ll say it. Women’s talk is pointless. But they were cute.
Well the fault lies with the person trying to constantly bring things back to her personal experience. The debate was about whether sexual liberation has been good for society, and women in particular, not about anecdotal experience.
@@chuckles8519 I agree.
"Was the sexual revolution a mistake?" No, it was a Mr Steak, and it was lovely to meat you too!
I very much look forward to when Louise's book arrives in the US. I think many feminists here will welcome her message.
Many of my female friends, all of them feminists, don't want children and even they still very much want loving pair bonds and monogamous relationships with men.
What reason is there besides having kids for a man to commit to a monogamous relationship with one woman?
@@alwaysright3943 Nothing really. The project of monogamy is entirely built around the idea of providing the best life to a child.
@@newtonia-uo4889 At the expense of the man.
@@alwaysright3943 Well, there was supposed to be something in it for all parties, Loyalty, a partner for life, the social melding of both the parents into a single unit, its supposed to make dedicated husbands and dedicated wives that are loyal to one another.
@@newtonia-uo4889 It’s not exactly achieving its desired purpose right now
A century ago, in his work Ressentiment, Max Scheler predicted that industrial societies will turn non productive 'feminine' women into prostitutes. I am amazed how much Aella personifies the same. And how ironic that she should think her job change a subversive gesture. I mean tobacco industry uses this kind of reverse psychology all the time. On the one hand, she admits to her trade being a lesser evil choice and hence hardly a free choice, while on the other hand she wants to defend it to the hilt which makes me feel she is not defending the sex industry but her own safety which is rather sad.
Louise, on the other hand, has a more refined, subtle and freely chosen approach to commercialising sex. Obviously, she knows her stance cannot practically foster chastity/monogamy: instead, its intended effect is to make men feel guilty of their promiscuity and hopefully in return keep the conventional benefits of womanhood accessible to feminists which is a typical reluctant feminist wishfulness of having it both ways. And make no mistake, her starcrossing of promiscuity serves the function of making it even more desirable in the same way 'Dangerous Liaisons' are so much more erotic than just liaisons , or 'Fatal Attractions' are so much more erotic than mere attractions. In fact, it is this element of danger branding of promiscuity that gaslights the Aellas of this world into internalising their false choices. Again, if it is indeed the fate of some women in certain socio-economic circumstances to embrace prostitution as a profession, isn't Louis paradoxically positioning herself as the ideal 'madam' to look after the safety and interests of her girls? Go to 00:49, she says 'Thankyou for having us'. She is literally speaking for Aella!
Summing up- Aella is a housewife in her being presented as prostitute in our world where as Louise is a temptress ('transhumanist finally have their way' eh?) in her being presented as the prude in our world. Such is the tragiocomic, inverted, bizarro times we live in!
PS- Don't buy the naturalist arguments one bit. It is hardly a theory and more of an assertion finding acceptance due to the naturalist roots of popular feminism in anglophone world on one level (cf. slogans such as - Sex is a biological fact whereas gender is not; TERF etc etc) and on a deeper level due to class propaganda motivated popularisation of Spencer's misanthropic interpretation of evolutionary theory (whereas there are even aesthete interpretations of evolutionary biology possible- cf. Leroi-Gourhan works).
Takeaway for myself - feminism needs to be defended from matriarchy no less than patriarchy. Characteristic traits of matriarch masquerading as a feminist-
1) Turns gender into caste so that only women are allowed to speak for women.
2) Turns question of equality into question of identity.
3) Demands equal empowerment and not equal disempowerment which would have rid us of the miasmic toxic impostures and let us live in the truth of the powerlessness of human condition.
I just hope feminism can overcome its cynical obsession with empowerment (Hillary kinda) and return to its original moving vital force the love of knowledge and the great Victorian love of love disentangled from power relations.
Absolutely brilliant, thanks for this. Now I’m going to read, “The Boarding House”, by James Joyce
Women belive the gobbly gook, they act like we have been beating women for centuries when in fact the woman have betrayed the men.
Fantastic comment. Do you have a Substack by chance?
Do you think love can be disentangled from power relations? I don’t.
I think we’re hardwired in that way.