 Yesterday, I saw this tweet by Michael Schirmer, where he is retweeting or quoting a video from the Heritage Foundation. And the video, the tweet from the Heritage Foundation, is actually a video of a feminist, an anti-sex feminist. And we'll talk about that, but I want to show you the video, and then I want to show you kind of the responses to the video. First of all, the Heritage Foundation, what I had to write about it, and then the responses to it following that. So let's watch this video. Move it a little bit, send to it a little bit. All right, there we go. All right, it's mainly for listening. It's the picture is not that crucial. I hear from great many young women who were put on the pill at the age of 14, came off it, so maybe 10 years later, and realized they'd done a complete personality flip. I mean, that I think is funny, by the way. I'll just mention this, again, I'm not a scientist. I'm certainly not an expert on the side effects and the consequence of taking the pill. But I find it funny, somebody who's 14, and then you're 20-something, 10 years later, she said, so 24. How many of you who are not taking the pill? I don't know, even guys. How many of you were not taking the pill? Had a complete personality flip between 14 and 24? I mean, is it really possible to go from age 14 to 24 and not have a dramatic change to one's personality? Pill or no pill? Pharmacology or no pharmacology? Anyway, that's just, I find, this is the kind of reasoning that people engage in. One said, and I thought I was bipolar. But then it turned out, actually, it was just this psychoactive substance. I mean, what were they doing to me? And this was all to the purpose of rendering a woman receptive to what is, for the most part, loveless and sometimes extremely degrading sexual access. So the purpose of the pill, the reason it was developed, the reason it was given, the reason it was encoded, people were taking it, is so that women could be rendered as basically sex slaves, tools for sexual gratification of men, I assume. I mean, women have no say in this. They have no agency. They have no control over this. They take the pill. They immediately become open to sex with any male. And it necessitates loveless sex. She didn't say sex slaves, yeah. This is what she said. Rendered a woman receptive to what is, for the most part, loveless and sometimes extremely degrading sexual. What does it mean to make a woman receptive to loveless degrading sex? I mean, women doesn't have any choice when she takes the pill. She's now committed to loveless and degrading sex. Is that outside of her ability to say no to? To access. And I struggle to see in what way that's in women's interests. And given the great many other things that, to my eye, are downstream of the entry into that paradigm, it seems to me that a good place to start would be a feminist movement against the pill and for rewilding sex. Against the pill, she means against contraception. Let's be clear. Rewilding sex. What does rewilding sex means? It means redangering sex. It means making sex now risky again. Returning the danger to sex, returning the intimacy and really the consequentiality to sex. And a great deal follows from an intentional reconnection of women's opting intentionally to reconnect with the fullness of our embodied nature. The fullness of your blighted nature is to always risk pregnancy when you have sex. That's what she wants. The danger. Because she's opposing sex. Now, who is this lady? Even though the conservatives are jumping all over this, she is not a conservative. She is a feminist of the left, generally. I have her name is Mary Harrington. Pretty famous, well-known feminist who's written quite a bit about this. This is, I don't know when this video is taken. Twitter doesn't cite a source on the video. You have to really dig to find it. But Mary Harrington is very well-known for having these positions, for believing the sexual revolution was very, very bad for women, that the pill has been very, very bad for women. That sexual, generally contraception has been very bad for women. She had a famous essay she wrote, the sexual revolution killed feminism, which she views women as embracing sex as somehow demeaning them, and therefore destroying the ambition that is feminism. I read this, I have to admit, I find it very difficult to understand what much of what she's talking about. I'm not in most in the literature over feminism. But look, we're going to deal with exactly what she said. The context of what she said is pretty clear. She believes, whoops, let me get rid of this, she believes that what we need is a feminist movement against contraception. To rewild sex. In other words, to make sex about reproduction again. To take out pleasure, sex for pleasure. Now, this is anti-life. It's anti-woman, it's also anti-male. It's anti-joy, happiness, life. Now, the fact that she's a feminist, it doesn't super surprise me that she's anti-life, or anti-sex, I think a lot of feminists ultimately are anti-sex. So anyway, the Heavities Foundation writes, it quotes her, it says, quote, it seems to me that a good place to start would be a feminist movement against the pill, and for returning consequentiality to sex. Consequentiality to sex, the fear of getting pregnant. I don't know, am I the only one who is pissed off at this, gets angry about this stuff? I get a sense that nobody seems to care. And Heavities Foundation continues to say, conservatives have to lead the way in restoring sex to its true purpose, and recreational sex, and senseless use of birth control pills. Now, Heavities Foundation is very important, particularly today. The Heavities Foundation is basically Donald Trump's foundation right now. It is going to be the organization that will staff the entire Trump administration. They are basically, I get fundraising letters from them, and basically that's their pitch, their fundraising pitch. The fundraising pitch is we are prepared. The first Trump administration, he didn't have the right people. We are prepared to staff the administration. We're hiring the people. We're creating shadow departments. We will staff the Trump administration. We will have all the people. It will be fully staffed. We'll be able to hit the road running as soon as he gets elected. Scary, scary, scary stuff. Anyway, I posted, I did two posts, once the theocrats are coming for your birth control, which I think is true. She might not be a theocrat, but they're using her, and they will use her. There's no question about that. And then I did a second post. Oh, and then, oh, so yeah, let me backtrack. Okay, so Michael Schumer wrote, I called it yesterday. IVF frozen MBOs is just a start. A feminist movement against the pill. And recreational sex have sex to make babies. That's the only purpose of sex. That Michael Schumer wrote that. So Chris Rufo wrote, now Chris Rufo is, I think at the Manhattan Institute, has gained a huge amount of celebrity. And to some extent, justifiably, Chris Rufo is like an anti-woke warrior. Super anti-woke. He's written a book. He's got a book out against woke. He also was instrumental in revealing the plagiarism of the former president of Harvard University. And I think without him, she probably would have never been forced to resign. So Chris Rufo has huge, huge conservative creds right now. Huge Republican creds. He is an huge anti-woke cred. This is the anti-woke warrior right now. This is what he writes. After Michael Schumer writes, I called it yesterday, IVF, FOSAN, you know, and all of that about recreational sex and stuff. This is Chris Rufo. So what? The pill causes health problems for many women. Recreation of sex is a large part of the reason we have so many single mother households which drives poverty, crime, and dysfunction. The point of sex is to create children. This is natural, normal, and good. No. The point of animal sex is to create children. The point of animal sex is to create children. The point of human sex is to affirm life, to affirm pleasure. The purpose of human sex is intimacy, connection. Human beings are cognitive beings. We don't have to reproduce. We can choose whether to reproduce or not. And modern technology has made that choice much more real. And what's amazing is, right, put aside, the pill has health problems for many women. Sure, women can choose. Some women don't have health problems. And there are other means of contraception that women can engage in that don't involve a pill. And I'm sure each one of those mechanisms, some women have side effects and don't like. That's why in the modern world in which we live, live as a plethora of choices for birth control. It's not the health problems that these people care about. They don't give a damn about the health of women. If they did, they'd be proportioned. What they care about is to get rid of, quote, recreational sex. But what is recreational sex? Is recreational sex having sex before marriage anytime? Because, look, sex before marriage clearly is not for procreation. Sex before marriage is purely for pleasure. Is that count? Or is it just people who sleep around, go to orgies, swap partners every week? Is that recreational sex? What about a young couple who like each other immensely and share a lot in common and want to have sex with one another? And they might get married and they might not get married. And then to say, recreational sex is a large part of the reason we have so many single mother households which drives poverty, crime, and dysfunction. Really? I mean, God, I mean, it's completely contradictory. Isn't the fact that we have single mother households because women are not using contraception? Isn't the reason we have single mother households? Because we're afraid to talk about sex? We're afraid to educate people about sex? Isn't it true that single mother households, by the way, are declining dramatically over the last 10 years? From their peak in the early 2000s? And isn't it a failure of education? You could also argue that single mother households have to do with the welfare state, the disincentives to marry, all kinds of stuff. I don't think it's recreational sex. It is sex before marriage. That's true. And that's what he's really after. That's what they hate. And yet I have said, and I will say it again, and I will say it from the mountaintops, as many times as necessary, although I don't know that I'm making a dent anyway, I believe strongly that getting married before you have sex is immoral. That not having sex before marriage is immoral. It's stupid. It's ignorant. And it's super risky. Everybody should have sex before marriage. They should use contraception not to get pregnant. I don't get Chris. He's a smart guy. I look to see did he retract this, did he, he hasn't commented on it since, at least that I could find. But no attraction. But what's stunning to me is how many people agree with Chris? There's so many people who came after my post when I criticized Chris. Surprised me that people who follow me think that sex should be restricted to married couples is bizarre. Well, you don't know, Rochelle says the only happy couple I know, they had their first kiss at the wedding. Yeah, I mean, I'm surprised they didn't meet for the first time at the wedding because maybe we should just go back to arranged marriages. I'd be married 41 years and we did a lot more than kiss before the wedding. Bizarre. You know, I sometimes think, are we really in the 21st century? Yeah, arranged marriages have lower divorce rates because people are more, because people who agree to arrange marriages are going to be dogmatic about it and they're going to suffer, emphasis on suffer through it, whether it's good for them or not. And there's nothing wrong with divorce. Absolutely nothing wrong with divorce. I mean, I find this whole line of thinking about sex, about marriage, about children. It's 1220. It's what's his name? Forget the guy's name who wanted to go back to 1220. Couples who don't want to have kids. Should they not use the pill? Should they not use contraception and keep it dangerous? Keep it dangerous? I mean, this is so nakedly anti-pleasure, anti-individual, anti-joy, anti-happiness. Now, and this is the argument they make and both left and right make this, but this is the forced economy they create. You have two options. You can either wait until your wedding night and kiss then and then have sex, and only have sex for the purpose of having children or you pretty much have sex with everybody. You have recreational sex. You sleep around with everybody. You're promiscuous. Those are the only two options because what conservatives do, primarily conservatives do that, but some people on the left too and some people in the middle, is they assume people are animals, animals in the animalistic sense. They don't have free will. They don't have reason. They're imbued with original sin. It's interesting. I'm reading this book in the founding of Christianity and the early years of Christianity. You know, I've been reading a lot about Christianity lately. And all the fathers of Christianity, like the original thinkers, the original people like Augustine and others, Jerome and many others who, all the intellectuals who were at the foundation of capitalism were all obsessed with sex. They all despised sex, thought sex was unbelievably destructive. This is why monasticism and celibacy were so popular in the Christian church. Christianity, and it's had this impact on our culture, Christianity is fundamentally anti-pleasure, anti-sex, anti-individual happiness. And it's connected with original sin, the doctrine of original sin, which it turns out all arises from mistranslation of the New Testament. But anyway, it's pretty funny actually, really sad, really. That you have a whole doctrine that is, I think, psychologically really affected the church deeply and the origins might just be a mistranslation. So, yeah, but Christianity is a really, really, of all religions, Christianity is a really bad religion. And religion, of course, is already problematic just by being a religion. So, there's this false dichotomy. We're animalistic, and therefore, if we just leave people to be, leave them in their, quote, natural state as human beings, they would just go around, you know, sleeping with everybody. So, we need to have moral law, and note how much of Christian moral law is dedicated to sex. We need to have moral law to restrict man, so he doesn't do all the evil he would do, if not for these restrictions. And he doesn't have to understand the restrictions. He just has to follow in their commandments. He has to follow them as the law. It is his duty. So, either promiscuous or you are, you can only have sex in marriage, and even then, just to have children. I mean, this is cultural barbarism in its worst form. Yes, many people behave irresponsibly with regard to sex. It's terrible. But people behave irresponsibly with regard to a lot of things in life. What we need to teach them is reason, to be rational. What we need them, what we need to teach them is to think, to be independent, to make choices, to be selfish. What we need to teach them is to be selfish, to think about their own long-term well-being. And we shouldn't try to replace the individuals thinking with commandments, with crazy rules that limit the joy in life. I mean, sex is beautiful. It's amazing. And if you were only going to do it when you were going to have children, you would only do it like three, four, five, six, seven times in your life. And that's crazy. You know, once, twice a week. Yeah. And when you're younger, even more often. So, it's completely insane. You shouldn't be promiscuous. But you should have sex. You shouldn't be promiscuous in anything in life. You shouldn't be promiscuous in your friendships. You shouldn't be promiscuous in the, in your job. You shouldn't like flip jobs every three weeks. You should be thoughtful. Nobody, if you, if you do away with contraceptions, you can't have sex with your spouse for pleasure. But what about not with your spouse for pleasure? What's wrong with having sex not with your spouse for pleasure? If you gain value from it without being promiscuous, you see, you know, some of you are falling into the same nonsense, the same nonsense. You're going to quote the Bible on me. Michelle is quoting the Bible. This is the Bible. The Bible that tells the story of David who had many wives and who in one of the final chapters in the section about David, he is the beginning of the chapters. David waking up with two young women in his bed with him to keep him quote, warm. There is no conservative perspective. The conservative perspective is that we are inherently evil. That we're inherently irrational. That we are inherently cannot control our urges. The conservative perspective is, the conservative perspective is particularly the Christian perspective is that we're inherently evil. And therefore we must be chained. We must be restricted. We must be bound by rules and laws and regulations to behave in the way the philosopher kings have decided is appropriate for us to behave. The reality is the Bible doesn't say anything. The Bible says whatever you want it to say, there's stuff in the Bible for everybody. I can find justifications for my arguments in the Bible. And I'm sure all of you can find justifications for your arguments in the Bible as well. It is a meaningless document in that sense. There's no truth in the Bible. There's no knowledge in the Bible. And the conservatives don't look to the Bible to find the truth in their knowledge. They make it up. They make it up for the folk based on their perspective on human nature. It's fascinating. You know, evangelicals used to be used to be pro-abortion. Then they flipped to be anti-abortion. The Christians used to hold all kinds of ideas. And they changed over time. All kinds of ideas changed all the time. And if you look at the Christian church, it evolves based on the needs of the powerful, not based on so-called truth or commitment to some old documents. They find what they want in the old documents to justify what they want to do anyway for the purposes of power. But look, there is a third alternative to promiscuity versus following anti-life rules, anti-pleasure, anti-sex rules. And that is to enjoy sex responsibly, to have sex with the people, with people that you value, that you share something with. Don't be promiscuous, but don't be sex with one person in your entire life, only after marriage, which is ignorant and silly. The attack on contraception is an attack on human life. And it's not an attack just on women, men, beware. An attack on abortion is an attack on human life. It's an attack on women, but it's an attack on all of our lives, on our independence, on our reasoning mind, on our own individual judgment. Having children is super important, super important. And therefore, one should be sure that one wants them, and one should have every opportunity to change one's mind about them. Sex, marriage is so important. It's such a big commitment that you better know that you're going to enjoy the sex with the person you're going to spend maybe the rest of your life with. You want to know that you, when you're intimate like that, that you respond in a way that is fulfilling. You better, when you marry somebody and make the kind of commitments that people make in their vows, you better know that this person is the right person for you. And to take a massive part of human life, sex and marriage, which is sex, and as a consequence and say, well, I'm not going to know about them in that realm until after the wedding. What if after the wedding you discover you hate having sex with them? What if after the wedding you discover that there's no intimacy between you and him or him and you or whatever? It's too late. It is ignorant and stupid and irrational not to have sex before the wedding. And primitive. And of course, why? Why wait? What is the reason? There's no rationale. There's no logic to it. It's all about what? It's all about what? If you know you're going to marry the person, why would you not have sex before? I mean, even if you don't know you're going to marry them, why would you not have sex before? Anyway, we live in 2024 and it's unbelievable to me that we have to have these conversations. It's unbelievable to me that we have to have these conversations in 2024, the ignorance that people have of human psychology, of human sexuality, of human life, and the people still want, I mean, this is the problem. The problem is that they live, people live unfulfilled lives. They buy into the conservative view of human nature. They apply it to themselves. And therefore, they can't imagine a healthy sexual relationship that is not bounded by contract, which is a marriage. All marriages are a contract. They can't imagine having sex with more than one person, with multiple people over time. Or all at once, anyway, in a responsible way. What they're really motivated for is hatred. Hatred of human reason, hatred of human choice, hatred of human happiness, hatred of human happiness. I mean, just read Augustine, Augustine, read Augustine, really the most important intellectual, certainly in the early church. And it's hatred for life.