 A few minutes into this video, I will start responding to letters from angry women, letters brought to me by email, direct messaging, and, on a few occasions, carrier pigeons. Here's the thing. I don't think the way women and men comport themselves nowadays is the only possible option, nor do I think it optimal. And I'm not alone. The overwhelming vast majority of experts, scientists, psychologists who study gender relations think that something had seriously gone awry. If you say that men and women are not getting along, you're not a misogynist, you're not a misandrist, you're a scientist, or as a minimum, a qualified observer, because things are really bad. Lisa Wade, in her book American Hookup, published in 2018, mentions an amazing phenomenon. Young women regard sex as the opposite of intimacy. In other words, they have sex only with men they do not like. If they do not like the men, if they don't have emotions for the men, if the men means nothing to them, they have sex with him. However, if they do have emotions for the men, if they consider the men as a potential intimate partner, if they regard the whole thing as meaningful, they abstain from sex, they refrain from sex. They say that sex is the opposite of intimacy. You don't have sex with someone you love, you have sex with someone you intensely dislike, so there is no risk of a relationship developing and no risk of catching feelings. How sick is this? How absolutely pathological this is? And who can say that it is not pathological? Who in his right mind can say that having sex only with people you dislike and refraining, abstaining from sex with people you like, not having sex as a signifier and indicator of love, emotions and meaning in relationships? Who could say this is healthy? Who could say this is the way it should be? Anyone who says that is seriously, seriously effed up and yet quite a few feminist thinkers are saying exactly this. I've come to view feminism, the current rendition at least, the current incarnation of feminism, mainly liberal feminism, but a lot of literature in radical feminism. I've come to regard feminism as a cult, they're not thinking straight anymore and this has nothing to do with my attitude to women. I happen actually to love women and cherish them and want the best for them. I grew up in a generation who respected women and regarded them as amazing, magical, treasured creatures and beings. We regarded women as full of potentialities, as the kind of people who can do things we can never do as men. We considered women to be our natural partners, our complementary beings. So I don't come from a background of hating women. I come from a background of elevating women, of loving women, of wanting the best for women, yes, including equality, equality of access, of healthcare, of education, of wages and all the freedoms, including the freedom to choose. But I would never go as far as saying that the freedom to choose should extend to the freedom to choose to self-harm. No one should be free to self-harm. I firmly believe this. If anyone says that freedom should include the ability to make a choice to harm oneself, to mutilate oneself, to damage oneself, to destroy oneself and to defeat oneself, if anyone is saying this, then he is beyond the pale of current thinking in psychology and, in my view, extremely unethical. Here's the thing. The alternative to old-fashioned relationships is not necessarily self-sufficient loneliness. There are other options out there. It's true that not everyone is built to do full-scale intimacy and cohabitation. Not everyone is built to have a relationship. But extremely few people are really happy all by themselves. Never mind how much they protest otherwise. They are not happy. And their protestations are in order to resolve their embittering cognitive dissonance. They're not happy with the way they live, but they are telling themselves that it is a choice. They're not happy with their sexual behavior and sex life, but they are telling themselves it's a sign of freedom and liberty. In her book American Hookup, Lisa Wade quotes the historian Stephanie Kunz as Wade argues that never in the history of humanity have so many different ways of loving been allowed. Example, long-distance relationships, LDR. In her essay, The World Historical Transformation of Marriage, Kunz writes the following. Almost any separate way of organizing caregiving, child rearing, residential arrangements, sexual interactions, or interpersonal redistribution of resources, almost anyway, has been tried by some society at some point in time. But the coexistence in one society of so many alternative ways of doing all these different things and the comparative legitimacy accorded to many of these ways has never been seen before. We are living in a permissive, liberal free progressive society. Everyone, everyone and anyone can make choices and these choices are considered largely legitimate if you don't harm others. But we have come to a point where we are beginning to equate freedom with anarchy and anarchy with self-harm. We see a confluence of self-harming behavior, for example, substance abuse and extreme, unboundary, dysregulated promiscuity. Something is gone awry. The paradigm is crashing in front of our eyes. Something is wrong and someone should ring the alarm bell and not be labeled a misogynist for doing so. There's also a demographic issue. There are two periods in a Western woman's life when she is confronted with an overwhelming shortage of eligible men during college or university years and when she wants to transition from 15 years of casual sex or short-term liaisons to a long-term and committed intimate relationship. Usually this happens when she turns 30. So she goes through a period of on average 15 years of totally casual sex, usually drunk sex, short-term liaisons, pseudo-relationships as they are called and dating, modern dating, which is another name for hookups. And so then she turns 30 on average. 31.4 in the United Kingdom, 27.8 in the United States, an average of 30 and she suddenly wants to have a deep, long, meaningful, emotional relationship and she doesn't know how and sex gets in the way because it had come to be associated in her mind with meaninglessness and emotionlessness. These imbalances in gender ratio or gender ratios, these imbalances disempower women. They are not enough men to go around. So women compete for these men by escalating sexual behavior. Women are reduced to object and unboundary sex slavery as the only way to secure a mate. Naturally, men leverage this despair. Naturally, men refuse to commit or to invest even as they extort and coerce no strings attached one-night stands from their reluctant dates. Ultimately, about two-fifths of women remain lifelong singles according to Pew Center. These women have missed the love train by focusing on their cherished careers instead. Inundated by much younger entries, older women find it increasingly difficult to compete for male attention until they finally succumb, give up and opt for celibacy, Netflix and pets, not necessarily in disorder. And this is not misogyny. These are scientific facts documented in hundreds of studies. I refer you to my video on hookups where I go through a literature review, 91 recent studies. The situation is really bad for women. The situation today is that women are the least empowered in all of human history. Women today are in much worse shape as far as their liberty, their dignity, their ability to choose than they had ever been. And yet, faced with this reality, they lie to themselves, they deceive themselves, not least via feminist texts, that the situation had never been better, that they are empowered, that they are liberated and emancipated and stronger than ever. It's a joke. It's an absolute joke. The rates of depression and anxiety and substance abuse among women have never, ever been higher. And the rate of suicide is fast catching up, especially among young women. Why would young women commit suicide in such amazing numbers, in such unprecedented numbers? Why would women abuse alcohol the way they had never done before, four times more than they had ever done before? Why the rates of depression and anxiety? Why about one-third of women are diagnosed with depression and anxiety nowadays? Because the framework they had constructed for themselves had proven to be self-defeating, counterproductive, self-destructive. They are left alone because they had rejected the alternative. And the alternative is not old-fashioned patriarchy or slavery to men. Absolutely not. It should never, ever happen again. The alternative is real empowerment. And the only real empowerment is and can happen in stable, loving, emotional, equal, reciprocated relationships. That's not hookups. That's not one-eyed stands. There's not a simplicity or equality or choice even in these sexual practices. That's not living alone. Living alone leads to bad places. Women have to wake up to the fact that they have gone down the wrong alley. That there is a dead end and they must reverse course before it's way too late for them. Men will survive. Men couldn't care less. Men are in paradise. They're happy. They're happier than ever. They're more empowered than ever, actually, in many ways. Women are catching up. Women are catching up career-wise, education-wise, money-wise. Yeah. Women are going to surpass. Women are going to surpass men as Rana Rossin had observed long ago. Women are going to take over. It's going to be a matriarchy. The future world belongs to women. But it's a barren, sterile, dead, unhappy world that they are inheriting and constructing for all of us. For all of us. Because many of us men, we also want love. We also want affection. We also want compassion. And we also desperately are looking for a partner. Having dared to breach the taboo topic of modern women and their conduct or misconduct, I have been inundated, deluged by a tsunami of denigrating, aggressive, demeaning and degrading messages from self-styled feminists. I have nothing against feminism. Feminism in its previous iterations, historical iterations, is commendable and laudable. It had helped women become equal to men, which is the way it should always have been. Equal in terms of access, healthcare, education, wages, power in society, in every which way. I'm delighted to see the ascendance of women and I'm a firm believer that women will do a hell of a lot better job than men had ever done. I'm looking forward to the age of matriarchy when women will rule. So in this sense, I am the opposite of a misogynist. I love women and I anticipate their rise in society as I really believe that men had botched it. However, that doesn't mean that I should never ever criticise women in aggregate and individually for their conduct. And it doesn't mean that if I do, I should be automatically labelled a reactionary old-fashioned dinosaur misogynist, because I'm not. Well, with the exception of a dinosaur. So allow me to read to you my responses to a few of the frothing and seething mischiefs that I had been buried under in the past few days. In a dystopian reality, hope and trust, I wrote to one of them, are indistinguishable from stupidity. In a world that is increasingly monasticistic and psychopathic, intimacy is a nightmare. Vulnerability is a threat. Relationships are often traps. So maybe the younger right after all, focus on your career, on your hobbies, in extremis, on your pets. Watch pornography and if you absolutely crave a warm body, for whatever reason, hook up with total strangers and forget about them minutes later. Is this the world we want to live in? I know the answer for myself. It's not the world I want to live in. But is this the world you want to live in? I wrote to 30-odd year-old feminist, self-styled feminist, radical feminist, who had written to me, both in the comments and in a direct message. I wrote to her, my blood boils, my blood boils when I peruse some of this pseudo-intellectual trash, meted out by the practitioners of the increasingly more dubious field of gender studies. Consider, for example, the current dogma, spawned by Hannah Rossin and supported by the studies of Elizabeth Armstrong and others. It says, hook ups are a great thing for women because they let women focus on their careers rather than on men. There are several problems with this moronic statement. Number one, hook ups are about men. They even involve men. The way most women describe them, hook ups are a form of sexual slavery on men's terms and conditions and on men's turf. Number two, women are not giving up on men in hook ups. Women are giving up on intimacy, on investment, on commitment, on decor, on relationships, on warmth, on emotions. They're not giving up on men. Number three, the sex in hook ups sucks for the overwhelming majority of women, twice less so than for men. So we need to look very carefully and deconstruct many of these feminist so-called statements. I would say that four monumental discoveries over the past 40 years are nothing to write home about. Number one, relationships and intimacy are very hard work. They suck. They should be actively shunned and discouraged. I call it relationship aversion. That's discovery number one. The young had also discovered that children are carbon-based, life-restricting mini-monsters best avoided and avoid they do. Number three, curiosity and learning are for the people minded. Study the minimum to make the minimum amount of money required to survive minimally in your cocoon. Number four, the joys of technologically empowered solitude far outweigh anything anyone can ever offer. Casual drunk sex with total strangers and pornography can take care of one's unfortunate physiological urges. These are the true tenets and pillars of modern existence for the young. Not any high-faluting and convoluted feminist theory. This is the world we had created for them with our academic contortions and acrobatics, intellectual pyrotechnics and acrobatics. The frequency of casual sex among millennials and Z generation, this frequency is lower than among the baby boomers, my generation and among generation X. They have less sex than us but there are some fundamental differences and they are pernicious and they are not good. Number one, casual sex is now the normative practice. It's not one of many options. It's obligatory. Having fun is the imperative. Number two, nowadays hookup sex leads to an intimate relationship, albeit rarely not the other way. Number three, my generation. We had a lot of casual sex, myself included by the way, believe it or not. My generation put love, intimacy and couplehood over and above career. Not so today's youth who remain single a decade longer and then they discover to their shock and horror that they are about to remain single for life. Currently, stranger sex is used to establish a social ranking status within a reference peer group. It's a form of relative positioning, like information in Wikipedia, like Facebook likes. The same way a sense of self-worth is acquired from a group narcissistic supply, quality control via Yelp, the potential partners attractiveness and suitability. They are now crowdsourced, peer opinions outweigh one's own opinion. People don't make independent judgments, they look to the peer group or some other reference group to make these judgments for them. This is well documented in Lisa Wade's seminal work. With the borders between public and private, all but gun, for example social media, sex is increasingly becoming a public spectacle. Technically, all sex today is a form of dogging. In parties, in group sex, in clubs, in bars, in restaurants, everyone is making out with everyone in public and for public consumption, public consumption in order to establish a ranking. Look how hot he is, look how hot she is. The orthodoxy is that sexual orientation is inherent and immutable, but even this is not true any longer. So when I get letters from feminists using gender pronouns in a very strict and rigid way, using sexual orientation as a proxy for identity and so on and so forth, I smile. This is not what the science shows. For example, inebriation, consumption of alcohol changes sexual orientation, which raises very interesting issue. Can all sexual orientations be merely socially determined scripts and roles? And if they are, what are the implications? Because alcohol disinhibits us. It removes social edicts and strictures. And so if it changes orientation, maybe it's of an ear. But that's besides the point. The issue is that feminism deals with utterly imaginary, ideal constructs, which have no place in reality. Reality is much more fluid. And so when I get letters from feminists, I get a distinct impression that I'm dealing with a cult. Absolutely there's a feeling of a cult. Latter-day feminism, liberal feminism especially, but even more so in some ways radical feminism, these are ideological cults. And it is confirmed by the demented responses that I've been receiving. I would like to answer some of these attacks or attack vectors. Number one, hookups are not rendering women equal to men. In all formats of casual sex, women are 10 times more likely than men to be sexually assaulted. They're half as likely to orgasm and they give way more oral sex than they receive. Where's the equality here? Number two, both men and women are unable to transition from the hookup culture to dating and to intimate relationships. That's a famous dating assignment. Look it up. People, men and women, having graduated from the hookup culture, having adopted the view that they need emotions now, they need meaning, they endure a string of failed liaisons, failed relationships. And having been burned repeatedly, about half of these people end up being lifelong, largely celibate singles. At least one quarter of these people develop anxiety, depression and substance abuse disorders. Is this the outcome we were looking for? Whatever, never mind how much feminism bends over backwards. If it is a theory that had yielded these outcomes, it should be outlawed. It should be criminalized. Any social theory and any social movements that results in the mental illness of a quarter of a population, any theory which leads to perpetual recurrence, substance abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, any such social movement or theory should be utterly and immediately criminalized. And so ultimately, to avoid ineluctable hurt and heartbreak, the refugees of the hookup culture either opt for a life of drunken promiscuity, emotionless and meaningless sex, or total phobic abstinence and sex aversion, volatiously, feminist casts these two dysfunctional behavior patterns in terms of female empowerment. If you're promiscuous, you're an empowered woman. Similarly, if you're celibate, you're an empowered woman. It's a win-win situation. There's no way to lose here. You're always an empowered woman. Does this strike you a little as grandiosity? Grandiosity is a cognitive distortion. It's when you divorce reality in order to feel good about yourself, in order to feel empowered, strong, God-like, all-knowing, all-capable. Yes, feminism, ladies and gentlemen, especially ladies, is a form of narcissism, collective narcissism. Studies and learning feature in less than half of college advertising and promotional materials. Yes, you heard me correctly. The words study, the word learning, the word knowledge, the word information, they feature in less than half of advertising and promotional materials of colleges in the United States. The word fun is the keyword and it is clearly equated in all the brochures, in all the websites, on all the websites, it's clearly equated with sex. The implication is come to college to have sex. It's a four-year orgy. Hookups are a marketing tool intended to intoxicate the youth with the promise of unbridled freedom and loose women as a lure. In this sense, women have never been less empowered than today, trying as they do to conform to chauvinistic male stereotypes of a liberated woman. Men define what constitutes an emancipated, liberated, sex-and-fun-loving woman, not women. Ideological cults, because I just said that feminism is an ideological cult, how do I know? Ideological cults involve a switch from full-fledged rationality or bounded rationality, at least, to what I call herd rationality. There is safety in numbers and it makes eminent sense to belong to a like-minded group of people. Even if belonging to this group requires self-defeating behaviors and a suspension of critical thinking. Cults like feminism also induce in their members pseudo-stupidity, the passive-aggressive rejection of data and arguments by repeating formulaic and usually counterfactual slogans and mantras. Group affiliation soothes, soothes the secretary delusions we are against the world. Cults leverage the secretary delusions to foster group affiliation. So cults encourage you to believe there's an enemy out there and the only way to counter and confront this enemy, to tame the enemy and to overcome and win is to belong to the group. Isn't this the core message of most strands of feminism? Not all, but most. Men are the enemy and the only way to overcome men and to win and to be equal to men is to belong to us feminists. Examples of modern-day cults are rampant, but feminism is definitely one of them. Cults are the reifications of organizing an explanatory hermeneutic principles. Cults in pure reality with meaning and are both prescriptive, tell you what to do and proscriptive, tell you what you should not do. Again, feminism fits perfectly. But my beef is not with feminism, my beef is with the utterly inane. And there's not a word but correctness, moronic teachings, wisdom in quote-unquote, you know, in quotation marks, that are sort of spewed out especially in academe, leveraging impressionable youth as absolutely sources of power and supply. It's a narcissistic cult. Here is another moronic pearl of wisdom from the cult of feminism, courtesy one of my correspondents. Hookups are good, she said, because they render the participants more resilient even when the participants end up being raped, I'm kidding you not, and the participants become more sexually experienced even if most of these experiences are bad. So hookup is good, hookups teach you to be strong and render you more experienced. But why acquire resilience and experience in this horrible way? Why not simply warn young people that hookups suck and that they may even be hazardous, risky? Why don't you need to go through hookups to learn these very simple facts? Abundantly, abundantly substantiated in hundreds of studies. It is like saying, jumping from multiple tall cliffs without a glider or a parachute had taught me a lot about my body and about the nature of cliffs out there. One of the main arguments is hookups is a temporary phase. People emerge from the hookup culture, they graduate and then they have normal relationships. But dating among the young is merely glorified hooking up. Dating today has nothing to do with the way it had been done since the 1920s. Dates nowadays are way shorter, the two parties are plastered, totally drunk or drugged. They invariably end up in penetrative sex or sexual assault and they rarely lead to a second encounter. That's not dating, that's a hookup with a few drinks. So once a youth gets hooked on hookups, there is literally no way back and there is no way forward. Women today are postponing having a committed relationship such as marriage until they are in their early 30s. Women focus on their careers instead and they cherish their freedom to make all manner of choices including sexual choices. And on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with it. But in the meantime, these young women avoid intimacy and emotions as they sleep around with strangers or, in the best case, friends with benefits. But then, by the time these women decide to team up with an intimate partner, about half of these women discover to their horror that it is way too late. There's nobody there available to them or they can't do it. They don't know how to do it. They end up as embittered and misandrissed lifelong singles. The other half of women cycle through a series of disastrous, disastrous diets, disastrous relationships. They emerge from these relationships, abused and traumatized for life. The rate of infidelity has more than doubled in the past four decades as women thrash about in growing panic in search of male alternatives while they betray their nominal mates. Why this predicament? Why can't women transition smoothly from go-cups to dating and from dating to relationships and from relationships if they so choose to marriage? Why do half of them remain single for life? Effectively. There are three reasons. One, men today have been well educated by feminists. Men today prefer no strings attached sex with the crops of much younger women who flood the sexual marketplace every year. Why would I date someone who is, let's say, 40 or 35? If I can safely, with a single swipe left or swipe right, date someone who is 25 or even tell no one 18. There's huge competition out there and it's growing more torrid and horrid by the day. Number two, the double standard is still alive and kicking. Western men lie to women when they pretend that it is a thing of the past. Western men legitimize women's behavior or women's freedom of sexual choice because it suits them. They're lying to women in order to help women overcome the cognitive dissonance and sleep with them freely. No strings attached. But in reality, when men are all alone, you know, when there's no woman around, all men, Western, Eastern, Southern and Northern, all men, no exception. No difference in terms of age, education, socioeconomic background. All men listen well women. All men have the same view of promiscuous women. Sluts. One wants to team up for life with a slot. Her reputation irreparably tarnished by years of unbridled whoring. Yes, these terms are still used secretly in pubs and bars when women are nowhere to be found or seen. The double standard, which is lamentable, it's wrong, it's stupid, it's fact of life, fact of social reality. Ignore it at your peril, young woman. Number three, after decades of meaningless sex, reduced affect and zero intimacy, very few women and men constitute relationship material. Men and women lack the most basic relevant skills or practice needed to have a relationship. So men are going their own way. They reject any commitment or investment as they prey on the hordes of sexually available females younger by the minute. And when these men grow old, some of them marry more conservative and traditional, therefore more submissive women. Or they sometimes go overseas and pluck a gold digger and bring her home. Some feminists claim that hookup culture led to positive outcomes. I'm quoting, most young people still want to get married. Teenagers today are far less likely than their parents were to have sex or to get pregnant. It is debatable whether these are the outcomes of the hookup culture. But even if they were, they're very misleading as are all the arguments of feminism. Feminism is a deliberately ambiguous theory with extremely misleading, counterfactual, fallacious statements galore. And I'm saying this not as a misogynist. I'm saying this not as an old man. I'm saying this as someone who had been trained as a scientist all his life. I'm a physicist, but my first profession was a physicist. I go where the data take me, where the evidence leads, and I don't care where it is. I may differ in terms of values. My values may be different, but I would never coerce, contort, and cajole the facts to fit my pet theory. And these are facts. Everything I'm saying are inconvenient truths. These accomplishments that feminists sought out to support the hookup culture. These accomplishments are illusory. Yes, most young men and women, about 90%, want to have meaningful emotional, emotional-laden relationships and want to get married. But most young people also fail to get married. Most young people actually fail to form any long-term relationship, cohabitation included. The young are so turned off by casual sex that according to Pew Center, a whopping 38% of young people end up adopting solitude and celibacy as a default lifestyle. That's 38% of young people. What an outcome, what an outcome to feminism. How are they not ashamed of the devastation they had wrought upon incalculable number of generations? I am not aware of any social movements with such negative outcomes bar fascism and its manifestations. Sex has always been transactional. From immemorial times, from time immemorial, women have been trading sex for protection and provision. Taboo, you're not supposed to say that. But sex is a currency, it's coinage. Now, according to studies and interviews, women are swapping sex for free drinks. They're giving away sex for a place to crash when they are too hammered to return home. This extreme debasement, cheapening and commoditization of sex engenders a cognitive dissonance in women. They know that they are mistreating sex, that sex is potentially a hell of a lot more meaningful, more profound. They know they're doing something wrong and so modern women resolve this dissonance, this guilt and shame, only part of which is social. They resolve this dissonance by reframing the sordid proceedings in their unfortunate decision making process. They reframe it as a liberating choice. Yes, I'm giving my body away because I need a place to stay the night. But I'm doing it as a liberating choice. But women and men nowadays are in a pickle. Both women and men have decoupled sex from emotions and meaning. On average, men and women spend 15 years having casual, meaningless, emotionless sex. That's 15, 1, 5, well over one half of their lives by the time they're 30. This recurrent practice of meaningless, emotionless sex hardwires the association into their neuroplastic brains indelibly. If you keep having emotionless, meaningless sex for 15 years, finally all sex is going to be emotionless and meaningless and there's nothing you can do about it. You cannot reprogram your brain. It's too late. There are pathways there that are forever. When these men and women change their minds, when they suddenly, ardently want to transform their sexual practice, suddenly they want to have meaningful sex. They're dying to have sex with emotions. They no longer can. They don't know how. Even in committed, intimate and loving relationships, the sex today is mechanical, clinical, impersonal, abhazard, random, meaningless and emotionless. It's like sex has nothing to do with a relationship. It's an add-on, a plug-in, an activity, like watching Netflix, watching Netflix or walking the cat. It's a horrible realization. When young men and women are asked to link specific activities to intimacy, the majority under the age of 30, most frequently list talking. So when you ask them what activities for you signify intimacy, they say talking. Not one. Young men or women. Even mention sex. It's not on the list. They don't mention sex as part of intimacy or an indicator thereof. Consequently, as these men and women grow out of their casual sex days, they can't have sex in committed relationships. They devolve into celibacy, a sexless relationship or serial cheating to make up for the deficiency and loss. So this is the world we had created. And we had created this world because feminism is actually an offshoot, a malignant offshoot of libertarianism. As individualism has metamorphosized into narcissism, yes, malignant individualism today is another name for narcissism. The right to choose had come to be identified with freedom itself. But like everything else in our post-modern reality, freedom of choice had undergone several cancerous transformations. And I call this malignant libertarianism. And the best, the epitome of this, the quintessential example is feminism. For example, it is now used, malignant libertarianism. Freedom of choice is used as a way to reframe reality in order to resolve profound cognitive dissonances. And I mentioned before, it is my choice to be objectified and abused in hookup sex. Women are saying this. Can you believe this? I have read texts, feminist texts, where this is said with a straight face. It's an argument. Yes, I've been raped. Yes, I've been abused. Yes, I've been traumatized. Yes, I've been objectified. Yes, I've been humiliated. Yes, I've been dumped into the night after having served as a masturbatory aide. Yes, all these horrible dehumanizing things that happened to me, but they were my choice. I chose to have these experiences, so I'm liberated and emancipated and strong and resilient. Free choice is such a poison that it is now extended to self-harm. Self-harm. Hookup culture is self-harm. Women and men say I have a right to do with and to my body as I freely elect. I can destroy my body if I wish to. I can destroy myself if I wish to. Their websites teach you how to commit suicide and no one shuts them down because it's free choice. Yes, you guessed it. Most worryingly, the freedom to choose is now extended to justify harming others first time. A most recent example is the anti-vaxxer movement, but there are many other examples. The hookup culture is harming not only women, it's harming young men as well. By providing them with an environment where women and men are indistinguishable, where emotions are outlawed, or any sign of softness is disease catching feelings, it's called. Men are denied the opportunity, denied the opportunity to freely express their emotions, to delve into attachment and bonding and love and warmth. Ultimately, both men and women are the victims of feminism.