Was The Sexual Revolution A Mistake? | Claire Lehmann & Louise Perry | ARC Off-Stage Conversation
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
- "The denial of human nature and the denial of sex differences was motivated by this push to minimise any differences so that women could be equal with men in the economic sphere."
In a world where gender equality and career choices remain hotly debated, do biological differences between men and women inherently dictate professional success, or are our new societal norms the true barrier to achieving workplace parity?
In this episode of ARC Off-Stage, Claire Lehmann and Louise Perry tackle the contentious topic of gender differences in the workforce. They challenge the "blank slate" view of human nature, exploring the complexities of gender, biology, and professional outcomes. From the historical context of the sexual revolution to the persistent gender pay gap, these insightful women highlight the nuanced realities of men and women's experiences in various sectors.
Claire and Louise discuss whether biological predispositions influence career choices and performance, examining the impact of motherhood and the work-family life clash. They also scrutinise policies like those in Hungary that incentivise childbirth and consider their potential to
reshape gender dynamics. Join us for this thought-provoking exploration of gender roles, professional equity, and the future of workplace diversity.
---
Claire Lehmann is the founder and editor-in-chief of Quillette, an online publication renowned for its balance of art and science and a staunch advocate for free inquiry, free speech, and intellectual diversity.
Louise Perry is a journalist, author, podcast host, and director of The Other Half, a non-partisan feminist think tank based in London, UK. Her bestselling book The Case Against the Sexual Revolution was published in 2022.
Watch the full conversation on Louise's CZcams Channel, 'Mother Maiden Matriarch'
• Biological Denialism -...
---
Subscribe to our Channel to be the first to catch the next ARC off-stage conversation: / @arc_conference
GO DEEPER:
- ‘Who Cares? The Real Cost of Childcare’ - Louise Perry, Fiona Mackenzie, and Ellen
Pasternack
www.arcforum.com/research-pap...
---
We are delighted to announce that the next ARC Conference will take place between 17-19 February 2025! Subscribe to our mailing list for updates and follow us on social media as we explore the better story:
ARC Mailing List: www.arcforum.com/subscribe
X/Twitter - / arc_forum
Instagram - / arc_forum
Facebook - / alliance.for.responsib...
LinkedIn - / alliance-for-responsib...
---
ARC, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, is a global community with a vision of a world where every citizen can prosper, contribute, and flourish.
Join us in shaping this vision, as we draw on the best of our inheritance to build hope-filled future. Let's seek solutions to the problems we face that tap into humanity's highest virtues and remarkable capacity for innovation and ingenuity.
Learn more at www.arcforum.com
---
0:00 Introduction: Re-evaluating Human Nature, Gender Roles, and the Sexual Revolution
2:25 Rethinking the Gender Pay Gap: Motherhood, Psychological Differences, and
Industry-Specific Advantages
5:05 Addressing the Earnings Issue: Recognising and Compensating Women's Work in the
Home and Society
9:40 The Complexities of Love and Marriage: Balancing Career, Biology, and Personal
Fulfillment
19:05 Phones and Social Media: A New Challenge
22:05 Raising Kids in the Digital Age: Balancing Screen Time, Social Connections, and the Role
of Government Regulation
---
Thank you for watching this ARC Off-Stage Conversation! We would be honoured if you would join the growing ARC movement by subscribing here: www.arcforum.com/subscribe
---
0:00 Introduction: Re-evaluating Human Nature, Gender Roles, and the Sexual Revolution
2:25 Rethinking the Gender Pay Gap: Motherhood, Psychological Differences, and
Industry-Specific Advantages
5:05 Addressing the Earnings Issue: Recognizing and Compensating Women's Work in the
Home and Society
9:40 The Complexities of Love and Marriage: Balancing Career, Biology, and Personal
Fulfilment
19:05 Phones and Social Media: A New Challenge
22:05 Raising Kids in the Digital Age: Balancing Screen Time, Social Connections, and the Role
of Government Regulation
The idea of sexual compatibility being a reason to have sex with the person you're dating is actually a really weak argument. My husband and I were virgins when we got married. Doing it the "trad way" means we both have gotten to explore and learn about our sexuality together and thus have built compatibility with each other along the way. We are compatible in our values and goals in life and starting from there the physical aspects are relatively easy to sort out.
Likewise, "body count" for the sake of experience in the bedroom is also not as helpful as people assume it is. Yes, having more than one partner means you've "practiced" the actions more and could theoretically be better at the physical aspect of sex, but the flip side is that now your current partner may always be wondering in the back of their head whether you are thinking of, remembering, or comparing with someone else while you're being intimate with them
If one partner has a penis and the other has a vagina, there should not be any insurmountable issues of incompatibility.
Yeah, yeah that's the analogy I've been trying to properly articulate for years! Young couples *build their compatibility* by growing around each other until they are so intertwined that they become inseparable. That's exactly how it was with my late wife and me. Thanks for helping me with that, Mrs. Reese.
Also what one learns with one partner might not carry over to another partner.
If you collect a high body count you have to go through a process of learning and unlearning when you get married.
I'd rather just learn from being a virgin.
I think your last point is very relevant, could be extended to the man might be thinking if her previous partners had a bigger dick than him or the the woman might think did his previous partners have bigger ass, breasts etc.
@@Xairos84 "body count" is a revolting expression, partly because it reduces people to bodies, and partly because it comes from the realms of murder enquiries and so forth.
If you had a universal daycare then why would you reward the mother? The whole shape of our society is broken, relying on the state to this degree is what has called so many problems.
Perhaps. But I'm fairly convinced that early human societies would've helped one another out with childcare. And it's a relatively modern idea that the responsibility should fall solely to the nuclear family.
I'd argue that childcare is a good social investment if the parents have other valuable skills they could be making use of. And if it helps sustain the population with healthy, well-adjusted children.
Within limits though. Kids obviously need to spend a fair amount of time with their parents, especially when they're younger.
I think it would be fairer daycare if the mother returns to work, the payment to the mother if she does not.
@@andybrice2711 The nuclear family is a conception of the 20th century. Most of human existence has been in extended families. We in the WEIRD countries tend to forget that. Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic.
@@BartdeBoisblanc I don’t think that’s entirely true. I think most human social structures will always have had closer bonds between immediate relatives. Especially parents and children.
But yes. There is some truth to that.
@@andybrice2711I like to think about it in terms of liability and fallout. With extended families, if something goes wrong, then blame can be mitigated with an easier path to forgiveness (or justice) because "they're family"
I the case of state sponsored child care, the biggest fear would be accountability. It takes forever for an individual to hold the state accountable. Because of this many families would just distrust the system altogether.
I think the west will have another era of embracing extended families.
When I gave up my career to stay home and raise the kids, my wife was able to do the longer hours needed to be a business executive. The family flourished. I was a far better "mother" than she was, temperamentally.
My grandparents did the same thing and it absolutely worked for them.
Having been an early years teacher for nearly two decades, I can say it's a rare woman indeed who is in any way happy to leave her young child with us each morning. We have to get back to a place where one decent income provides for a family.
Is it positive or negative for the children, though? I think what we need to be asking is: At each stage of development, how much time does a child need to spend with their parents? And how much time is it healthy for them to spend with other carers? Because I'm fairly sure childcare is not a modern invention. People must've been sharing that responsibility since the beginning of human history. Even other animals do it.
It is very harmful for children under three. At this age most children do not understand time well so every day is a new abandonment. Indeed more severe abandonment then one single abandonment into foster care. Leaving young children in childcare results in permanent emotional developmental harm.
@@andybrice2711Ideally infants should not be separated from their parents at all. If they must be it is healthiest that they are left with a grandparent or an aunt, someone safe for the infant to make a life long bond with. If this is impossible a nanny could be an alternative.
@@andybrice2711 Traditional societies have a form of childcare which is provided by a grandparent or close relative, already well known to and trusted by the child, usually in the child's home or the grandparents home, close by. It is seldom for more than a few hours and is occasional, rather than daily. Children under four are seldom, if ever, left to others for care. Children over four or perhaps five, spend part of the day playing with neighboring or related children, under supervision of some or all of the children's parents. If the child's mother is not directly involved in this supervision, she is always close at hand and can intervene when needed, to cuddle and reassure the child. This is a very different model to modern child care.
The idea of leaving a child for eight hours or more a day, five days a week, with an unrelated stranger, who also cares for other unrelated children, would appall women of my mother's generation. With the best will in the world, a paid child minder can not provide the love and sense of security a child needs, especially if caring for more than one child. Abandoning your child to the care of one or more strangers, who change on a regular basis, is a very modern idea.
Reality check: There is now way you can get back to a place where one decent income provides for a family. This society has gone. Period.
Married at 22 right after graduating. Celebrating 23 years. We followed our Catholic morality on dating and marriage. Have beautiful sons too.
Married at 17, 37 years ago.
Good for you and keep on along this line.
Congrats.
I was 19 and husband was 24. We have 9 children so far. We have married for 14 years. Marriage and children were top priority for me in my teens.
Thanks for doing your part to combat the declining birth rate. 👍
I’ll pray you get out of poverty one day.
You can have either strong healthy families or a debt ridden dysfunctional govt. that is over involved in the family. We have the later today in the UK.
Not many babies getting born in the UK.
Did anyone else notice how awkward this was? Louise is old school. I’ve watched her videos; she wants to go back in time. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. She’s in favor of single sex education, Christianity, and motherhood. I actually lean this way, myself. She’s a British nationalist, and can sense her culture is getting weak, which of course impacts women. Low birth rates means mass immigration from the 3rd world. Britain’s largest cities are now Muslim majority. Louise knows this, and she knows why. She’s connected the dots. Claire, on the other hand, is living in a totally different world. Firstly, her primary attachment is Zionism, which, if anybody knows, means that Jewish people living overseas are mere travelers from Israel who happen to reside overseas. Claire is Australian, but the security of Israel comes first. Secondly, she is a character right out of sex and the city. She’s all about that. Sexual novelty in the 20’s, coupled with college, then marriage 3 -5 years after graduation, with a pre-selected professional from her cohort. This is actually the sexual norm at the present. In fact, my own family has followed this path. Millions do. But be careful with this: only a few make it. The coming decades will reveal this. Some women, strikingly few, succeed in this. Most fail, which means, mathematically, that most men fail, too. Historically, the human race never practiced sexual novelty in youth, then got married later. It’s an elite ethic, not an ethic that can easily be duplicated by the working class. Elites once held a sense of noblesse oblige, a duty to care for those less fortunate. Which is why the elites have to be very careful with this. At the present, marriage is wrecked for the working class. Let’s see where both Louise and Claire are in 20 years. My money is on Louise.
If low birth rates automatically meant immigration, Japan and South Korea?would be bringing in masses of magic dirt migrants.
That is very well said.
I love how legally women have whole bunch of advantages and benefits over men, without counterpart, and the conversation is about what new legal benefits women should receive to achieve """"""""equality""""""""
Do you really love that, or are you expecting others to hear your sarcasm through a text-only medium?
Women or mothers?
@@user-ym4xy6us5ehe really loves that.
Women can't see the obvious, especially when they always work to obtain more and more privileges at the expense of a supposed "patriarchy" that clearly benefits women more, and they don't care about throwing guys under the bus (no surprise, After all, not even guys care about being disposable)
Women can't see the obvious, especially when they always work to obtain more and more privileges at the expense of a supposed "patriarchy" that clearly benefits women more, and they don't care about throwing guys under the bus (no surprise, After all, not even guys care about being disposable)
Most people do not have a career. These upper-middle-class feminists trying to orient society around their own selfish desires and privileged lifestyles is laughable.
100 percent correct we are not ALL
Built to be upper management with Nannie’s s
Very sad 😢
Hello: I understand the point about giving women who children tax breaks. However, in Australia where I am, the majority of gender activists are absolutely rusted onto the idea that what is called "the gender pay gap" is caused by oppression and discrimination.
It's almost if some people feel that since men can't have kids, women shouldn't have kids either, that's equal.
Feminism become the Great Betrayer to all Humanity
100%
1000000 percent
This is the first time I've heard "personality traits" being spoken about in this context. And of course personality traits play a profound and powerful part in these matters. The early part of this video touches on previous videos by Jordan Peterson, without acknowledging it. JP himself is a personality type One on the Enneagram of Personality Types. This fact about JP colours everything he says, whereas as other types would have different, but equally valid, points of view. JP as yet to acknowledge he is a personality type One in this scheme but I have no doubt he is. I am a great admirer of the work of JP.
What a delightful, calm, intelligent conversation. We should have had quality conversations like this 40 years ago.
Another thing to keep in mind is that male doesn't always mean "good breadwinner" and female does not mean "good full time parent".
My wife can earn more than twice what I can and I have more patience with the kids than she does.
Yes, but generally women lose respect and sexual desire for men if they earn more than them.
Whoa. This sort of reasoned opinion is a rarity on YT. Thank you A.R.C.!
The greatest failing of all debates of this type is that an appropriate or ideal life is based on you being a productivity resource.
The presumption that you are only a cog in a business is deeply flawed.
Evaluate that proposition before you think to discuss these other issues which sit on top of that.
yea parents are mocked and ridiculed if they are not and then second class citizen despite having kids, family. very tough to cope without social status(that shouldnt rely on job at all). how backwards is that... even these wopmen likely constantly say how many books they write per year or how many public events they attend weekly to earn this status.
@@effexon I stopped counting remarks based on fallacies.
As a boomer with grandchildren, I believe families would be far better on these issues if children learned early, that they "will" be married and "will" have children. Then there's reduced confusion on making life choices, hopefully removing the 11hr recognition that life's important desires have passed them by.
(my wife and I met when we were 20 and married at 23, which I thought felt old)
Refreshing to hear logic based view on the differences vs idealism of the current narrative pushed by media and social networks
I keep on getting the sense people are rationally returning to what has been long known and maintained in religious circles, now that there is no denying the chaotic consequences of little to no standards.
While listening to this great and respectable conversation, I just can’t help wanting to scream, “read St. JPII’s book on Love and Responsibility!!!” It goes much deeper into the topics of love, sex, and monogamous marriage.
I can think of one way to further equalize the impact of parenthood on career path: Expect fathers to take more paternity leave. It seems to me that you can make strong case for fathers spending more time with their kids. From both a progressive and a conservative perspective.
The mothers of young infants don't like it, they possessive of young infants.
Finland do that already: both parents get 2 YEARS of parental leave.
@@Jamhael1 Two years! I think it's five months in my country.
@@grannyannie2948 yep - the Nordics know their stuff.
Also, having the best education in the world helps as well...
@@Jamhael1 True I've visited Finland
The pay gap measure has so many variables that it doesn't really tell anything except men vs. Women as a whole.... To try to control millions let alone billions is totalitarian and authoritarian. If someone wants to discuss it , bring up their own experience, as it's too ambiguous and variable.... Also its completely money based value system - a total reduction.
That'd be like men don't get nearly as much decision making power when it comes to home life.... It's probably true and even systemic... But to try to culturally coerce and come up with half baked solutions that will cost billions and polarize.
I'm not saying to shush up about it... But I am saying to any particular interlocutor, to go further and show more of what you mean... Often it's just bopped out willy nilly to shut down or tally pointless metrics... Like ; therefore men are oppresive or some other "systemic" blanket statement that is belligerent really.
Loud and clear, ladies.
We have a major data collection and statistical analysis problem, that will only get worse with AI. The generalities regarding average pay between men and women is disturbing. I appreciate these types of conversations, but you have to consider the impact of “matter of fact” statements that aren’t actual facts across the board. (Datasets and sample methodology with context matters.)
I have to laugh at some of these comments. This year I will celebrate 50 years of marriage. Our sexual compatibility has been something that has been developed over overtime with great love and patience. Raising my children was one of the greatest blessings in my life. One thing that seems to be left out is a spiritual foundation on which to build a compatible, strong relationship that bines you together through all of the trouble and the heartache and the good times.
Is this an interview or monologues by the host?
The equality of the sexes argument was a catastrophic category error from day 1. The sexes are not, and never have been equal. They are complementary. "Equality" is a value. Part of a value system, which leads, in the light of Humes dictum that an ought cannot be derived from an is, to the inevitable question; whose values?
Well this was disappointing. I never thought I would hear anyone on this channel encouraging premarital sex and discouraging getting married at a young age.
Claire’s father in law is Jewish, cosmopolitan and liberal. She wants this for people in western countries. But not Israel
Great conversation. The one issue I would have with the Hungarian suggestion is that there is never enough for feminists. The law is already weighted towards women in a number of areas related to families, my fear would be that the Hungarian tax benefits would be implemented and feminists (male and female) would be moaning about how disadvantaged women that can't or don't want children are. More women have to start pushing back against these radical types
We didn't give our son a phone until he was in high school. He is 16 now and barely uses it. He grew up without one so he doesn't see the point. He only has Instagram and that is so he can communicate with his girlfriend, who he's been with for 3 years now.
Who is gonna pay for all these tax breaks?!?!?!. Men I’m guessing
Also the idea of regalating children to be future worker ants, regardless of the true reality of it, really takes away the fact that traditionally woman an men wanted kids out of love, not to just raise and sacrifice their kids to capitalism, which no doubt many even oppose. Thats very totalitarian and disturbing. We already have benefits, wellfare and housing as a privilege, which comes at the expense of the economy and the workers who are already having a hard time surviving. Its our choice and responsibility to raise kids. Theres enough benefit frauds who will have kids just to secure a better life.
Women choose men based on their egotism and ability to earn resources. To then complain that men earn more than they do is to deny your own choices.
Right? I've listened to countless interviews with so-called modern women, most of which claim to also be feminists, and yet, they still expect men to pay on the first date and him being the bread winner. At the same time, they want women as an aggregate to earn as much as men as an aggregate. So how exactly is that supposed to work? 🙄
Always enjoy Louise’s perspectives & delighted she is producing baby number two.
Men and woman in Kenya are getting that choice, I'll say that as a kenyan, but once again woman in these country's won't ever value their job over the blessed and time constrained ability to have healthy family.
"I don't know... it just seems like... Yeah well... And we kinda just have to...." Man, this interview is as dull as dishwater. Gotta love Claire Lehmann and the other chick, but FFS, a good editor could cut this piece down to five minutes.
You are absolutely correct.
It's the same misandry attitude.
I love Louise Perry. This was my first exposure to Claire Lehmann and I was not impressed.
As a fellow Australian I can't stand Claire. She sold us out on jabs.
@@grannyannie2948 Another monomaniac. You people are like Brexit "Remoaners": you'll still be whining about people whose views on Covid did not align with yours when you're 90, if you get that far. Trump also fell in line with the establishment stance on Covid/vaccinations, but back then, who knew? and I'd still vote for him in a heartbeat if I were an American.
0:39 “I wouldn’t go so far as agreeing that the sexual revolution was a mistake…” Well, you lost me there, Claire.
She lost me in 30 seconds by stating Feminism had not been a (gigantic) mistake...
Can working class women have these conversations.
The facts that Louise mentions the pay gap shows her disingenuousness. I am glad Claire corrected her. Louise is a political animal not an honest actor.
Claire is a dreadful creature. I'll never forgive her over covid etc
Propaganda and state influence is rampant. Culturally and morally coercive... But then gaslighting and even listening to the authentic individual... Forced sincerity... It's a recipe for cognitive dissonance with no help from the source of the dissonance.... I already self censor and feel ashamed all the time from culturally coercive sources.... 🎉😂😮
Compensation for housework? Ok then, men conquered and protected the land, felled the trees, mined the rocks, cut them into shape, erected the building, repair and maintain it, including the yard. Men built and installed the appliances and generate the electricity to operate them. Men stand by as emergency services to save you from fire, disease, and attack. Start billing your wives, gentlemen. No more unpaid labor!
Or, we could forget about this absolute lunacy and go back to the old ways that worked for thousands of years. God > Jesus > man > woman > child > nature.
Women should spend the first five/ten years of adulthood seeking a husband.
Men should spend those same years building a career (building a nest that will attract a mate).
-
Women who are (trying to be) pregnant get "free" healthcare.
Children get "free" healthcare (kids shouldn't need to work 40 hours per week to see a doctor).
These two would drastically reduce the cost, and therefore hesitation, about having kids.
There could be a special tax status for homemakers (stay at home parents).
For six years after the birth of your last child or until you start claiming income.
During that time maybe the breadwinner of the family gets a tax credit representing the "lost income". Something like the equivalent minimum wage (min wage * 2000 per year).
Or your healthcare is "free".
States could also help by making products for mothers and babies free of sales tax.
If it was that easy why don't countries with free healthcare have higher birthrates.
Of course ordinary men have no success on the “dating market”. Any man who wants to have an interesting love life must appear interesting to the woman or women that he desires. Which means that men have no right to be ordinary. Ordinary is another word for mediocre, and women aren’t stupid: they’re just not interested in mediocre. There can be no cheating against this plain and simple fact.
No NWO
13:04 24 YO. Now you would be called an abuser.
100+ years ago, 24 YO was probably middle age.
12:03 But WHY has she not been touched for years?
Massive chicken and egg issues for every dead bedroom scenario.
Example, I don't know if a single married man of any duration who hasn't talked about some type bait-and-switch type scenario practically immediately with sex once he is under the legal systems Draconian purview.
A lot of it is totally unrealistic expectations on both people's part.
What is informative is this us even happening now in same sex marriage.
Good luck squaring all of THOSE circles.
@meganreese1486 Agreed! Also, most if not all sexual relationships have their ups and downs, so having previous partners has no predictive power over this particular relationship. The shallowness of "sexual compatibility" ignores the much more important factors of shared values, purposes, and love - hopefully construed in the deepest possible sense and not so dependent on physical attraction or 'compatibility' (whatever that is). Besides, compatibility is something that can be a result of a deep understanding of eachother's psychological and spiritual needs that manifests itself in how you love and make love to eachother, and that is not only maintained but developed over time if the couple is committed to that higher pursuit. That requires a commitment very different from the pass/fail judgement of compatibility/meeting physical needs (again, whatever that is).
Always gotta start these conversations defining men and women.
I will just have to assume you mean chromosomes here.
The problem that I dont see addressed is that yes chromosomes correlate very strongly with the things discussed.
But you can find counter examples... so its only a correlation, not garenteed.
Imo just because some catagories have statistical predictive power does not mean we should act as though they are real.
Knowing someone is black has statiatical predictive power to predict if they will do crime... yet I dont want to use the catagory of race.
Knowing someone is a man has predictive power in whether they should be a suspect in a violent crime you are investigating... yet I dont want to use the catagory of chromosomes.
Taking things with strong statistical backing but with outliers, and then using them as real is kinda a "the foundation cant be changed" mindset.
Why are you ignoring outliers? Why arent we talking about what causes these outliers?
I dont want to act as though blak people are doomed to always be more likely to commit crimes. I want to understand why so the foundation can be improved.
But thse conversations are had as if the foundation cant be improved.
Despite there being outliners that prove these correlations arent garenteed, and dispite the rate of the outliers seemingly changing over history.
Why are you talking as though the foundation is implite and garentees certain things when we can observe that this is not true.
One essential factor is too often overlooked as far as birth rates are concerned. Airlines the world over bear a great responsibility for the decline, and so does the railway company in the country where I live: Allowing them to travel among all the other passengers, rather than in dedicated family spaces, has done tremendous damage to the reputation of children.
Israel has no low birth rate issues compared to western nations. Ask yourself why with respect to culture, nationalism, family, … a people who feel safe and proud; who have not spent decades being wrecked by activism wrought by damaged people who bring no solutions for a hopeful future.
But we are making children social outcasts by allowing phones.
Lehmann sure was for all kinds of state intervention and deprivation of rights during the beer bug era
They act like they should get compensated for having sex.
I haven't watched it all yet, but I do believe that procreation must be encouraged. The birth rate is horrifically low and mass immigration is only a stopgap measure that dilutes and undermines our exceptional culture.
Wow thats a shallow and negative thought and generalization. I'm sure you have your reasons. My experience has been that men are more than willing and in fact usually instigate sex and it usually has to be as soon as possible for whatever reason problably just to see if she will and test her. 😅
You are a special kind of troll. Or an idiot.
I don't expect you to get a wife anytime soon.
Women struggle more with the stress of the workplace.
Louise Perry is the second coming of Phyllis Schafly, ie just another anti feminist, throwing out bogus nonsense and ignoring historical facts.
Choose STEM jobs or shut up.
Comment for traction
Women who have children should be given leave and directly given money by the state not just tax breaks. That additional tax burden should be borne by all as mothers are providing a critical service to society. That is the solution. Vilifying men and lying about the gender pay gap is not the solution. Even if the gender pay gap was closed it would not ensure that mother are given the support or money they need. The additional money would probably just to to single more disagreeable women.
"To have children is a public service". "The state should pay a salary to women raising children". okay Comrade.
Do you understand the existential threat that our rapidly declining birthrate presents?
lol immigration exists
Such a gross generalisation is off-putting.
People used to need food shelter and clothes now they need sex toys 😂😂😂