EP 133: The Case Against the Sexual Revolution

Get Your FREE Chapters in Audio format from The Mission Driven Life: Discover and Fulfill Your Unique Contribution to the World: https://www.themissiondrivenmom.com/

Audrey examines Louise Perry’s The Case Against the Sexual Revolution and challenges the cultural myth that the sexual revolution and modern feminism have been unqualified goods. Drawing on Perry, Leonard Sachs, Ludwig von Mises, and Alexis de Tocqueville, she argues that treating sex as a casual leisure activity and insisting that men and women are “the same” has largely benefited a small group of predatory men while deeply harming women, children, and families.

The episode highlights strong scientific evidence that men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and that equality does not mean sameness. When society tears down moral “fences” around sex—chastity, modesty, marriage, and clear gender norms—women lose protection, family life breaks down, and freedom itself erodes. Audrey contrasts today’s confusion with Tocqueville’s description of early American women: educated, virtuous, respected, protected, and vital to the nation’s strength.

Ultimately, Audrey calls mothers to push back against the lies of the sexual revolution, to teach their children to be ladies and gentlemen, to honor traditional sexual morals, and to defend marriage and family as the best system for taming male impulses, safeguarding women and children, and rebuilding a healthy, free society.

____________________

Transcript (AI Generated)

Welcome back to the podcast. I'm Audrey Rindlisbacher, author of The Mission-Driven Life, founder of The Mission-Driven Mom. Make sure and go to themissiondrivenmom.com and get your three free chapters of my book The Mission-Driven Life: Discover and Fulfill Your Unique Contribution to the World, because that will give you an overview of everything that we do here and how you can get started on your own mission-driven journey.

Today, we're going to spend a few minutes with The Case Against the Sexual Revolution and Louise Perry. It is kind of, in our culture, an undisputed fact that the sexual revolution and the feminist movement were 100% good—that they changed the world for the better, that women are so liberated and so much better off.

But lately, in the last two or three years, there have been quite a few books coming out by scholars and researchers and authors that are pushing back against that narrative. We are 60 years in—60, 70 years in—and now we have an opportunity to stand up and look around at the world that the sexual revolution and the feminist movement gave us.

And I am pushing back on that as well with these authors. My plan is, in the coming year, to talk to more of these authors, to write more about this, and to make some of these tools and ideas and truths available to all of us as mothers and women, because it is imperative that we understand all of the damage that the sexual revolution and the feminist movement did.

And, you know, you're just not allowed to say that in today's world. You're just not allowed to say that it wasn't all beautiful and perfect and roses from these movements. But it definitely was not. We are experiencing the damage done. So, we're going to touch on a few things today. I'll take you into this book and a few other books that I thought of today just to talk around this idea for a few minutes.

This book is, as you can guess, Louise Perry's research on some of the damage that the sexual revolution has done. Now, she starts out the book by talking about Marilyn Monroe and Hugh Hefner. And what you might not know is that they’re pretty intimately connected. Marilyn Monroe was at a point of desperation.

She was trying to be a model, and she went and had some nude photos done. She wasn’t paid very much money, and this photographer promised her that they wouldn’t be published—blah, blah, blah—all the lies that people say. And a few years later, when she had quite a bit more fame, Hugh Hefner decided that he was going to launch Playboy magazine, and he was going to launch it with a centerfold of Marilyn Monroe.

The man who had taken the photos of Marilyn promised her that she would barely be recognizable, but she’s definitely recognizable in the photos. And because she was famous by this point, it definitely launched Playboy, and it was successful from that point on. Now, if you know very much about Marilyn Monroe, you probably know that she had a very troubled childhood.

She spent some time in foster care. She didn’t really have a sense of self, and I don’t know at what point she was abused, but she was definitely abused by men. And then Louise says this: today’s female porn performers are far more likely than their peers to have been sexually abused as children, to have been in foster care, and to have been victims of domestic violence as adults.

All misfortunes Monroe suffered too. “When it all goes horribly wrong, as it usually does, the public labels these once-desired women crazy and moves on. There is never a reckoning with what sexual liberation does to those who follow its directives most obediently.” And I would say, if I had to give you in a nutshell what Louise Perry is saying in this book, it's something like this: even though there are a few things we might be able to thank the sexual revolution or the feminist movement for, there’s a lot of damage that has been done.

And it’s moved us away from meaningful sexual interactions. It’s moved us away from family relationships and bonds and commitments. And male predators have actually been the biggest winners. It’s actually women who have suffered at the hands of the small percentage of men who have a tendency toward violence.

So, I want to read you a few things that Louise says early on in the book in regard to these ideas. She says that she used to be quite liberal in her frame of reference, and she says about the book—this is really fascinating—she says, “The sexual revolution of the 1960s stuck, and its ideology is now the ideological sea we swim in, so normalized that we can hardly see it for what it is.” And so, she’s trying to bring to the surface fundamental ideas and assumptions from the sexual revolution and ask—ask ourselves—why is that not okay? How did that play out in the real world? Why was that a bad idea?

In fact, I’ll tell you really quickly before we dive into it, these are the chapter headings, which I think will compel you to maybe go out and get this book and read some of it for yourself:

Chapter 1: Sex Must Be Taken Seriously
Chapter 2: Men and Women Are Different
Chapter 3: Some Desires Are Bad
Chapter 4: Loveless Sex Is Not Empowering
Chapter 5: Consent Is Not Enough
Chapter 6: Violence Is Not Love
Chapter 7: People Are Not Products
Chapter 8: Marriage Is Good
Conclusion: Listen to Your Mother

And I am going to just float around some of the beginning chapters of this book and give you some other frame of reference from some other thinkers. I’m just going to give you some other quotes and ideas from other authors that I thought of while I was reading this and preparing this for you, just to give you some jumping-off places to start to think differently about the sexual revolution and where it has led us.

For many of you, you’re God-fearing, conservative women. You already think it’s a bunch of nonsense or it hasn’t done good things, but it’s often so difficult to communicate why—what it is that’s actually wrong, what it is that you’re actually upset about—and that’s what books like this can do for you.

Okay? So she goes into, “I used to follow this narrative and think it was a good idea. I used to be quite liberal,” and she says, to be upfront, this book is not an attempt to reckon with some of the changes from the sexual revolution. She says, “I want to avoid the accounts typically offered by liberals addicted to a narrative of progress and conservatives addicted to a narrative of decline.”

She wants to try to land somewhere in the middle, but with the understanding that she has now become far more conservative in her thinking, the more research she has done. She says, “I’m writing in a more deliberate and focused way against a liberal narrative of sexual liberation, which I think is not only wrong but also harmful.

“My complaint is focused more against liberals than against conservatives for a very personal reason: I used to believe the liberal narrative.” And then she goes on, “I held the same political views as most millennial urban graduates. In other words, I conformed to the beliefs of my class, including liberal feminist ideas about porn, BDSM, hookup culture, evolutionary psychology, sex trading, and so on.

“I let go of these beliefs because of my own life experiences, including a period immediately after university spent working at a rape crisis center.” She says, “If the old quip tells us that a conservative is just a liberal who has been mugged by reality, then I suppose, at least in my case, that a post-liberal feminist is just a liberal feminist.”

Okay? So that’s her position. That’s where she’s coming from, and I’m going to give you some fundamental ideas about what else she’s trying to do with this book. Now, one of the things that's happened in our culture—and in fact Jacques Barzun talks about this in his big, fat book on the history of the West—he talks about how there’s a handful of key ideas that we have glommed onto. We’ve made them our core values, and for 500 years since the 1500s, we’ve marched forward with those, and we get more and more eccentric, I guess, with these ideas, with these values over time. And we lean into them more and more and more, to the point of tilting in the other direction.

And one of the points that she makes is that freedom is only good when it’s balanced with other values and first principles. What’s happened with this ideology of sexual liberation is that it hasn’t been balanced with other values. She says, “In this book, I’m going to ask and seek to answer some questions about freedom that liberal feminism can’t or won’t answer.”

Here are some of the questions: Why do so many women desire a kind of sexual freedom that so obviously serves male interests? What if our bodies and minds aren’t as malleable as we might like to think? What do we lose when we prioritize freedom above all else? And above all, how should we act given all of this?

And her argument is that we aren’t as malleable as we think we are—that we’re hardwired in some very concrete and important ways that we’re ignoring.

One of the big ideas from the sexual revolution that is ruining people, ruining relationships, and ruining our culture is that sex is just a leisure activity. Just a leisure activity. That’s so important to understand, because when you pair that idea with the idea of unlimited, unbridled personal freedom, then you get what we’re experiencing today.

She says this suits the likes of Hefner very nicely, since playboys like him have a lot to gain from this new sexual culture. It is in their interest to push a particularly radical idea about sex that has come out of the sexual revolution and has proved remarkably influential despite its harms—that sex is nothing more than a leisure activity. That it’s not special, that it’s not unique, that it doesn’t mean anything, that we should be able to just engage in that activity and walk away with no emotions and no attachments and no baggage.

It’s a big fat lie, and it’s one of the reasons why sex has now become commoditized, and it is doing so much harm to so many people. In fact, she talks about how this led to the #MeToo movement, because men were given more and more access to women as women offered their bodies because they felt like they had to—because that was the new culture.

She says the story of the sexual revolution isn’t the story of women freed from the burdens of chastity and motherhood—although it is that. It is also a story of the triumph of the playboy, a figure who is too often both forgotten and forgiven despite his central role in this still-recent history. And she talks about how Marilyn Monroe died young and was shamed and all of the things, and then Hugh Hefner lived to a ripe old age in his wealth and didn’t pay nearly as big a price.

She goes on to say, “Everyone knows that sex is not the same thing as making coffee. And when an ideology of sexual disenchantment demands that we pretend otherwise, the result can be a distressing form of cognitive dissonance.”

So a big reason why this kind of thing is happening is our new idea about the equality of the sexes. And one of the things that a lot of really important philosophers and thinkers have tried to point out, but which hasn’t made it into the mainstream narrative, is simply this: equality is not sameness. We can be equal without being the same—without wearing the same clothes, doing the same jobs, thinking the same things, and especially not being the same sexually.

And there's a lot of evidence around that being the case. I pulled out this book Why Gender Matters. I thought I'd talk to you for just a minute about some of the things that Leonard Sax has to say. He’s an MD and a PhD. He’s absolutely brilliant, and he has written an older book and a newer book—Why Gender Matters. I’ve had both copies. They cover a little bit different things, both very good and valuable. But he has a few things to say about his story about why he got into this. It was because he was working with children, and parents kept being told to do gender-neutral parenting and to raise their children the same. And yet it wasn’t working, and they couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t working.

So here are a couple of the things that he has to say about how biologically different we really are. He says, “After waiting a few years for somebody else to write a book about girls and boys based on actual scientific research, I finally decided to write one myself. But I made myself a promise: every time I make any statement about how girls and boys are different, I also state the evidence on which my statement is based. Every statement I make about sex differences will be supported by good science published in peer-reviewed journals.” And he does that. He goes through all of these biological differences—so many. And the combination of those factors and other biological factors also leads to very different priorities and very different approaches and attitudes about sexual behavior as well.

He goes on: “There’s more at stake than the old question of nature versus nurture. The failure to recognize and respect sex differences in child development has done substantial harm over the past 30 years.” Such was his claim throughout this book. And this first one was written in 2005, and so it had been, you know, since the eighties. And his big focus is the damage that ignoring sex differences was doing in education—not the sexual act, but the genders, as we call them today. But the sexes, that we really are very different—that our gender does matter, that we need to be treated differently and educated differently and thought about differently.

And the mindset of, in terms of the sexual revolution—on what Louise Perry is talking about—the mindset that sex is just a leisure activity that doesn’t mean anything, and that everybody’s exactly the same and there are no differences. In fact, she goes back to Rousseau and other philosophers before him that talk about the socialization argument, that that’s really ingrained. And Leonard Sax says he was indoctrinated with that at school as well. He was taught the John Money story as evidence that the genders were the same and you could flip-flop them in childhood and they would come out okay. And of course, we know how that story played out with John Money and the boys and their later suicides and all of that nonsense.

So he goes on to talk about the first kind of key for him—hearing. The boys’ and girls’ hearing was very different. And he cites this study. It was a study done with newborn babies on the day they were born—102 of them. They were videotaped, and their eye motions were analyzed by researchers who didn’t know the sex of the baby.

The boy babies were much more interested in the mobile than in the young woman’s face. The girl babies were more likely to look at the face. The differences were large. The boys were twice as likely to prefer the mobile. The researchers concluded that they had proven “beyond reasonable doubt” that sex differences in social interest “are in part biological in origin.”

Surprise, surprise. There’s the anatomy of the eye, there’s the anatomy of the ear. There’s a lot of research around the brain and very large differences in the brain. We’re not talking about small differences between the sexes with lots of overlap. We’re talking about large differences between the sexes with no overlap at all.

In this particular case, he’s talking about the eye. Every male animal had a thicker retina than any female retina due to the males having more M cells. So then he says here, talking also about the eye, the P cells send information, the M cells send their information via different pathways, etc., etc.—a region that is specialized for analysis of spatial relationships and object motion. And guess what? Every step in each pathway from the retina to the cerebral cortex is different in females and males.

So it isn’t just that they have more of this or that. Every single step of the way—just in analyzing the eye—it’s different. It’s different with smell, it’s different with speaking, with language that’s used, when it’s used, how it’s developed. And even in adults we know there are large differences between communication styles and emotional awareness and all these kinds of things that are just incredibly hardwired.

And so a big part of what Louise Perry is saying here is that we have to get honest about the fact that men and women are very different. And because they're different, their mindsets, their approaches, their attitudes about sex are different. And what’s happening with our current attitude is that the men are winning.

The men are getting more of what they want, and the women are the biggest losers. The women want intimacy. They want connection. They want commitment. And they want families—as they always have. And the sexual revolution has given them far less of any of that. And some women have been so indoctrinated that they think that maybe they don’t want that, and then they realize later in life that they do, and then it feels like it’s too late or they’ve missed out, etc., etc.

I have a book somewhere around here called What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us, and she makes the same case as well—that she was indoctrinated with the feminist movement ideological tenets and concepts. And she and other women her age realized too late that they actually wanted what was taken from them through the feminist movement.

She says the blank-slate view—that socialization is everything, that all that matters is what society tells us, that we’re only playing roles as this Judith Butler idea, that it’s all… what’s the word she uses… like it’s all play-acting. We’re all just taking on the identity of a gender and playing it out. None of its innate. None of it is biological. And so because that’s the case, we can flip-flop between without much interruption or struggle, and society should just adapt to that, and none of this other stuff matters.

And she says the blank-slate view gives ultimate authority to society in molding the human character for good or ill. But the truth is many things are very baked in, and we know this to be the case from science. And this is what I think really frustrates me the most—that those who claim to be so analytical and scientifically based throw out the science. They pretend like science is supporting them in these new worldviews and ideologies, and it’s just not.

It’s just a different belief system. It’s just a different worldview, which we talk a lot about in the Academy. It’s just a different belief system. And the mindset that we’re completely the same, that sex is just a leisure activity and has no meaning and no emotional or psychological consequences, has basically opened the door to men who don’t want to and aren’t willing to suppress their impulses. That’s really the consequence that we’re looking at in today’s world.

Perry says there is a more credible way of understanding the world, but it is one that offers much less scope for human perfectibility, and so it’s much less appealing to utopians. So people that are—and this of course reminded me of A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell and the whole concept that we see the world broadly through one of these two lenses.

One is that it’s all socialization and we can perfect the human race, and this is kind of the post-humanist movement. And then the other one says we’re hardwired, there are some things we can’t change, we should go with many of the traditions and things that have gone on before because they work for the human race.

Now, you don’t have to have a certain God frame of reference for either of those. Louise Perry talks a lot about evolution. Sounds like that’s her frame of reference, but of course I believe a lot of what she’s saying. One of the people that I thought about when I was thinking about all of these concepts was Ludwig von Mises, who is one of the founders of the Austrian School of Economics. That’s his Human Action book, which is basically an approach to economics that says we’re going to look at human behavior instead of numbers to start, because human behavior is actually what creates an economy, and it’s organic and it grows up on its own. And if we understand laws of human action—we talk a lot here at The Mission Driven Mom about laws of human behavior, laws of nature, the ideal way of being, the first principles we should follow.

Mises talks about the laws of human action—the way people do behave, the way they make decisions. Also really, really helpful. We get into that in Level 3. The point is, one of the things that Perry goes on to say as she gets into the next chapter—and I want to find this section to read to you—she says she first came across a book called A Natural History of Rape by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, who had done extensive research to try to explain rape from an evolutionary perspective. And she said, “When I first came across the book, I read it compulsively all in one sitting and was left by the end feeling both disconsolate and oddly satisfied.

“I was working at the time in a rape crisis center. My job was to work one-on-one with women and girls who had been raped, but I also had a teaching role, training volunteers for our helpline and going into schools to teach consent workshops. The ideology that I was expected to teach lent heavily on a very particular academic model of rape, and over time I had developed doubts about the model.”

So again, she has this really unique history with the kinds of things that she’s done and the kinds of spaces that she’s been in. And basically, the idea that she was taught and that she was supposed to teach at this rape crisis center was Susan Brownmiller’s book Against Our Will—the claim that rape has historically more often been conceptualized as a property crime committed against a woman’s male kin rather than a crime committed against the woman herself. Basically, the idea that we have to end the patriarchy and then rape will go away. And she goes on to combat that, to give a bunch of studies to basically show that almost all sex crime is male, that almost all pornography consumption is male, that they have a different sex drive, that they have different sexual tastes, and that they are the ones who are driving those things in the culture—again, like the Hugh Hefner example of the playboy who gets his way.

And the problem is that we’ve brought down the guardrails, and so at this point the only guardrail that we have in our culture is a man’s self-discipline. If he really wants to take advantage of a woman, then he just can, unless he stops himself. And so the only thing between him and this woman getting in trouble are him controlling himself, and that’s just not a good way to go.

Of course, she quotes Chesterton’s fence, which I think I’ve quoted on this podcast before, which is the basic idea that if you’re going down a country road and you come across a fence and you want to get through to the other side of the road because you like the countryside and you want to keep going, then you shouldn’t just dismantle the fence and drive on. You should stop long enough to ask yourself why the fence is there. And once you understand why the fence is there, and it’s a reason that’s no longer needed, then you can dismantle the fence. And this argument is used a lot when conservatives especially are combating progressive ideas, to say: stop and ask, why are the guardrails there?

Why is the fence there? Why do we have all this shame around premarital sex? Why are we discouraging people from getting into bed anytime they want? Why are we pretending like that’s okay? And let’s find out why the fence is there, why those guardrails are there. And one of the things that we said was, “Oh, the guardrails are only there because women can get pregnant.”

And with that lead idea, we just proceeded to take down the fence and drive into the utopia of perfect sexual fulfillment for everyone. And actually that’s not what’s happening. You know, all of these kinds of violent sexual crime are way up, and porn use is way up, and men are having a lot of negative consequences with that, and it’s affecting all sorts of marriages.

And marriage is down, and pregnancy is down, and birth rates are down, and yet 40% of children are born out of wedlock. And there’s only 20% of families where there’s a mother and a father and their biological children still in the home. And so there’s all this damage done culturally, and it’s breaking down the fabric of our society because we thought the only guardrail that matters is that women get pregnant.

And then when we gave them the pill, there were more unwanted pregnancies because everybody decided that was going to save them. And so they just engaged in all this behavior, and then we had to have laws to legalize abortion so that we could get rid of those unwanted pregnancies. And then came the dissolution of the family and marriage and all those consequences that are now doing so much damage to so many people, because we started on the premise of these lies about what sex is, what matters about it, and why the guardrails are there.

She says, “We see this play out in male and female sexual behavior. The research is clear. We know that men, on average, prefer to have more sex and with a larger number of partners, that sex buyers are almost exclusively male, that men watch a lot more porn than women do, and that the vast majority of women, if given the option, prefer a committed relationship to casual sex.

“Sexual fetishes are also much more commonly found in men than in women, and although the cause of this difference is not well understood, men’s greater average sociosexuality seems to be a factor. All in all, the evidence demonstrates that the acts that have become much more socially acceptable over the last 60 years are acts that men are much more likely to enjoy. It is a good time to be a fetishist, a sex buyer, porn user, playboy. It is the highly sociosexual who have done best out of sexual liberalism, and these people are overwhelmingly male.” She even talks about, in almost all sexual crimes, if the woman is involved, she almost always has a male partner—that she’s assisting a male that’s engaging in that act.

Now, I’m going to do something that’s going to be super socially unacceptable, something that people aren’t going to like. Well, let me do this first—I want to read you what Mises says about this whole idea, because she goes back to, “Well, let’s look at animals. Let’s see how animals behave,” and all that kind of stuff. But I don’t love that argument because we do see animals acting in ways that humans shouldn’t act. We are higher than the animals. We are better than the animals, and we shouldn’t be acting as the animals, even though as a very baseline maybe we compare and say we’re doing worse than the animals, but we have the potential to be better than, and even worse than, animals.

So this is what Mises says. He’s talking about human behavior, about mankind, about human action and human action principles—how we make the choices that we make, and then ultimately how those actions drive an economy. But just in terms of those fundamental first principles that guide us, I love what Mises says here.

“He who acts under an emotional impulse also acts. What distinguishes an emotional action from other actions is the valuation of input and output. Emotions disarrange valuations. Inflamed with passion, man sees the goal as more desirable and the price he has to pay for it as less burdensome than he would in cool deliberation. Men have never doubted that even in the state of emotion means and ends are pondered, and that it is possible to influence the outcome of this deliberation by rendering more costly the yielding to the passionate impulse. To punish criminal offenses committed in a state of emotional excitement or intoxication more mildly than other offenses is tantamount to encouraging such excesses.”

So the first point that he’s making is that when we get highly emotional and we act out in that state, we are less self-governed, and we make worse choices that have worse consequences, and that from a criminal standpoint, in our judicial systems and our penal systems, if we give lighter sentences to people who did it because they were emotional, we’re encouraging people to be emotional and make decisions emotionally.

He says, “We interpret animal behavior on the assumption that the animal yields to the impulse which prevails at the moment. As we observe that the animal feeds, cohabits and attacks other animals or men, we speak of its instincts of nourishment, of reproduction and of aggression. We assume that such instincts are innate and pre-emptively ask for satisfaction.”

So in other words, we have human beings, and they act on emotion, and that makes their actions less valuable for them and others. It makes them worse in every way. And if we compare our behavior to animals, we make exceptions for them because they have impulses, and we say, “Oh, well, that was their impulse. They had to do that.” And then this conclusion:

“But it is different with man”—or mankind or humankind. “Man is not a being who cannot help yielding to the impulse that most urgently asks for satisfaction. Man is a being capable of subduing his instincts, emotions and impulses. He can rationalize his behavior. He renounces the satisfaction of a burning impulse in order to satisfy other desires. He is not a puppet of his appetites.”

So even though we do sometimes make rash decisions based on passion, we don’t have to. We are above the animals because we have reason and logic and self-control. We don’t have to act according to our impulses. We can stop and think, and we can decide what’s best for us and for others and choose those things instead. “A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses.” And yet more men ravish females that stir their senses than they used to, because we keep bringing the guardrails down, because our society tells women that they should want to have casual sex, that it will be enjoyable for them, that they should participate in it to get a man’s attention, that they have to do it to compete for the men that they would want to marry, that they have to give men what they want in order to try to get them to make a commitment so that eventually they can have marriage and family.

This does not mean women don’t have sexual impulses. It doesn’t mean that they don’t desire men, and it doesn’t mean sometimes that they don’t act rashly. But we know statistically, without a doubt, that even in the moment they often are second-guessing themselves, don’t want to continue with the action, and have way more regrets than men do when they engage in that behavior. It just isn’t how they’re made, and it’s not satisfying for them, and it degrades them. It hurts their confidence, destroys relationships—especially their relationship with themself.

So then he goes on: “He does not devour every piece of food that entices him. He does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill. He arranges his wishes and desires into a scale. He chooses. In short, he acts. What distinguishes man from beast is precisely that he adjusts his behavior deliberately. Man is the being that has inhibitions, that can master his impulses and desires, that has the power to suppress instinctive desires and impulses.”

So when you take a society and you say, “All the guardrails are down. Do whatever you want. Take this pill. If it doesn’t work, go get this abortion and you’ll be fine. You’ll be fine socially, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually—everything will be fine,” and that’s not what we find. It’s not what’s happening at all. And so clearly that’s not what can work.

Now, one of the things she talks about in chapter three is that some desires are bad. Obviously. But when, again, you strip it from its moral context, you take God out of the picture, you don’t have societal mores and structures and guardrails, then what is right and wrong in that instance?

And you can make almost anything right. You can justify almost anything in your mind. And one of the things that I wrote down about that whole thing is that the reason why unbridled sexual behavior is so damaging to society—aside from the millions of things that I’ve already mentioned and all the things that you can think of—is this simple truth.

And that is that society is made up of individuals, and individuals are harmed when they do something immoral, even when they do it alone, even when they do it with no one looking, even when no one ever finds out about it. Their character is damaged. They aren’t as confident, they aren’t as faithful, they aren’t as trustworthy, they aren’t as generous or kind, or all the things that you might want to say about someone who’s ignoring their conscience and engaging in behaviors.

Or even if their conscience is deadened and they think it’s okay, it’s not okay because it damages them. And when individuals are harmed through their own lack of self-control and deviation from their conscience or from truth—whether or not they know that truth—society is harmed, because society is nothing more than a collection of individuals and families.

And when individuals are damaged and families are damaged, society is damaged. And so this is why we have to push back on the sexual revolution. This is why we have to tell ourselves and other people more of the truth. And I am going to do something—I mentioned this a little bit earlier—I’m going to do something that’s going to sound socially unacceptable.

And that is, I’m going to pull out my Tocqueville. Okay. This is Democracy in America. This is Alexis de Tocqueville. He was French. He came to America to study the penal system in the early to mid-1800s. He went home, he wrote this big fat book, Democracy in America. France is in trouble. They’ve just come off their revolution and their time with the little guy that was in charge, Napoleon. And now they’re trying to remake their civilization. And Tocqueville is like, okay, well, what’s it like in America? How’s this democracy experiment working out?

And he goes through and catalogs—I mean, he is here for, I think, two years. He goes all over the country, he goes out in the sticks, he talks to people in their cabins. He gets a really good sense of what people are like in America, of what the culture is like, of how they interact and all of that kind of stuff. And he’s mostly praising. He’s also contrasting: this is how they do it in America, this is how we do it in France. And there’s this little section where he talks about women and the role of women in—now, this isn’t to do with slavery, this isn’t to do with Native Americans.

He’s talking about the Europeans that came to America that were leading in the society and how they’re interacting—the colonial people, just the average citizen in America. And I’m not going to speak to the fact that yes, minorities were taken way more advantage of and that needed to be handled and all that kind of stuff.

I’m just going to talk to what Tocqueville says, which I think may surprise you about how women were treated in America, because one of the points that Perry makes—and in fact, I’ll give you this.

Okay, so one of the points that she makes early on, which is also part of this whole discussion about what’s gone wrong in the sexual revolution, is that what the culture does is it demonizes the past in order to justify the present. She says, “Within living memory, we have witnessed a very sudden break with the norms of the past, and the necessity of this break is constantly justified in the liberal media through reference to the bad old days.” This kind of present-criticism is parodied beautifully in a 2020 TV adaptation of Huxley’s Brave New World, in which the Savage Lands—more like an Indian reservation in the novel—are reimagined as a theme park devoted to a 21st-century American decline.

Okay, so she goes on talking about how they talk about these Savage Lands, blah, blah, blah. And then she says, “This regime encourages the citizens of New London”—this is in the book—“to visit the Savage Land theme park because demonizing the past serves to justify the status quo. Highlighting the evils of the past also serves to distract from the evils of the present.”

So what we’ve done in our modern culture, in order to push this feminist movement and sexual revolution forward, is that there’s been this narrative that everything in the past was awful, nothing good was going on, and everything is so much better now. But what I’m going to read to you right now from Tocqueville points out the fact that it wasn’t all worse in the past and better in the present.

Okay, so this was originally published—1840. So that’s kind of the timeframe that we’re looking at. So he’s talking about women, and he came from France, and so he’s like, wow, things are so different in America in terms of how they treat their women.

So first of all, he talks about how it’s his opinion—and not just his, but a lot of other philosophers have said—that women really are the moral anchor in a family and in a civilization, and that in America, in this time, women were really that for their society, that they got a better education than pretty much anywhere in the world because most women were taught to read, which was just not even happening anywhere else.

He says, “Long before an American girl arrives at the marriageable age, her emancipation from maternal control begins. She has scarcely ceased to be a child when she already thinks for herself, speaks with freedom and acts on her own impulse. The great scene of the world is constantly open to her view; far from seeking to conceal it from her, it is every day disclosed more completely, and she is taught to survey it with firm and calm gaze. Thus, the vices and dangers of society are early revealed to her, and she sees them clearly. She views them without illusion and braves them without fear, for she is full of reliance on her own strength, and her confidence seems to be shared by all around her.” And he kind of beats that drum.

He talks often about how the women in America are incredibly educated and courageous. They’re trusted and respected by the men in their culture. He says, “As they could not prevent her virtue from being exposed to frequent danger, they determined that she should know how best to defend it, and more reliance was placed on the free vigor of her will than on safeguards which had been shaken or overthrown. Instead, then, of inculcating mistrust of herself, they constantly seek to enhance her confidence in her own strength of character. Far from hiding the corruptions of the world from her, they prefer that she should see them at once and train herself to shun them.”

This is just very different than what’s going on in France, where there’s all this overprotection of women. “Although the Americans are a very religious people, they do not rely on religion alone to defend the virtue of women; they seek to arm her reason also. In this respect, they have followed the same method as in several others. They first make vigorous efforts to cause individual independence to control itself, and they do not call in the aid of religion until they have reached the utmost limit of human strength.”

This is something—if you’ve read the Little House books, I can’t remember which one it’s in, maybe Little Town on the Prairie. There’s a Fourth of July celebration, and Laura Ingalls goes into town and hears the Declaration of Independence read, and it mingles in her mind. And she comes to understand at 14 or 15 or 16 years old, however old she was, that pretty soon she would be an adult, and no one was going to tell her what to do, that her parents were already letting go and letting her make her own choices.

And she says, “I’m going to have to basically make myself mind myself. I’m going to have to be a woman of virtue and self-discipline if I want to be free and have a happy life.” And she says specifically that virtue and freedom are so intimately connected, and you cannot have freedom unless you have self-discipline. They are two sides of the same coin. And that’s one of the reasons why private and public duty were so talked about in that day. It’s one of the reasons why there’s a breakdown socially in our day, because we think that unbridled freedom is what makes us free. It’s the same with the sexual revolution.

It’s just this fundamental principle that freedom must be disciplined. I love—one of my very favorite quotes is by Mortimer Adler, and he says, “Liberal education frees our minds by disciplining them.” And so this is why the sexual revolution isn’t working. Because we are not disciplining ourselves.

We have decided that anything goes, and we keep making more and more things legal. And what that has meant is that sexual acts have become a commodity, because people think they own their own body and what they do with their body doesn’t matter. And then they destroy their body, or they harm their body and their character with their behavior.

And that demeans our society overall, because every individual matters, and every individual character is part of the fabric of the cultural character. It also means that we’re telling ourselves that in this realm, as in others, we don’t have to have discipline, which is so fascinating to me, because we’ll still talk about how much discipline we should have as parents, or how much discipline we should have in professional sports, or how much discipline we should have in whatever area of life.

And we just keep wanting to take shortcuts, like all the people that are on pills, you know, to shortcut whatever thing they want to have happen in their life, instead of adhering to the principles of that thing in order to get what they want in the more permanent fix—the fix that gives them what they want while it builds their character.

So it’s, he says here, “I am aware that an education of this kind is not without danger. I’m sensible that it tends to invigorate the judgment at the expense of the imagination, and to make cold and virtuous women instead of affectionate wives and agreeable companions to man. Society may be more tranquil and better regulated, but domestic life has fewer charms. These, however, are secondary evils which may be braved for the sake of higher interests. At the stage at which we have now arrived, the choice is no longer left to us.” A democratic education—and this is an education for freedom. This is what we would call a classical liberal education, the traditional education that we used to have that has been stolen from us, that many of you moms that are listening have never had the opportunity to have.

And it is what made these women of the past so disciplined and virtuous and the upholders. Anyway. “Democratic education is indispensable to protect a woman from the dangers with which democratic institutions and manners surround them.”

So as freedom is increased, women need to be more and more virtuous. Okay, so then he goes on, talking about women in different ways, about how courageous they are.

And then he has a few things to say like this: “Although the travelers who have visited North America differ on many points, they all agree in remarking that morals are far more strict there than elsewhere. It is evident that on this point, the Americans are very superior to their progenitors, the English.”

So this morality undergirds the civilization. It makes for the incredible freedom, and if you go back and look at records, you can see that it corresponds with other elements of growth and success.

Okay, now I’m going to talk for just one minute before we finish up about how all of this plays into, going back to the beginning, about equality of the sexes. Because what we’ve done is try to eradicate self-discipline, eradicate virtue, pretend like personal character doesn’t matter, pretend like everything—like it’s not the case that every action we take is building the kind of person we’re becoming and that that doesn’t matter at all.

All of those things matter. And also that we’re different. We can be equal but different. And what we’re doing in our society—what the feminist movement has done, what the sexual revolution is doing—is trying to create equal and same. And what we had earlier in America was equal but different. And although that meant certain consequences for certain people, certain limitations of what they could do, they had incredible autonomy.

Basically what you find in earlier civilizations and in earlier America is almost complete autonomy in the private realm for women, where they ran the private sector almost without men interrupting or butting into their business. They ran the charities, they ran the bazaars, they helped give birth to the babies and put on the weddings, and they did a lot of educating at home.

They did a lot of the charitable work and the giving and all of that because they didn’t have to worry about the public sector, because the men ran the public sector. And I can see why women would want to be more involved in the public sector and why they would want to have more freedom in that way, be able to vote and whatnot. And I’m not saying that that is a bad thing. I’m just saying, let’s stop pretending like everything today is peachy keen and everything in the past was terrible. So I’m going to read you a couple things as we finish up here.

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They would give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties and grant to both the same rights. They would mix them in all things—their occupations, their pleasures, their business.” And isn’t that where we’ve arrived? Isn’t that what’s happening? Aren’t we trying to be equal and same? I mean, didn’t the feminist movement tell us that we should dress like men and act like men—even sexually—that we should do what they do and go where they go and be in the same positions that they’re in, and that every time something like that happens, we call it a triumph?

While, in the meantime, fewer and fewer babies are being born to a two-parent family and being cared for full-time by their mother. And that’s not always possible, and I’m not blaming anybody or calling anybody out. I’m just saying society is suffering by some of these changes. And so we have to be careful in how we talk about the past and how we talk about the present and the kind of solutions that we think we want. He goes on, “It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded.” Men don’t know who they are. Women don’t know who they are. We can’t even define what a woman is because we’ve made them the same. He says, “And from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.”

Now he goes on to talk about how men and women have very strict divisions of labor, more so than a lot of other places. He says, “There are two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes and to make them keep pace with one another, but in two pathways that are always different. American women never manage the outward concerns of the family, or conduct a business, or take part in political life; nor are they, on the other hand, ever compelled to perform the rough labor of the fields or to make any of those laborious efforts which demand the exertion of physical strength. And no families are so poor as to form an exception to this rule.”

So even though there are limitations on the kinds of things women can do, they also are never forced to do any particular thing, especially anything that is a man’s role. And they also have complete freedom within the realm in which they’re stationed. They contribute economically to the family, they run the family, and they have a lot of autonomy. And he says, a lot of people look at this and they’re like, “Oh, isn’t that too bad?” And he says, “I never observed that the women of America consider conjugal authority as a fortunate usurpation of their rights, or that they thought themselves degraded by submitting to it.”

So his experience in America was that women felt respected. They felt loved. They felt taken care of as a general rule. They enjoyed the role that they held in the home and in the family, and they were happy to submit to good men who took good care of them. And what you find today—and this isn’t popular to say—is that a lot of women want to be stay-at-home moms, and a lot of women want to be taken care of.

There’s this new trend—in fact, someone was telling me that members of my family are engaging in this new trend of “stay-at-home girlfriend.” They also have the “trad wives.” All these kinds of things are looping back. So now he’s going to compare it to France. “It’s often been remarked that in Europe a certain degree of contempt lurks even in the flattery which men lavish upon women. Although a European frequently affects to be a slave of women”—so in France and in Europe, men will pretend like they worship women and they think women are all of that and they’re incredible—“but it may be seen that he never sincerely thinks her his equal.”

Now again, you have to take time periods, where they’re at in so many ways. In America in 1840, we were way ahead of the curve. Women were treated with way more respect, with way more equality, given way more education, way more frame in which to work and have autonomy than many, if not all, other places in the world. He says, “In the United States, men seldom compliment women”—so they don’t do this thing like in France where they’re always talking about how gorgeous they are and being flirty—“but they daily show how much they esteem them. They constantly display an entire confidence in the understanding of a wife and a profound respect for her freedom. They have decided that her mind is just as fitted as that of a man to discover the plain truth and her heart as firm to embrace it; and they have never sought to place her virtue, any more than his, under the shelter of prejudice, ignorance or fear.

“Americans rarely lavish women with these eager attentions which are commonly paid them in Europe, but their conduct to women always implies that they suppose them to be virtuous and refined. Such is the respect entertained for the moral freedom of the sex that, in the presence of a woman, the most guarded language is used, lest her ear should be offended by an expression.”

So they honor and respect her virtue. They watch their tongues. They’re careful in their behavior. They treat her with incredible respect, but they listen to her. They care about her opinion. They take it into consideration, and they give her freedom and autonomy in her role.

And then it says, “The legislators of the United States, who have mitigated almost all the penalties of criminal law, still make rape a capital offense, and no crime is visited with more inexorable severity by public opinion.

“They consider nothing more precious than a woman’s honor and nothing which ought so much to be respected as her independence. They hold that no punishment is too severe for a man who deprives her of them against her will.”

So if you committed rape, you were killed. And we don’t even have those strict of laws today. So we’ve loosened up our laws. We’ve made it harder and harder to convict, because there’s more and more sexual acts being committed, and even sometimes the women aren’t sure if they were consenting. And consenting is not the way to have a guardrail around sexual behavior. It just doesn’t work. And Louise Perry goes into why that’s the case.

It says, “Thus, the Americans do not think that men and women have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both in their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as beings of equal value.”

So there was good stuff going on. His impression and experience in America was that, as a general rule, women were content with their role. They felt educated, intelligent, respected, loved and honored in their role, and their virtue was protected—and physically as well. And then he says, “Thus then, while they have allowed the social inferiority of women to continue”—in other words, she doesn’t have a lot of authority in the public space, she can’t hold public office—“they have done all they could to raise her morally and intellectually to the level of man; and in this respect, they appear to me to have excellently understood the true principle of democratic improvement.” And then he goes on to finish, “I have nowhere…”—and this is so important—and, in fact, before I finish that out, I want to tell you a couple things about this other book by Leonard Sax.

One of the things that’s really fascinating that he goes into is bullying in this other book, and he’s talking about the difference between boys and girls and the difference in how they bully. And then he talks about how he has worked with over 400 schools. Let me see—I think he says he has worked with over 400 schools on this area of bullying and this issue, and how to handle it. And he says, “Sexual harassment is a form of bullying, but the motivation is different. The most common form of sexual harassment is a boy harassing a girl who has rejected his advances. To my observation, at more than 400 schools, the schools that are most effective in preventing sexual harassment are those that teach girls and boys to be ladies and gentlemen. A gentleman does not harass a lady, and a lady will not tolerate harassment.”

So they build up character. They inculcate the children with virtue and confidence, and that solves the problem more than posters or awareness or trainings or shamings or punishments. It’s by elevating those boys and girls, by lifting them to a higher plane and helping them understand that they can be more noble, they can be better, they can be more self-disciplined, they can rein in their passions. And so that leveling up of their character stops the problem. He goes on to say, “Gender is more fragile than we knew, though perhaps we should have known better. Most cultures have taken great care in teaching gender norms. We no longer do. On the contrary”—and contrast this with what I just said was going on in America almost 200 years ago—“on the contrary, our learned professors now actively deconstruct and tear down every gender guidepost in the name of individual liberty,” which is what I’ve said throughout this podcast: that we think that it’s unbridled freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with no self-discipline.

And that is not true. When you lose self-discipline, you lose freedom. Period. Personal liberty: you lose discipline, you become an addict. You’re not free when you’re an addict. So then he goes on, “When you tear down every gender guidepost in the name of individual liberty with no awareness of the costs, we need to be careful about the norms we teach. Of course, we don’t want to perpetuate stereotypes like the dumb jock or the dumb blonde. We need to create new ideals of manhood and womanhood that make sense in the 21st century.”

We still need women that are women. We need to explore what femininity means, why women want to be protected and cared for, why they still want to have families and children, what it is in our makeup—whether you defer to a God-creation story or an evolution story, it still comes down to the same hard wiring—and we need to be honest about why, like Chesterton’s fence, those guardrails have been up in society for centuries and centuries, and why they’ve worked. He goes on, “Personhood won’t fly. Boys don’t want to be persons. Neither do girls. Boys want to be men. Girls want to be women. We have to teach them what that means.”

And so you teach them to be ladies and gentlemen. They rein themselves in. They have greater discipline, which creates greater freedom, and then everyone in the school respects each other more. And so I’m not saying that the guardrails and the male–female roles in 1840 America were perfect, and I’m not saying there wasn’t room for improvement, but I’m saying there were clear lines and clear divisions. It was very clear what you did to be a man and very clear what you did to be a woman. And women were protected.

They were safe. He talks about how a young woman could go on a long trip alone and be safe. You can’t even do that now. It was safer for young women in America in 1840 because of the laws, because of the self-discipline, because of the culture, because of the protection of virtue. And now women are—the MeToo movement, I mean, just look around—they’re getting violated all the time because they’ve been fed a bunch of lies about who they are, about everybody being the same, about unbridled passions and sexual behaviors.

So I’m going to read you two last things really quickly as we finish up. This first one is at the end of the book by Louise Perry. I’m going to tell you a couple things that she says and then take us back to Tocqueville for a beautiful cap, and what he said was going on in 1840 and his opinion about the role of women and women and moms. Listen. It’s okay to teach your children to be gentlemen and ladies. In fact, it’s important.

You should protect their virtue. You should encourage waiting, if not till marriage, waiting a long time. You should talk about the importance of living according to traditional sexual mores. I mention this some in my new book when I’m talking about the natural law and how quickly that broke down from the sexual revolution, and even the churches participated, and how damaging that is.

We can’t just go with the flow. We have to stop and think, to look at Chesterton’s fence and say, why were these the guardrails, and were people better off as a general rule? Were people better off in 1840? That’s worth thinking about. So Louise Perry says, “A monogamous marriage system is successful in part because it pushes men away from cad mode, particularly when premarital sex is also prohibited”—again, particularly when premarital sex is also prohibited. If women don’t give it to men, they’ll have to marry them and make a formal commitment, where they will have to be in a covenant of marriage with a spouse and be responsible for the babies that they bring into the world, and they can be held accountable legally if they won’t do that. And women and our daughters are participating, unfortunately, in this premarital sex culture that is just doing so much damage.

“Under these circumstances, if a man wants to have sex in a way that’s socially acceptable, he has to make himself marriageable, which means holding down a good job and setting up a household suitable for the raising of children.” And by the time you’ve gotten through all of Louise Perry’s arguments and studies and statistics, hopefully a lot of people agree with her by the end, because women are incredibly unhappy in this culture and their virtue is not being protected or honored at all. They’re being taken advantage of, and they’re very unhappy and unfulfilled, so many of them. And this is—I mean, what I just read you was 1840. That’s what happened. No premarital sex, guys. And you’ve got to make yourself good marriage material so that a valuable woman will want to be with you. “He has to tame himself. In other words, fatherhood then has a further taming effect, even at the biochemical level. When men are involved in the care of their young children, their testosterone levels drop alongside their aggression and sex drive. A society composed of tame men is a better society to live in for men, for women and for children.”

Because discipline brings confidence, and it brings character, and it brings a better society. Then she goes on: “For some women, paid work outside of the home is a joy and a privilege. For many more, it is a responsibility, and often an onerous one.” And she knows, because she’s talked to a lot of women. “Even those women who enjoy their work are physically incapable of performing it during the early months of a baby’s life. I should know. I began this book at the beginning of my pregnancy and completed it when my son was six months old. Writing is probably one of the easiest jobs to combine with motherhood, but even so, there were weeks on end during which I didn’t write a word because I was too busy caring for my baby.

“And while I could be practically supported by other people, including my husband, I was irreplaceable as mother—not only because I was the only person who could breastfeed, but also because children have a relationship with their mothers that starts from conception, and that relationship cannot be handed over without distress to both mother and baby.” And there’s a lot of good research around that bond as well. It’s irreplaceable. There are certain chemical things and mental, psychological things that happen to a child who’s bonded to their mother in that first year, connected to them physically and being with them almost all the time, that builds a sense of security and stability that you can’t otherwise really get without it.

“I have just one piece of advice to offer in this chapter, and you’ve probably already guessed what it will be. So here it is: get married, and do your best to stay married, particularly if you have children and particularly if those children are still young. And if you do find yourself in the position of being a single mother, wait until your children are older before you bring a stepfather into their home.” And then she goes on, “I know that lifelong marriage, in a sense, is unnatural. It’s not the human norm,” blah, blah, blah. But then she says, “The marriage system has prevailed in the West up until recently. It was not perfect, nor was it easy for most people to conform to, since it demanded high levels of tolerance and self-control. Where the critics go wrong is in arguing that there is any better system. There isn’t.”

And to cap us off, I’m going to read you this last quote that I absolutely love by Tocqueville that speaks to the very heart of who you are. I know this is who you are—what he says right here: “I have nowhere else seen women occupying a loftier position. And if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: to the superiority of their women.”

Mothers and women who are listening to me, know how irreplaceable you are. Your virtue matters. Your character matters. Your commitment to motherhood and womanhood and femininity matter. Your commitment to proper roles, to teaching boys to be gentlemen and girls to be women, teaching your children to be abstinent sexually and to wait until marriage—all of these things make a better society for us. I believe they’re also spiritual in nature. I believe they nurture us in our relationship with ourselves and with God. I believe they make our world a better place in a myriad of ways we can’t even tangibly understand. But just from the social–economic perspective, it’s invaluable. It’s critical. It’s mission critical. And we have to push back on the sexual revolution and the feminist movement in meaningful ways and say, “No, we’re not doing that. We’re going to make a different world for our children.”

We are on a mission to find our missions and to use them in the service of our families and communities. And we’re partnering. We’re linking arms with each other and with men and women of good faith who want to reinstitute and restore better systems, better virtues to our culture. I’m here. We’re doing this together. Let’s link arms and make our world a better one for our children and our grandchildren by being the stalwart women of character. Work on your education. Learn how to push back properly. Develop your skills of identifying and living according to principles. Learn the worldviews that will help you build bridges. Discover your gifts and talents so that you can use them to serve your fellowmen, and we, together, will make this world a better place to live.

Thank you so much for joining me today, and I’ll see you next time.