What Every Girl Needs To Hear: A Response to Lauren Southern

hello everyone today we're gonna take a look at a Laurence Avant video entitled what every girl needs to hear which features Loren speaking into a camera saying things that she apparently thinks every girl needs to hear so I guess you should all go and watch that video first then well the ones of you who haven't seen it already anyway some of you will have come to this video directly from that one probably via the suggested video think YouTube has so welcome to all of you nice to meet you everyone else off you go the link is in the description below it's only 12 minutes long or six if you click on that little cog in the bottom right and speed her up two times and welcome back so then what do we think about this video what was Lauren trying to argue what points was she making well marriage good sex bad basically when you boil it down your standard conservative religious abstinence arguments just delivered in a vlogger style and at first glance it appears to be the sort of video but I personally find it rather difficult to argue against you know how can you respond to someone simply speaking their subjective opinions into a webcam you know just say you're equally subjective counter opinions I guess and I mean I could do that let's do that in fact for a little bit just as an example so this is how that would go I'd show a statement of Lauren's like this one a stable marriage and children are statistically one of the highest predictors of happiness in a woman's life and then I'd say ah did you notice her thumb was on the scale where she said a stable marriage is a predictor of happiness that's biasing the results there because of course a lot of marriages are unstable a lot of marriages make people unhappy but if we just ignore those you know add that stable qualifier suddenly marriages are a much better predictor of happiness it's very tricks either another statement of Lawrence's women love strength and resources men value youth and fertility of course the problem here is that if this were the inescapable biological certainty that lauren makes it out to be her video wouldn't need to exist you know if people rarely did seek out partners according to these values then for Lauren there wouldn't be a problem what you know what every girl needed to hear would be nothing wouldn't it because they could just follow their hardwired biological impulses now Lauren's problem is that people aren't acting according to these values this is simply how Lauren wants people to act Lauren has an idea of what people are supposed to be like but they keep acting differently which means that there must therefore be some nefarious liberal plot to corrupt people into acting counts as a biology you know rather than the simpler answer which is that she's just wrong another quote of Lawrence's you don't want to be competing with 20 year old girls for 30 year old guys when you hit the age of 30 because you won't win another subjective opinion and my equally subjective counter is that I'm a 30 year old guy and I for one would much rather go out with someone around my own age than someone a decade younger than me you know chances are we'd have a lot more in common and in general this appears to be how most of the people are five thirty eight.com reports that data from the United States current population survey shows that the average age difference for a heterosexual couple in the United States is only two point three years which is not quite so dramatic as the ten years in Lauren's example I guess you don't want to be competing with twenty eight-year-old girls when you hit the age of thirty wasn't quite as catchy and then I just carry on like that really showing something Lauren said and then saying the opposite thing I could point out that she never once mentions LGBTQ people you know the existence of gay couples for instance really throws a wrench into her argument there you know maybe those 20 year old girls don't want to be competing for guys at all Lauren maybe some guys would be more than happy to get married but they can't because they're not allowed to marry their boyfriends you know what would Lauren say to those people and then I'd wrap it up by saying all people are different get married and/or have kids if you want if you don't don't that's cool too you know different things make different people happy farewell folks and it Abid all right that video you know it wouldn't be terrible with it but I want to do something a little different today you see what I'm mostly interested in here is this particular quote from Lauren if you want to dig into the research surrounding all of this I've put all the sources in the description and if we take a look we see a section in her video description titled links to studies followed by ten links and make you bets now folks how many of these links would you guess actually link to studies hmm we shall see so let's go through these sources now and take a peek at where Lauren got her ideas from so first up is this link to a wordpress blog with sections title such as ugly feminists written by a happily married man living with his sexy wife and their two wonderful kids in the Dallas Fort Worth area this is an article titled more grim news for Kara sellers hoping to jump at the last minute in which the author with the sexy wife has used US census data to make some charts showing that the average age of unmarried women has been going up over the decades you know people who are getting married are getting married later generally now so what you might think you know what does that have to do with Lauren's points about happiness and fulfillment and all that you know there's no data here that goes into how happy these women are or anything like that you know on average women who are getting married are older that's all these charts say any negative implications here are guesswork based on the assumption that these women want to get married but can't you know for a counter assumption we could say maybe increasingly people just don't view marriage as that important anymore and so fewer people are making marriage a priority in their lives you know what does the author of this article have to say about that and I quote the nonchalance by women towards marriage has been misinterpreted by many as a lack of interest in marriage but I believe that it is reflective of an assumption that marriage will be theirs for the taking so what's the rush oh well you know he believes it so there we go why does he believe it I don't know so that's our first study there some guy with a blog believes something off to a good start let's move on and look at the next link so this link goes to a website titled statistic brain and this post is female infidelity statistics there they are there all the statistics so which study did these statistics come from well if we scroll down a little we can see that the source is the statistic brain Research Institute and the content author is statistic brain which is this website no study is linked no actual author is listed a website just typed some numbers and then cited themselves as the source now not to attack statistic brain or anything here they appear to be just some stat posting outfit if you want a list of countries by amount of cheese eaten in pounds per capita they've got you covered you know maybe but they're unconvincing as a source that's supposed to inform opinions about the fundamentals of human nature apologies to statistic brain here but this isn't a study it's some numbers on a website I'm not even saying they're wrong numbers necessarily they might be right but there's no way to check you know how many people were surveyed how were they contacted how old were they where do they live I don't know you know did statistic brain just make all these numbers up again I don't know and nor do you and nor does Lauren but there it is anyway in her list of studies so let's look at the next study which is this link and it's a very interesting study this one as it appears to be laid out like a Wikipedia page and also is somehow hosted by Wikipedia on their servers I'm not sure how Lauren managed to pull off so then joking aside this is the Wikipedia page for JD Unwin and if you don't know who that is I would encourage you to watch my video title do women destroy civilizations a response to the black pigeon speaks who is another YouTube video maker who pretended to have understood the works of JD on when I won't subject you to all why again here I'll just link that video in the description and what I will say here though is that this link it's not a study is it Lauren I mean I hope you didn't do that in college if you went you know if you just cite Wikipedia in an essay they shout at you so that's free studies down seven to go now five of these remaining seven are links to different pages of the blog the social pathologist hosted on blogspot so let's take a look at each of those first up is this article sexual partner divorce risk posted by the social pathologist this article is not a study however it is at least talking about the study so that is a significant step up there the paper the article is talking about is premarital sex premarital cohabitation and the risk of subsequent marital dissolution among women by Jay Teachman how's that for nominative determinism there now if we click this link in the article it goes nowhere the studies gone however it is on JSTOR so I purchased access to it right then we're going to read this article and this study and see what they say and I'll quote from the article first cohabitation that is living together before marriage has been shown to increase the risk of subsequent divorce of a couple so that's the first claim in this blogspot post and now let's head over to the study and see what that has to say using nationally representative data from the 1995 National Survey of family growth I estimate the association between intimate premarital relationships premarital sex and premarital cohabitation and subsequent marital dissolution I extend previous research by considering a relationship histories pertaining to both premarital sex and premarital cohabitation I find that premarital sex or premarital cohabitation that is limited to a woman's husband is not associated with an elevated risk of Myr all disruption end quotes so her cohabitation before marriage has been shown to increase the risk of subsequent divorce of a couple was the claim on the social pathologist but the study they cite claims the opposite in the first free sentences so what's going on there well what Teachman study actually found is that cohabitation before marriage is not indicative of a divorce risk to the couple involved but previous cohabitation with different people are so if you're a woman who has been in several long-term relationships where you lived with someone else you're more likely to later be divorced if you get married and someone who has only lived with their husband prior to marriage so that's the correlation there but what's the cause you know is there something about living with multiple different partners that causes one to be more likely to divorce once married or is the data simply selective for instance very conservative people who take marriage more seriously than others will be both less likely to cohabitate before marriage and less likely to divorce once married and conversely people with a more liberal attitude to dating and relationships will be more likely to go habitate before marriage and also more likely to divorce once married it's a quote Teachman study here unfortunately this study does not provide any information that allows us to better determine whether the effect of having multiple premarital relationships is based on differences on pre-existing characteristics that are tied to the risk of divorce or whether having multiple relationships generates environments where relationship skills are attitudes and values about the permanency of marriage are somehow altered it remains the task of subsequent research to consider these alternatives more fully so there we go a Teachman just notes the correlation the causation was outside the bounds of his study and he recommends further research before any conclusions can be drawn her so then back to blogspot let's read a little more of this article many investigators have felt that the practice of cohabitation is selective for people who don't value marriage highly and handsome more likely to divorce when stress is put on the marriage in essence it was fought that cohabiters more liberal values placed them at higher risk of divorce an editorial note here that's true that's the true thing the social pathologist then introduces the study we've just read and posts a part of Teachman skin' clusion before typing executive summary it's not the liberal values it's the number of partners that matter now I'm sorry social pathologist but you misread that study it doesn't say anything about liberal values in there in fact in a section titled limitations Teachman writes the data contain no information about relationship skills or attitudes values or beliefs that can be used to distinguish between groups of women and indeed if we look at the variables used in the analysis there is nothing in there about personal values or beliefs pertaining to relationships so when the social pathologist says it's not the liberal values it's the number of partners that's a leap of logic it's nothing better than a guess you know that wasn't what the cited paper was about it's also a contradiction because of course someone's liberal values or lack thereof may very well influence the number of partners they have if you follow which would make it about the values ultimately I mean one could argue that having multiple serious relationships could change one's attitude to relationships in some way that could make divorce a greater possibility and indeed another study will read in a little while leans towards that conclusion however we can still make the case that people with more liberal values to relationships are more likely to enter into multiple serious relationships in the first place so one's values would still be important there it's complicated basically and this quote is a drastic oversimplification so for this link then someone on blogspot misread a study I will point out here though that this article also mentions two noteworthy things the National Survey of family growth 1995 and the Heritage Foundation study and we'll be hearing a lot more about both for those things going forward starting right now with the second social pathologist link which is titled 2002 male and female statistical data and I quote I've managed to crunch the numbers from both the male and female National Survey of family growth method first my approach to analysis was Catholic in that you're only allowed to get married once re marriages count as a fail then there's a bunch of other rubbish and eventually they get to the point of their article at this graph they came up with number of lifetime sexual partners versus percent ever married who are not divorced and reminder if you're in your second marriage you counts as divorced in this graph so for example if you were married for 18 months in your 20s say and then got a divorce then remarried and have been married for 40 years steady since then you counts as divorced here your four decade marriage will count for less in this graph than a newlywed couple who've been together for eight weeks so this graph is nonsense clearly besides the bizarre only the first marriage counts rule if this says number of lifetime sexual partners not number of premarital sexual partners and why is that important well divorcees don't drop off the planet once they get divorced do they they keep entering into relationships and having sex so if you get divorced and then have sex would say five people in the next few years your post marital relationships are here be encountered as a divorce risk for a marriage which is already over you know what oh gawd Ian's not dies so all whacked and of course this data is self-reported and people tend to misrepresent the number of sexual partners when aster main aim high and women aim low typically the only other thing to say about this graph is to return to Laurens oven for a moment when she says a woman with just one previous sexual partner is an equivalent divorce risk to a man with 19 I think she got that from here because one previous would be the two column here and 19 previous partners will be the 20 columns that's 57% and 54% which is roughly equivalent I couldn't find this claim anywhere else in these sources so my best guess is that she got it from this completely ridiculous graph anyway on to the next link this blog post is titled the virgin bride and is talking about a study from the Journal of marriage and the family by Joan Arcana and Katherine a London entitled premarital sex in the risk of divorce which examines the relationship between premarital sexual activity and the long term risk of divorce among US women married between 1965 and 1985 1965 so quite a while ago now obviously attitudes towards sex and marriage have changed rather a lot since the 1960s so to see this source in Laurens ovens video in 2017 with her doing her kids these days routine is a bit odd women getting married in 1965 would have been growing up in the 40s and 50s and are we really supposed to be able to trust self-reported data here given the vastly different social stigmas towards premarital sex among people who grew up in that time period I don't know anyway let's move on and quote a little of the study's findings here we interpret the results of our analysis to mean that women who continue to hold traditional attitudes about marriage are less likely than other women to consider both premarital sex and divorce as acceptable options for themselves it's likely that people who feel constrained by traditional expectations early in life will maintain this orientation throughout their lives predisposing them to wait until marriage to begin sexual activity and to reject divorce as an option if they should become unhappy with their marriage and it goes on so different sorts of people raised in different environments with different values are acting differently with regards to relationships that's what the authors of the study are saying is the likely thing here and the social pathologist doesn't care about all that rubbish of course to them the number of someone sexual partners is all that matters they'll strip the data out of the studies in order to make graphs as they've done for this study which measures divorce probabilities of virgins with non-virgins however they are but as for the interpretations of the authors of the studies the social pathologist seemingly isn't interested and there needs to be a word for appealing to Authority while rejecting the findings of that authority you know look at this very academic graph I made it sourced it's using real data from a real academic study written by university professors who I think are wrong and there's kind of a weird relationship going on there you know I believe the University professors were on point with their data collection and methodology in calculations but when it comes to their interpretations of their study well I've got a blog and I believe they're wrong anyway the next social pathologist link is a guest post by a user named intrepid now this post is examining national survey of family growth data the same National Survey of family growth data as in the Heritage Foundation study so there's those two things again now we'll be getting to that study fairly soon so I won't say too much about this post except for one thing but I can't help mentioning in her video Laurens often states that statistically every man or woman sleeps with past one adds to the chances hair marriage will later end in divorce now this statement is not true and this particular post which is in Laurens sources for some reason explains why so let's take a look at Intrepid's charts so chart two which is titled women who have more non marital partners are more likely to have a first marriage ending divorce and that's what it shows the more non marital partners a woman has had the likelier her first marriage ends in divorce but we've seen this trick before this is non marital partners not premarital partners this data is being distorted by including the post marital sexual relationships of divorces so what happens if we look at the same data but instead considered the number of premarital partners instead of the number of non marital partners well as you can see it tells a very different story in this chart women who have had five to nine premarital sexual partners are less likely to divorce once married than people who have only had two and to quote Intrepid here my own hypothesis is that a higher partner counts up to five to nine or so partners is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience older women and women with more dating experience are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner as a result such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates so then do you see what's wrong with Lawrence ovens statements she fell for the non-marital slash premarital switcheroo and got her tensors wrong every man a woman sleeps with past one adds to the chance her marriage will later end in divorce this claim is completely contradicted by one of her own sources so then on to the last blog spot link this one titled more promiscuity data and again written by the social pathologist this blog post is concerned with yet another study this one titled adolescent sexuality in the risk of marital dissolution offered by Anthony Paik for the Journal of marriage and family and let's read a little of that this research investigates whether first sexual intercourse during adolescence is associated with an increased risk of first marriage dissolution and tests whether the results are consistent with causal or selection explanations drawing on a sample of three thousand seven hundred and ninety three ever marry two women from the 2002 national survey of family growth this study estimated event history models of first marriage dissolution results indicated that wanted sexual debut in later adolescence does not directly increase the risk of marital dissolution but is linked indirectly as a result of subsequent premarital sexual outcomes sexual debut that is not completely wanted all that occurs before age 16 is associated with increased risk of marital dissolution the results suggest that the timing and context of adolescent sexual debut have important implications for marital stability so similar to what we've seen thus far in the other papers however with an important distinction here this paper considers whether the adolescent sexual activity was wanted or unwanted and that's something we haven't seen so far it's an important point because of course sadly sexual activity isn't always a choice someone could be taken advantage of pressured or forced into sex and it's not hard to think of negative effects upon their later relationships that might occur as a result of that the selectivity argument doesn't apply here of course as the author points out the conclusion to the paper reads adolescent sexual debut that is not completely wanted it's both directly and indirectly linked to marital dissolution because these decisions are not completely voluntary a choice framework does not apply which highlights the need for greater attention to the consequences of unwanted sexual experiences among girls now we need to be careful when handling this particular data set for instance for an example of what you shouldn't do you shouldn't title a blog post about the data more promiscuity data you also shouldn't refers the field of study as the science of slot ology I mean you shouldn't do that anyway but especially not when you're talking about adolescents some of whom were sexually assaulted you also shouldn't wonder if promiscuity is a mechanism of dissolvent as in they've lost their souls as a result of the unwanted room the sexual experiences you know what sort of file horrible person would say something like that anyway that's kind of an odd word we just saw the D Solman now if you remember Lauren Sullivan mentions D solvent in her video she says the path of promiscuity and D Solman around 8 and a half minutes in a phrasing which is very close to this blog post here so I'm just gonna assume that this is where she got it from now we'll leave the social pathologist there for now but I will note the final paragraph of that last post starts out with this sense I know that correlation is not causation but which Wow I mean they should make that the new title of that blog I think so that's eight studies down to studies to go now there's a reason that none of the links so far have been to actual studies and it's because the actual studies keep saying awkward things like this is inconclusive and this needs further research and this correlates but we don't know the cause and things like that there which would be a bit embarrassing for Lauren so she has to link instead to religious conservative blog post reinterpretations of the studies blog posts that call adolescent women who've lost their souls it's kind of pathetic really isn't it anyway on to the next link which is a stefan molyneux video oh my god this video is titled be true for about sex facts you won't believe a true witch yeah no so the majority of this video is stefan re posting a bunch of graphs from the top link in his source list which is also the last remaining link in Lauren's source list the harmful effects of early sexual activity and multiple sexual partners among women a book of charts from the Heritage Foundation so here it is finally we've been hearing about this for a while so who are the Heritage Foundation well from their website the mission of the Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote service of public policies based on the principles of free enterprise limited government etc and it's nice when places just admit they have a bias upfront you know so the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think-tank which by the way promotes abstinence only sex education and there are many articles advocating abstinence on their website such as this one teenage sexual abstinence and academic achievement which was written by Kirk Johnson and Robert rector who are two of the listed authors of the harmful effects of early sexual activity study so what is in this study then well it's just a lot of graphs really as some of which we've seen already here's them pulling the non-marital slash premarital trick and here's that same graph in Stefan's video and there's another trick in this particular graph actually it's to do with the Heritage Foundation's definition of a stable marriage which they define as a couple being married for at least five years now the average length of a first marriage that ends in divorce in the United States is eight years so a lot of these so-called stable marriages ain't you know why did the Heritage Foundation pick five years to define a stable marriage when that's below the national average well I don't know a suppose five is a nice round number isn't it so the air quotes mistake the Heritage Foundation makes over and over again in this study is the by now very familiar correlation slash causation misunderstanding for example below this graph which is titled delay in sexual activity is linked to lower levels of child and maternal poverty the Heritage Foundation writes early sexual activity is linked to higher levels of child and maternal poverty now the problem here is that linked to doesn't mean causes and this is the most basic type of logical misunderstanding you know every time the streets are wet outside it's raining wet streets are linked to rain so therefore the wet streets must be causing the rain early sexual activity is linked to poverty but course none of the brain geniuses who wrote this paper bothered to consider the reverse that poverty could be causing higher levels of early sexual activity for example kids in poverty are less likely to live in a stable home less likely to have supportive parents or guardians who can provide guidance for and supervise them you know maybe the poverty is the problem of course the Heritage Foundation would respond by saying hey we never said sexual activity was the cause of poverty we just said it was linked to it to which I would respond but you put it in a paper entitled the harmful effects of early sexual activity you know their attempts to come across as academically neutral didn't extend to titling their paper they gave away their bias in the first sentence and they make this mistake over and over delay in sexual activity is linked to greater happiness early onset of sexual activity is linked to higher turnover rates among sexual partners but these are just correlations the cause remains unproven here this study is a biased hack job they took the National Survey of family growth data and routed around in it looking for particular correlations in order to push an abstinence-only agenda now speaking of that National Survey of family growth data it's all available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites and I can't help but notice that the National Survey family growth questionnaires included questions about sex education for example the cycle sex questionnaire from 2002 specifically asks about abstinence education and one can imagine a study which uses this data to measure the effects of abstinence education versus the effects of a comprehensive sex education it might be titled abstinence only and comprehensive sex education and the initiation of sexual activity in teen pregnancy and it might find that adolescents who receive comprehensive sex education were significantly less likely to report teen pregnancy than those who received no formal sex education whereas there was no significance of act of abstinence only education abstinence only education did not reduce the likelihood of engaging in vaginal intercourse but comprehensive sex education was marginally associated with a lower likelihood of reporting having engaged in vaginal intercourse teaching about contraception was not associated with increased risk of adolescent sexual activity adolescents who receive comprehensive sex education had a lower risk of pregnancy than adolescents who received abstinence only or no sex education imagine if such a study existed I wonder what the Heritage Foundation would think about the same source they're attempting to use to push an abstinence only agenda instead being used to prove abstinence only education is a waste of time now one last point I'd like to make about this Heritage Foundation study is that it examines data prior to 1995 and it's the main source in Lorance video which she opens with a reality these days is being twisted speech now not to get too personal or anything but Lawrence often was born in 1995 after this data was collected she has no idea what she's talking about on a personal level you know she's using sources from before she was born she's just repeating the opinions of old crusty white guys from places like the Heritage Foundation and that's probably why her references to popular culture are so outdated - you know Cosmo magazine and Sex in the City I mean that stopped airing go for a decade ago Lauren now I bring up Lauren using old data here to mention that there is newer data available the National Survey of family growth has kept going they have up-to-date statistics and studies freely available on their website so why are Lauren's sources so rubbish I'm forced to wonder to recap there's a bunch of blogspot posts by a conservative Christian who doesn't understand how to read studies properly an unsourced listicle the wikipedia page of an author who died in 1936 and his new even mentioned a stefan molyneux video and a conservative think-tanks abstinence propaganda including this list of sources was an steak obviously Lauren claims the her video isn't a bunch of weirdo religious propaganda but looking at the sources we can see yes it is Laurens oven is repeating the same tired old debunked conservative talking points that we've all heard a thousand times it's an attempt to sell conservatism to young people and of course because conservatism usually screws over young people she has to lie now I'll end here with the plea to any young person who was directed to this video after watching Lauren's and somehow has managed to stick around through the whole thing so hello please don't take anything Lawrence often said seriously she's a vole it's up to you to determine what's gonna make you happy in your own life not anyone else please don't make life decisions based on a list of statistical likelihoods incorrect statistical likelihood said that you know you don't want to end up as some sort of robot thinking well I can't have sex with one extra person because then my possible future marriage will have a four percent greater chance of ending in divorce or whatever I mean if that's how you live your life you'll never be happy regardless of whether you get married or not so live your own life and make your own decisions that's my advice for you today

Channel: undefined

Views: 829,577

Rating: 4.8170247 out of 5

Keywords: lauren southern, every girl needs to hear, shaun

Id: v78x0X4O7sM

Length: 37min 0sec (2220 seconds)

Published: Thu May 03 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/HoomanGuy]

Lauren: advocating for women to be happy by standing in the kitchen and pooping out babies for the greater good while letting the men in their lives take the lead.

Also Lauren: not doing any of the above.

[u/Bluezephr]

Damn, Lauren Southern must be so unhappy without her family, and traditional lifestyle.

Someone should show her that youtube video about "what every girl needs to hear" and she can get her life back on track, get married and have kids. Though, I hope she's still a virgin, that would really bring down her value as a human being if she wasn't.

[u/schimmdog43]

Is there a website where I check my sexual market value? Is that shit like a credit score?

[u/IbrahimT13]

in the Patreon version of the video, at the very end he says "so, live your own life and make your own decisions, that's my advice for you today...also God's not real" but he cut it out for the official version

thought you guys might find it amusing

[u/EvilOvercats]

List of studies: blogs misinterpreting data, a molymeme video and the heritage foundation. Brought to you by Lauren "statistics are the plural of antecdote" Southern.

[u/cptdog]

5:15-5:30 Can't make this shit up LUL

[u/punishedfox22]

it always shocks me that people can so readily accept that there are no easy economic fixes, that economic exchange is incredibly complex etc. yet think that other forms of human exchange is simple and has simple fixes.

there are lots of factors why women and men dont marry or have lots of marriages and then there are externalities like individual experiences that shape a person's social relations. it's not simple.

then there are the social and historical facts which muddy the "naturalness" of monogamy in the first place. I,e nuclear families were a necessity of ancient and feudal title. a woman had to be seen as only banging one dude so that the future inheritor's claim to said title or deed was beyond question. the non-gentry were able to be seen as much more promiscuous. ofc when you read things like the letters of abelard and heloise or montaillou, you realise that people had multiple partners over a lifetime underneath the appearance of monogamy. meaning, even in times when it was brutally enforced, people's sex lives were not much different. it was just hidden.

[u/RedHermit1982]

This was a pretty standard shaun vid, but I kind of found it unsatisfying just because it was shooting fish in a barrel.

TL;DR Lauren sourced all her bullshit from some reactionary Christian blogs that completely misinterpreted or exaggerated the studies referenced.

[u/[deleted]]

what is it with that lot and thinking blokes like weak, submissive women, I for one have more than a bit of a thing for strong women in armour, e.g. Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40k) and Brigitte (Overwatch)