Ben Shapiro (0:00)

Well, folks, there's something deeply broken about our society and sometimes there are just some pretty egregious symptoms of that being the case. One of those symptoms is a person whose name is Lily Phillips. Lily Phillips is 23 years old, and right now she's become quite prominent because she has a very lucrative OnlyFans account where she earns millions of dollars to take her clothes off and have sex in front of men. And back in October, Lily Phillips did a stunt, and did is the operative word here. This stunt involved having sex with 101 men in a day. She did that back in October. She did a documentary about it titled I slept with 100 men in one day. So aptly titled. YouTuber Josh Peters was the person who helped her make this documentary. And here she was talking about the experience. When was the last time you ate?

Lily Phillips (0:53)

I had a. I think I had a yum yum. And I think I had a sandwich. And that was kind of. And then the rest. It's not for the weak girls, if I'm honest. It was hard. I don't know if I'd recommend it.

Ben Shapiro (1:10)

Why not?

Lily Phillips (1:11)

I think if you're a different type of girl, it's very like. It's kind of like being a. In a sense of like, it's just a different feeling. I don't know how to explain it.

Ben Shapiro (1:25)

Like, it's not like just having with someone.

Lily Phillips (1:29)

Yeah, yeah. Just one in, one out. Like it feels intense.

Ben Shapiro (1:35)

Like more intense than you thought it might.

Lily Phillips (1:38)

Definitely.

Ben Shapiro (1:39)

Okay. And she ends up breaking down in tears. Basically. She says, quote, I think by the 30th, when we're getting on a bit, I've got a routine of how we're gonna do this. And sometimes you dissociate and it's not like normal sex at all. She admitted that she did not remember much of this. She said, in my head right now, I can think of five, six, ten guys I remember. And that's it. But it's just weird, isn't it? If I didn't have the videos, I wouldn't have known I did 100. She said it wasn't just the physical intimacy of having sex with so many men that made her feel so bad, but also disappointing them by not being able to talk with them or even being interested in doing so. She said talking with the gentleman was hard. Gentleman, of course, is a term of art here and recounted how one man complained they only chatted for about two minutes. When she had said beforehand they would talk for about five minutes. So she had already Broken down, we can see in the video that she's been crying and all the rest. Well, none of this is apparently stopping her from taking on a new challenge now because the money is too good. I like that video where she suggests that she feels like a prostitute. Well, yes, definitionally, having sex for money would be prostitution. She has claimed she wants to take on a new challenge in January. According to the New York Post, 1000 men in 24 hours. Male talent casting call 18 plus. Only location to be determined. I dreamed it up with my assistant. I can't wait. It's very exciting. It will be a world record, a real challenge, she claimed. Apparently the current world record is held by a person named Lisa Sparks, an adult film star who bedded 919 men in one day at a sex industry event in Poland back in 2004. Sparks said to be completely transparent with you all. This event is the one thing I regret doing in the 23 plus years in the porn industry to this day, it was the only job I agreed to perform strictly for the money. Well, I doubt that that is true. Okay, so here is the thing about all this and is screwed up in a thousand different ways. As a columnist for the UK Daily Mail named Jane Fryer writes. She says that this talking to Lily is like bobbing into a parallel universe where everything is upside down, where Gen Z bodies are for sale like sweets, sex is nothing more than a numbers game, and parents, even grandparents apparently are, quote, very supportive. Lilly's mother is her head of finance. I can't imagine why she's so screwed up. According to this columnist, Lily herself, a bubbly, beautiful, articulate and immaculately mannered girl, chatters on and on in exactly the same perky tone as she did about her family Christmas or her beloved dog Maggie. About how she graduated from posting sneaky peeks to full blown porn on her hugely lucrative OnlyFans account, how she earns over six figures a month and employs eight staff, all women. And how the only way to achieve the thousand will be with a human conveyor belt. Ideally, we will do it in a big warehouse with two doors. I'm hoping a couple of seconds each at most, and on their way. So let's be clear. The question here is why this is wrong. Really, this is a question why this is wrong in our modern society? I have a feeling there are a lot of people who are gonna have a hard time explaining why this is wrong. Really? What's the big problem? For a lot of folks, particularly on the secular left, that's a relevant Question. After all, she's engaging in consensual activity. Why is this wrong? Why is this bad? Well, this shows the shortcomings of consent as the only value. See, we live in a society in which consent is considered the highest and perhaps the only value. That's because we've largely bought into the liberal framework for how society ought to run. So the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, his first famous book was a book called the Righteous Mind. And according to Jonathan Haidt, there are six moral matrices, kind of different measures of how we measure morality. The first is care versus harm. The second is liberty versus oppression. The third is fairness versus cheating. The fourth is loyalty versus betrayal. The fifth is authority versus subversion. And the sixth is sanctity versus degradation. So, for example, care versus harm would be whether you're compassionate. If you see a suffering human being, right? That's one value system. Liberty versus oppression would be if you see an unjust rule being promulgated that oppresses someone versus is that person free to make their own choices. Fairness or cheating would be if somebody cheats you, it's unfair because somebody has cheated you. Loyalty versus betrayal would be if someone betrays a group. Authority versus subversion is if somebody disrespects legitimate authority. And sanctity versus degradation is if somebody does something disgusting, for example. Well, as it turns out, liberals and conservatives, left versus right, they think of the world in a very different way from one another. Liberals are interested in only about three of these six matrices. They're interested in the question of care versus harm. So compassion, liberty versus oppression, so the idea of your individual rights and individualism. And finally, fairness versus cheating. Is the final outcome of a system fair or are rights distributed fairly? Conservatives, people on the right care about all six of those matrices, right? Including things like loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and most importantly, sanctity versus degradation. So if you're on the left, what do you do about somebody like Lilly Phillips? Well, theoretically, you could make the argument that she's harming herself, that this violates the sort of care harm principle. That's why what she's doing is wrong. But that runs up directly against the liberty foundations of liberalism, because after all, she's the one who has volunteered her consent into it. How can you tell her? Can you be paternalistic enough to suggest that she has harmed herself under the rubric of leftism? And also, is it unfair that she did this? Well, I mean, she did accept the arrangement. In fact, she sought the arrangement. In fact, she's being paid by the Tonnage for this arrangement. If you're a conservative, the answer is actually quite easy. Lily Phillips here and women like her who make themselves cheap are engaging in self harm. Liberty is not libertinism. It is bounded by rules. Fairness is not implicated here because she has no right to engage in this sort of conduct on a moral level. She has no moral right. She may have a legal right. That's not the same thing as having a moral right to do this sort of stuff. She is being disloyal not only to any boyfriend she might have, but to the standards of her society and to humanity at large. You are being disloyal to humanity when you violate yourself this way. She is undermining the authority of basic morality. And most of all, most of all, most importantly, what she is doing is disgusting. Now I know that that word has sort of fallen out of usage. Disgust, disgusting. The idea in sort of modern left wing parlance is that if you talk about something being disgusting, it means that you're being judgmental. So for example, Jonathan Haidt, in this book the Righteous Mind, he talks about the fact that when he teaches his college students, one of the questions he will ask them is, is it immoral for you to have sex with a frozen chicken? Liberals will say maybe. And then they'll think about it and they'll think, no, doesn't violate my principles of consent. It doesn't violate the care harm matrix. It's a violation of liberty to say that it is disgusting or problematic or wrong. There's nothing unfair about having sex with a chicken. Conservatives are like, yeah, it's gross, it's wrong, you're degrading yourself. Disgust is a useful thing. It has actually kept human beings alive for eons. Originally, it evolved as a way of naturally driving people away for things that are quite bad for them. The reason that human beings have a reaction of disgust when they see, for example, a snake is because snakes can kill people. Now that does not mean that all disgust historically is proper. Sometimes human beings are disgusted at behaviors or traits that are perfectly legitimate or have risen through no fault of the person you're disgusted by. So for example, there are a lot of primitive cultures where people with mental disabilities are found to be disgusting. Ancient Sparta, you have a disabled baby and you leave it out on a cliff somewhere. But disgust as a general human emotion is a response to the violation of the sacred. So what exactly is the sacred? The sacred is the thing that we as a species place beyond question. That's what sacred means. Sacred means that you are taking something and you now declare it holy. And for something to be holy means it is separate from the secular. It is something that is not to be questioned. It is something that of such high value that to question it would undermine the entire society. To throw away the sacred is to throw out one of the things that is most important in building a society. Again, there are some things we find so sacred that we will not violate them. The philosopher Robert Nisbet, in a book called the Twilight of Authority, writes about this. He says, the greatest of all distinctions the human mind is capable of, according to Emile Durkheim, another sociologist, is that between the sacred and the profane, or merely utilitarian. Even the distinction between good and evil is small by comparison, for both good and evil are representations of the sacred, positive or negative? Nisbet says, rightly did Emile Durkheim declare the sacred? But the other side of the coin on which community is written, human aggregates are possible or at least conceivable, without a sense of the sacred. But not, Durkheim declared, community. You can't get an entire community together to share the same values unless they agree on a concept of the sacred and the profane. Things that are so high in value that they are not worth arguing about, and to argue with them should actually generate a feeling of disgust. Well, society is supposed to value the sacred, but nothing is sacred. When it comes to companies trying to sell you on fake deals, there's no shortage of flashy ads from the big wireless carriers offering the latest iPhone for free. But look a little deeper, you'll quickly realize what they actually mean. To qualify, you need to trade in your phone. Not just any phone, one valued at $1,000. Then you're required to sign up for their $100 a month unlimited plan and pay that sneaky $35 activation fee on top of it all. That's a lot of money for something they call free. Don't. Don't fall for those marketing tricks. PureTalk, my cell phone company, has a much better option. Get a brand new iPhone 14. It comes with all the bells and whistles you actually need. Plus, get unlimited talk, text, a generous 15 gigs of high speed data and mobile hotspot capability, all for just 50 bucks a month. How about that? You're paying half the price of what the big guys charge and you still get a new iPhone powered by America's most dependable 5G network. Do this. Go to PureTalk.com Shapiro today. Switching is super simple. Plus, when you go to PureTalk.com Shapiro, you'll get an additional 50% off your very first month of coverage. That's PureTalk.com Shapiro for an additional 50% off your very 1st month. That's Pure Talk, America's wireless company. Their coverage is excellent. I've had it myself for years. Check them out. PureTalk.com Shapiro for that additional 50% off your first month. Also grand Canyon University a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona. They believe we're endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American Dream starts with purpose. GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come. By honoring your career, calling you impact your family, your friends and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on campus and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal and professional goals. With 350 academic programs as of June 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University. Private, Christian, affordable Visit GCU. Edu Again, that's GCU. Edu I've been to their campus. I visited a beautiful place, great student body, terrific teachers. Check them out today. GrandCanyon University GCU edu that's GCU. Edu It is community, says Robert Nisbett, that gives to the sacred its most vital expressions everywhere. Birth, marriage, death, and other moments in the human drama. These are all things of such high value that we place at such a premium that they become sacred. So in the case of Lily Phillips, what is sacred here? Well, how about the individual human soul? How about the individual human soul? You do not own your own soul. It does not belong to you. You have duties attached to the stewardship of your soul. How about your innate humanity, made in the image of God? You as a human being are sacred. You're the sacred property of the divine. After all, whatever disgusting substances this woman has anointed herself with, those can be washed off, but her soul can't be washed off without repenting of what she has done to herself. And she knows that. Why do you think she's breaking down? Why do you think she's upset? It's not just because of the physical exertion. It's because she made herself into a sex Robot, she made herself into something profane. She did a profane thing. And she should be disgusted with herself. She should be ashamed of herself. And a society should be able to look at that behavior and say, that is wrong behavior. It's not just a matter of moral apathy, because a society that greenlights this sort of behavior or celebrates it, or pays people millions of dollars for this sort of behavior gets more of it. It reduces the humanity in all of us to the level of the animal. It removes the sacred completely. And then all you're left with is the profane. And you cannot build any community, any workable society on the profane alone. Human beings, we have a natural understanding of the sacred. We have a natural understanding, a desire to worship, a desire to understand. There are things that are of eternal value. This is why, by the way, the concept of consent when it comes to sex is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Meaning, of course, consent is necessary to sex, but it is not the only marker of whether sex itself is a good thing or a bad thing in how people engage in it. It's because we've lost the concept of the sacred and the profane, for example, that I think some things have happened in the MeToo movement. So, for example, in the MeToo movement, there is a phenomenon that has arisen many times where women will consent to sex with someone they should not have consented to sex to. They'll treat themselves badly, and then they'll wake up the next morning and they'll decide they didn't like it. And they don't have the language to even express what it is they don't like because they already gave consent, and you can't ungive the consent. So then they go to the language of consent again. They'll say that they were raped in some cases when they weren't actually raped, or the evidence shows they weren't raped. But they're not wrong to feel bad about themselves. They're not wrong to feel bad about the decision making. Regret is an understanding that you have taken something sacred and you have made it profane. And the relationship between two people who love one another in a committed bond, that is a sacred thing. That's what makes sex sacred rather than profane. And if you treat it as a profane thing, well, a lot of the time profane things are going to feel profane to you. You might wake up in the morning and feel degraded, because maybe you degraded yourself. And then people look for an excuse for why they feel the way they do, but they don't even have the language to explain why they feel the way they do. This is particularly true of young women who are engaging in activities that later they regret. They don't even understand why they regret. But the answer is that we are all men and women. All of us are capable of sullying ourselves, of disgusting ourselves. And that is a worthwhile tendency in human beings to recognize that sometimes when we look at the behavior of somebody like a Lily Phillips here, she should be upset. And we should be upset that as a society, we have decided that the OnlyFans society is fine and decent and good. It is not. It is not fine and decent and good. Pornography ought to disgust us because it is disgusting. It should disgust us because it takes something that should be about commitment and love and turns it into something that is simply about rutting. It takes something that is meaningful, but not because it is just a matter of consent, because it is a matter that has meaning attached to it and has throughout human history. And pretending that people don't have emotions connected to sex is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the modern feminist movement and the modern secular left. I mean, even Lily Phillips acknowledges this. She says, I didn't even get to talk to the guys. It's the most pathetic sort of expression of the problem. But she's not wrong. It turns out that both women and men, very often, you know, they actually want to know the person with whom they are having sex because it means something beyond just pure consent. A society that boils its morality down to consent alone is a society that doesn't even have the language to express why it's corrupting itself. It's why we as a society have such trouble saying that, by the way, pornography is morally bad. Saying that OnlyFans is a blight. It is. Onlyfans is a blight. Young men are being destroyed by OnlyFans. Young women are certainly being destroyed by OnlyFans. And this should not be a matter of moral apathy in our society. Again, I'm not talking about regulation or legislation. Perhaps that's appropriate, but that's not even the question. The question is, do we even have the moral language anymore to look at human behavior that ought to disgust us and say, it's okay to be disgusted by that behavior. It's okay to look at things that violate the nature of what it means to be made in the sacred image of God and say, that's bad. And I have an innate sense of being provoked by it into disgust. It's okay. We were made that way. And that's not a terrible thing. Again, a society that loses any concept of the sacred and trades the sacred for the profane is a society that is not long for this world. Because in the end, if we can't place certain principles above and beyond debate in the realm of the sacred, such as for example, the value of human life, if you cannot do that, then you're not going to have a society for very long. All right, well, that brings us to the latest in this shooting of the United Healthcare CEO. Now again, you can have whatever arguments you want to have with with regard to health insurance, which is a very, very complex topic. This basic idea that people seem to have that if you remove the profit incentive from business somehow the product good or service gets more efficient and better. Please name such a product good or service in which this is the case. Seriously one, I would love to hear one product good or service that has ever become more efficiently distributed better and higher quality by removing the profit margin and and instead acting through pseudo altruism. That is not how human behavior works. But put aside whatever questions you have about healthcare for a second. There is a sacred principle that we all have to hold by and that is murder is bad. Why this should in any way be questioned is beyond me. A society that can't even declare human life sacred enough that you don't get to shoot somebody because you don't like how the healthcare system works. That is not a society that is long for this world. Well, the latest on this case is that despite all of the bizarre conspiratorial speculation that the shooter in this case, the alleged shooter, Luigi Mangione, that this person was not the person who was framed or that this was a put up job by the government or such. Well, the 3D printed gun according to CNN that the killing suspect had when he was arrested this week in Pennsylvania matches three shell casings found at the crime scene in midtown Manhattan. According to the New York Police Department Commissioner Man Jones, fingerprints match those investigators found on items near the Scene of the December 4th assassination of the United Healthcare chief. Again, three 9 millimeter shell casings from the crime scene had the words delay, deny and depose written across them. One word per bullet. Police had been looking into the words which title a 2010 book critiquing the insurance industry may point to a motive. Well, it's pretty clear they do point to a motive at this point. Meanwhile, the police say that the suspect's notebook described a rationale for the CEO's killing. Quote, what do you do? You whack the CEO at the annual parasitic bean counter convention. It's targeted, precise, and doesn't risk innocence. So again, it's very obvious why this happened. It's also bizarre how everybody is trying to fit this person into one political box or another. Meaning there's an attempt to fit this person into the sort of blue collar rising up against the system box. That's not correct. This person grew up incredibly rich. His parents are incredibly rich. Presumably they could have helped pay for whatever back bills he had. And the person he shot, Brian Thompson, actually grew up relatively poor and made his way to the CEO of UnitedHealthcare. Whether you like what he did or not, as the head of UnitedHealthcare, also, this person's politics were somewhat bizarrely heterotox. He he, as I say, existed in an online sphere that was sort of center right, perhaps in some contexts. He quoted Tucker Carlson at one point he had quoted a wide variety of other sort of center right accounts. But then about six months ago, it appears that he had some sort of mental break. It appears that according to the contemporaneous accounts, he had a really bad back problem and that this led him to chronic pain, maybe to painkillers. Many of the books he was exploring, we're talking about the use of psychedelics and all the rest of this. So there's an attempt to paint him as some sort of Robin Hood type hero here. According to the Washington Post, even when Luigi Mangione was surrounded with people who cared about him, he was isolated by a spinal defect that gave the athletic young man crippling pain and contributed to a jaundiced view of the American healthcare system. On Reddit in April, Mangione foreshadowed that skepticism about the healthcare industry as he offered advice for getting a doctor to perform spinal surgery. He wrote, quote, tell them you are unable to work or do your job. We live in a capitalist society. I found the medical industry responds to these keywords far more urgently than you, describing unbearable pain and how it's impacting your quality of life. Nothing in his Reddit post indicated violent intentions. His attorney is not responding to request for comment at this point. We'll get to more on that in just a second. First, let's talk about something that actually works. Efficient business finance management. You want to know how to run your company's finances? Smoother than a well oiled machine? Check out Ramp. Ramp is a corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Ramp gives your finance team unprecedented control over company spending. You can issue cards to every employee with actual limits and restrictions. A novel concept in today's world of runaway expenses. RAMP's accounting software automatically collects receipts and categorizes your expenses in real time. No more chasing down receipts. Your employees won't waste hours on expense reports, allowing you to close your books eight times faster. Unlike most so called money saving solutions, RAMP actually puts cash back in your pocket. Businesses using Ramp save an average of 5% in their very first year. Plus, it's easier to set up than my son's Lego sets. You can get started, issue virtual and physical cards and start making payments in less than 15 minutes, whether you have five employees or 5,000. And now get $250 when you join RAMP. Go to ramp.com Shapiro that's ramp.com Shapiro R A M P.com Shapiro cards issued by Sutton bank member FDIC terms and conditions do apply. That's ramp.com also it can be tough to prioritize your health, especially if you're not sure where to start. That's why I'm excited to introduce Lumen. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. It's very cool. All you have to do is breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning to know what's going on with your metabolism. This means you'll know whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Forget those one size fits all diet fads. What actually sets Lumen apart is its ability to understand you on a personal level. But the crazy news cycle and the ton of traveling I've been doing lately, the device is an absolute lifesaver. It takes my unique metabolic data. It crafts a personalized nutrition plan for every day tailored to my body's needs and goals. With Lumen, you're not just getting a device, you're getting a health companion. Breathe into it before and after a workout or a meal and gain real time insights into your body's metabolic response. Lumen will provide you with actionable tips to help you stay on top of your health. If you wanna take the next step in improving your health, head on over to Lumen me. Shapiro. Get 15% off your lumen. That's L U M E N me. Use code Shapiro for 15% off your purchase. That's Lumen Me. And get 15% off your Lumen. Today. Start personalizing your health with Lumen. Lumen me. Okay. The reason that I bring up the question of whether human life is now considered sacred is because of the many people, mainly on the left, but not entirely on the left, who seem to believe that the answer is at the very least qualified, that somehow violence can be justified in individual cases. And this would be almost a textbook example of terrorism. It is, in fact, terrorism when you are attempting to affect political change through murder this way. There are a group of people on the left who seem to be kind of fine with that. Elizabeth Warren is chief on that list. Elizabeth Warren. She suggested, while appearing with Joy Reid, the least joyful joy there is, that violence may not be the answer. But, but, but, but, but. You can only push people so far. We'll say it over and over. Violence is never the answer.