Posted on 11/05/2007 3:40:48 PM PST by wagglebee
Remember, if ‘for the children’, just like SCHIP.
Yep! One of the reasons the left supports a sexualized culture is that it produces more Democrats and leads to real nanny statism. As opposed to the imaginary nanny statism we keep hearing about from the libertarian types who think America was a Taliban-style theocracy until the 1960s or 70s.
That is enforcing your value systems on somebody else who does not adhere to the same set, and by external action, pressures him or her to take actions they otherwise would not take through free choice. Coersion.
You and I are simply arguing degrees.
There is a difference. Those are real crimes committed by one person against another. The purpose of coercion in this case is protect people from themselves, which the govt has no business.
I think there are definite cause and effects here in that regard. We can take a laissez faire attitude as members of society, and allow generations of women to be abused, and end up as votes squarely against us in the ballot box for the true nanny state of Hilary, running on the fuel of their anti-male sentiment, correction, hatred of males because of deep scars.
Some of the so-called entertainment out there is toxic and a lot of it is just dumb. However, a lot of stuff in modern society is toxic and more than a little is just plain dumb.
Of course, countries like Sweden and Holland that are very libertine on matters such as these are the ultimate nanny states. Government in virtually all western nations has grown exponentially since the sexual revolution in the 60s, and there’s a reason for that. A sexually libertine society by nature becomes a weak, dependent society populated by people who want to be taken care of by mommy, and mommy turns out to be nanny state government.
I encounter them every day. College kids awash in sex and dependency. “The government should, like, provide us with stuff.”
Your view of Society, and its potential and propensity for erosion—which is what I am addressing—and the “coercive” effect that popular culture accordingly has upon myself as an individual and minors in my charge, versus, my view, must differ somewhat and there is probably no meeting of the minds here I would assume.
A sexually libertine society by nature becomes a weak, dependent society populated by people who want to be taken care of by mommy, and mommy turns out to be nanny state government
That ranks up there as one of the oddest things I’ve ever heard.
Take a look at the magazines on any store shelf. Sexualization is aimed at younger demographics than ever before. Sickens me to think some suits in a carpeted room decide this is good for business.
That we will be able to forget her might be her best attribute.
I think most of popular culture is garbage. I rarely watch sitcoms. I trying to figure out how Tia tequila figures in all this.
Todays problems in high schools go beyond popular culture. If a teenage girl or a woman in her 20s feels the need to model her life after “Sex in the City” then there are bigger problems than the culture. Where are the parents???
The problem with woman voting for Hillary is not because they are man haters because of the culture, it’s because they have never been taught that their lives were their responsibility. The nanny state has grown out the economy becoming less labor intensive and more dynamic. And individuals are told by politicians that they are entitled to govt subsidies. No one has the coconuts to tell people that they are responsible for their own lives.
Like I said, we probably won’t come to agreement.
"Is our sex-obsessed culture hurting young women?"
Some here would say "Yes", and some would say "No".
It is as simple a debate as this.
Well, then, I'm sure you can give me a list of places that are sexually liberal but filled with rugged individualists who hate big government. Let's see....
San Francisco?
Massachusetts?
Canada?
Sweden?
Hollywood?
Am I getting warm?
yep tween that and fembots who never got dates or even like men so much
You do realize that every location you named is thriving economically?
As much as it pains me to say this, rugged individualists are pretty much a thing of the past. Inherent in the concept is the idea of a generalist with a wide skill set. The kind of guy who can bandage a wound, shoot well, and change the oil in his car.
Those people who are succeeding and thriving in the modern world are specialists with very narrow high level skill sets.
Well, you’ve moved the goalpost here. I said sexually libertine areas tend to become nanny states. You said that was ridiculous. I cited some examples and asked you to cite some counter examples. You now respond by telling me the places I cited are doing well economically, which, of course, wasn’t the issue.
Madison was right when he said only a moral people will remain free. Europe is learning that the hard way as the EU leviathan state engulfs them. We’ll learn the hard way, too.
I agree with you. A sexually promiscuous society ends up leading to more government. It doesn’t promote responsibility that’s for sure.
You’re correct on that — I didn’t keep my eye on the topic.
However, I maintain that libertines don’t necessarily create nanny states. I just don’t see the connection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.