3 ms·

I think there's no consistent difference between conservatives and progressives on this point. Conservatives, for example, are much more prone to think that hu

by dkarl 16y ago

I think there's no consistent difference between conservatives and progressives on this point. Conservatives, for example, are much more prone to think that human sexuality can be shaped and controlled by society, whereas progressives take the attitude that every variety and quirk of human sexuality must be dealt with as it is. It's the same thing with the desire to be productive and contribute to society: progressives tend to see it as an innate drive that can simply be harnessed for any purpose, while conservatives see it as a fragile thing that withers unless it is cultivated under the right conditions (i.e., low taxation and strong protection of private property.) Note that it is both conservatives and progressives who worry about media warping the minds of children: conservatives worrying about sex, irreverance, and irresponsibility, and progressives worrying about racism, sexism, and violence.

hga 16y ago
Ah, but you have to look at the means by which each approach them. Conservatives assume that "human sexuality can be shaped and controlled by society" through law, religion, custom, etc., and while we're at it, although not directly related for them for this but very important to some progressives (see below), to a certain end, that of families and properly raising the next generation. That's entirely consistent with the attitude that man is born evil and must be prodded in the right directions. The modern progressive attitude is as you say, "let it all hang out". Historically it that wasn't entirely the case, e.g. progressives were heavily into eugenics until the Nazis gave that a bad name (e.g. check out Margret Sanger, even Wikipedia doesn't dare to entirely airbrush away that aspect of her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_eu...). You also need to factor in this bit of wit from I think William F. Buckely, although I wasn't able to find the quote as I remember it on the web: "The only thing liberals want to be liberated from is their marriage vows." I.e. there is an aspect of self-interest in all this. You also need to factor in that the more radical of the progressives want to destroy the family in pursuit of their particular idea of utopia, since the family is the foundational unit of existing societies (the Bolsheviks are one well known early example). A lot of feminism also goes along similar lines (e.g. the fish and bicycle slogan). So supporting "every variety and quirk of human sexuality" are means to those ends.
- dkarl 16y ago
  You also need to factor in this bit of wit from I think William F. Buckely, although I wasn't able to find the quote as I remember it on the web: "The only thing liberals want to be liberated from is their marriage vows." I.e. there is an aspect of self-interest in all this. This is a complete misunderstanding of the intent and the actual result, but someone as honest and principled as William F. Buckley can be forgiven for misunderstanding :-) Affairs have always been an option for married people. Back in more conventional days with less freedom of choice, anyone in an unhappy marriage had an understandable reason for an affair. At least in the upper classes -- in William F. Buckley's milieu -- longstanding affairs could be open secrets and might not bring any opprobrium onto the parties involved, depending on the exact perception of the situation. These days, the legitimization of non-marriage lifestyle choices has made open-minded progressives feel more responsible for their marriages. Most progressives are pretty bland in their sexual tastes, especially after marriage. They mostly commit themselves to conventional, sexually monogamous marriages. Without rigid societal rules to take partial blame, inability to stick to that conventional image of marriage has finally become a purely personal moral failure even in the eyes of social progressives. Yet most progressives still choose marriage and submit themselves to this standard. For the average progressive, little has changed about sex except that the pre-marriage scene has been liberated from fears about shame and pregnancy. tl;dr Being a progressive and a liberal has always been mostly about fighting for rights that one will personally never exercise. William F. Buckley was a brilliant intellectual, but he was wrong on this. Monte Python, however, nailed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8

by dkarl 16y ago

hga 16y ago

Ah, but you have to look at the means by which each approach them. Conservatives assume that "human sexuality can be shaped and controlled by society" through law, religion, custom, etc., and while we're at it, although not directly related for them for this but very important to some progressives (see below), to a certain end, that of families and properly raising the next generation. That's entirely consistent with the attitude that man is born evil and must be prodded in the right directions. The modern progressive attitude is as you say, "let it all hang out". Historically it that wasn't entirely the case, e.g. progressives were heavily into eugenics until the Nazis gave that a bad name (e.g. check out Margret Sanger, even Wikipedia doesn't dare to entirely airbrush away that aspect of her: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_eu...). You also need to factor in this bit of wit from I think William F. Buckely, although I wasn't able to find the quote as I remember it on the web: "The only thing liberals want to be liberated from is their marriage vows." I.e. there is an aspect of self-interest in all this. You also need to factor in that the more radical of the progressives want to destroy the family in pursuit of their particular idea of utopia, since the family is the foundational unit of existing societies (the Bolsheviks are one well known early example). A lot of feminism also goes along similar lines (e.g. the fish and bicycle slogan). So supporting "every variety and quirk of human sexuality" are means to those ends.

dkarl 16y ago
You also need to factor in this bit of wit from I think William F. Buckely, although I wasn't able to find the quote as I remember it on the web: "The only thing liberals want to be liberated from is their marriage vows." I.e. there is an aspect of self-interest in all this. This is a complete misunderstanding of the intent and the actual result, but someone as honest and principled as William F. Buckley can be forgiven for misunderstanding :-) Affairs have always been an option for married people. Back in more conventional days with less freedom of choice, anyone in an unhappy marriage had an understandable reason for an affair. At least in the upper classes -- in William F. Buckley's milieu -- longstanding affairs could be open secrets and might not bring any opprobrium onto the parties involved, depending on the exact perception of the situation. These days, the legitimization of non-marriage lifestyle choices has made open-minded progressives feel more responsible for their marriages. Most progressives are pretty bland in their sexual tastes, especially after marriage. They mostly commit themselves to conventional, sexually monogamous marriages. Without rigid societal rules to take partial blame, inability to stick to that conventional image of marriage has finally become a purely personal moral failure even in the eyes of social progressives. Yet most progressives still choose marriage and submit themselves to this standard. For the average progressive, little has changed about sex except that the pre-marriage scene has been liberated from fears about shame and pregnancy. tl;dr Being a progressive and a liberal has always been mostly about fighting for rights that one will personally never exercise. William F. Buckley was a brilliant intellectual, but he was wrong on this. Monte Python, however, nailed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8