Personally I don't really care if she is conservative or not (I'm not even in the US and am not sure to really understand the party system). What bothers me th

Personally I don't really care if she is conservative or not (I'm not even in the US and am not sure to really understand the party system). What bothers me the most is that the article wants to tackle sex, and eventually food, but the claims on both subjects are peculiar, unrealistic and mainly unfounded. People aren't less moral than they were centuries ago, be it towards sex or anything else. Different people can now openly have different moralities, different POV have come to be tolerated and the law and society has changed in its view of sexual orientation and marriage. But these sexual behaviors or way of thinking didn't just become a thing now that they are legal or accepted, people were just doing them behind closed doors, were openly seen as exceptions, or got banned from society/killed/deported. Arguing that morality has gone south in two centuries is just an other way of saying "Society as a whole should have a single moral compass, the one of two centuries ago, let's bash any different moralities". And sadly the same goes for the food argument. There is so much "junk" food now because people produce and actually consume it. Arguying that we've become more morally concerned about food when literally thousands of tons of generic food is produced and eaten everyday is also delusional. Some peope care a lot more about what they it, of course, just as centuries ago rich people would also care about who makes their bread, what is their meat, if it's poisoned, and if it's nutritionous and tasty. There's no way a bourgeois would eat the same food as a farmer, and with choice comes educated behaviors, preferences and opinions. People didn't just judge with the same criteria, and it would be misleading to say that prefering organic vegetables to sanglier meat is a more moral choice.