Ace of Spades HQ

February 19, 2014

"The Economics of Sex"
— Ace

One of those neat "whiteboard" exhibits where they draw pictures and charts while delivering their verbal argument. The video argues that sex, like anything else, can be analyzed as an economic exchange, an exchange of one good for another. And that the "price" women "charge" for sex has dropped precipitously, resulting in men who in turn understand that the market is signaling the price for sex should not be high, and are therefore unwilling to "pay" much for it.

Via Instapundit, who links this New York Post article about the video, if you just want to read the quotes and basic thrust of the argument.

Key insight: "Men tend to behave as well, or as poorly, as the women in their lives permit."

There's a documentary called Sexy Baby, directed by a couple of women interested in exploring current sexual mores. (Trailer here: Content Warning.)

There are several storylines, two of which are particularly interesting. The one that's relevant here is 12-year-old Winnifred's story. She's very precocious, and "gets it" on an adult level. She notes, for example, that FaceBook and other social media pictures of girls must always at least include the suggestion of being open for sex -- of being "DTF," as she says. (Down to F***.)

She says (or implies) that she's rather trapped by the current market forces, in which boys just won't take an interest in girls who don't broadcast that sexual availability.

Remember, she's 12.

The pictures she posts online are not graphic or overtly sexual. They do, however, subtly signal that she might be DTF, which is actually her intent. I mean, it's her intent to signal that, in order to attract boys; based on her interviews, I don't think she actually is ready for a sexual relationship. (But then, her dad knows she's giving these interviews, so who knows what the truth is.)

Remember, again: She's 12.

Her dad argues with her about this, and tells her the sort of things dads tell their daughters, about respect and so forth. But she tells her interviewers, basically: This is the marketplace. If I want to have any boys show any interest me at all, I have to conform to what's being bought in the marketplace. This is just the way it is.

A lot of feminists criticize this sort of argument, claiming it's "slut shaming" girls. I don't buy that at all. I certainly don't buy that two women filmmakers, who seem to me to be feminists themselves, are "slut shaming" girls, and I don't think Winnifred is slut shaming herself or the other girls she's competing with.

And remember: She's 12.

Feminists take this argument to be only about girls' behavior, and seem to believe -- or at least claim -- that anyone who discusses these things "hates" girls or only wishes to "slut shame" them.

Untrue. You can't watch Sexy Baby and not feel sympathy for Winnifred. She is a 12 year old girl, stuck in an ADULT CONTENT WARNING world. Nor can you not feel, by extension, sympathy for the millions of other Winnifreds suffering under the current sexual regime.

You don't have to claim "This is all girls' fault" to recognize that there is a social problem here which is forcing (or, at least, urging) girls into sexual activity at increasingly young ages.

It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is -- huge segments of society are implicated; the "fault" is diffuse.

The important issue is that the issue exists, undeniably. And how can you change that -- how can you try to make things easier for Winnifred -- without discussing the problem at all?

I have a problem with feminists on this point. They are so eager to attack me, a convenient member of the hated "Patriarchy," that they're unwilling to listen at all to Winnifred, or lift a finger to help her.

Helping Winnifred would involve some positive social messaging from role models saying, "Hey, don't listen to boys about sex. Boys are programmed to lie, cheat, and steal (or worse) their way into sex." Hearing a hip-sounding role-model young feminist say that would probably count for more in Winnifred's mind than hearing her fuddy-duddy worryword daddy say it.

But instead of helpful messaging like that -- messaging that might help Winnifred set the "price of sex" in the marketplace a little higher (a higher price from which she gains) -- feminists are just determined to stay in their favorite, easy wheelhouse, their eternal wooby, attacking politically convenient targets, calling everyone who worries about Winnifred a member of the retrograde, evil Patriarchy, and so on.

It is politically easy to attack "The Patriarchy." It is a more difficult conversation to honestly discuss if our current sexual marketplace is behaving correctly, and if our current sexual marketplace is serving Winnifred -- or harming her.

And people love taking the easy way out. And they especially love taking the easy way out when they can then clap themselves on the back and call their cowardice "bravery."

Remember: Winnifred is 12.

Posted by: Ace at 08:18 AM | Comments (484)
Post contains 848 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Slap shot first.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 08:20 AM (n0DEs)

2 My wife makes all my money Sex works

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 08:21 AM (KpjMV)

3 I scored.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 08:21 AM (n0DEs)

4 >>Key insight: "Men tend to behave as well, or as poorly, as the women in their lives permit." OK, I haven't finished reading yet, but why is it that the onus seems to be on women to regulate mens' behavior? Are men children to be parented or something? What about all of these horrible women I'm always hearing about here? Did their men fail to keep them in check?

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:21 AM (zDsvJ)

5 Is this the Hockey thread?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 08:22 AM (6bMeY)

6 If my 12yo posted she was DTF, she couldn't do it on her back cause I would wear out my belt tanning her bony ass

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 08:23 AM (KpjMV)

7 Hmmmm..... interesting read. Perhaps young "suitors" might also consider the "other" DTF when approaching young daughters. Death Through Father

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 08:24 AM (nELVU)

8 4. Because guys are stupid and do stupid things

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 08:24 AM (KpjMV)

9 Is the opposite true? Women will put up with anything for money aka rich men?

Posted by: joe dagostino at February 19, 2014 08:26 AM (5vRRq)

10 Another Cultural Advancement!

Posted by: NAMBLA [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 08:26 AM (5ikDv)

11 Kinda related.

Here in my local area, there is a growing scandal with highschoolers and Instagram. Seems some 18 yo girl found a nude picture of herself posted on Instagram that she was not aware of. The only problem is that the picture in question was taken when she was 14-15. The news article did not elaborate if the picture was a selfie or a voyeur cam pic. After police investigated, nearly a dozen other highschools in the greater Raleigh area have also had naked pics of student posted on Instagram, both boys and girls.

Posted by: EC at February 19, 2014 08:26 AM (GQ8sn)

12 "It doesn't matter whose 'fault' it is" It does, actually. And dump the sneer quotes.

Posted by: Old Fart at February 19, 2014 08:26 AM (0gnMc)

13 The price of sex with my kid is a phone call to Sardinia to her godfather

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 08:27 AM (KpjMV)

14
My young girls certainly will not be able to 'market' themselves. They will be told they will be monitored and spied on like a NSA geek stalking a super model.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 08:27 AM (n0DEs)

15 Recall what you were saying just yesterday, Ace, that you don't want to impose culture on others. Well, but she's TWELVE!! A cultural standard, and not even the usual one over the history of the world, fella.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 08:27 AM (5xmd7)

16 Having a 3 year old daughter, I'm really not looking forward to those teen years.

Posted by: radar at February 19, 2014 08:27 AM (eNZFc)

17 >>8 4. Because guys are stupid and do stupid things So guys are stupid and that's why they misbehave. But women are Evil, is that it? I believe men and women are fundamentally different. But I believe in a relationship we need to treat each other as equals, with equivalent standards of behavior expected of each of us. It frustrates me to read people in a real relationship falling back on these supposed ingrained gender differences as the reason those relationships fail. I think they fail because people are so desperate to be in the relationship that they don't apply the same high standards they do on their close friendships to the person they are sleeping with.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:27 AM (zDsvJ)

18 Looking at relationships in purely economic terms can be misleading, but there is some truth there. A surfeit of supply decreases the value on the margins significantly. What feminists refuse to realize is that the value of women is decreased the more they throw the goods out there for indiscriminate consumption.

Posted by: RS at February 19, 2014 08:27 AM (YAGV/)

9: "Is the opposite true? Women will put up with anything for money aka rich men?"

Yup. At least as long as is required by statute in order for them to clean the hubby out in family court.

Posted by: Azenogoth (Freedom or Fire) at February 19, 2014 08:28 AM (v6cwT)

20 Whiteboard? I thought everything was on clear glass like in the movies and on television.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 19, 2014 08:28 AM (6Nj7A)

21 But she tells her interviewers, basically: This is the marketplace. If I want to have any boys show any interest me at all, I have to conform to what's being bought in the marketplace.

It's good she learned this early enough to get conforming.

Posted by: HR at February 19, 2014 08:28 AM (ZKzrr)

22 6 If my 12yo posted she was DTF, she couldn't do it on her back cause I would wear out my belt tanning her bony ass Father...of...the...year...!

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at February 19, 2014 08:28 AM (CeHbE)

23 I have a problem with feminists on this point. They are so eager to attack me, a convenient member of the hated "Patriarchy," that they're unwilling to listen at all to Winnifred, or lift a finger to help her. Feminism is just another brand of cultural Marxism. Hence, the enemy must be external. It isn't.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (T0NGe)

24 We didn't have the internet or computers. We just had the telephone. But we didn't abuse it to declare ourselves DTF, because my parents were the last generation to treat technology as slaves.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (5xmd7)

25 Fuck girls, Ace! Just get yourself a puppy and be done with them.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (6Nj7A)

26 Clearly that young woman needs a better influence in her life. I'll adopt her.

Posted by: Woody Allen at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (Aif/5)

How about turning this around and broadcasting it to boys and young men, too. And I don't mean telling boys and young men that they're preprogrammed to lie, cheat and steal for sex. I mean telling boys and young men that they're better than that, and so are the girls they should be looking for.

I'm all for empowering girls in a way that fucks over the feminazis, but I'm sick and tired of ignoring boys. They deserve some positive role models and reinforcement, too. Girls do not get a Special Snowflake card for having two X chromosomes.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (4df7R)

28 OK, I haven't finished reading yet, but why is it that the onus seems to be on women to regulate mens' behavior? Are men children to be parented or something? YES! I mean, have you ever MET a man? Ever? How is this an arguable point?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (T0NGe)

29 In the 1860s Marx argued that the nuclear family is the primary impediment to a pure communist state. He advocated the promotion of Free Love to intentionally undermine the nuclear family, for the purpose of enabling The Revolution. Communist theorists have been promoting Free Love ever since, with exponentially increasing success. They really do have nefarious goals. They have no idea if Marx's theory is correct -- does Free Love facilitae Communism? -- but they plunge ahead promoting it anyway. They do theis by seizing control of the culture (per Gramsci) and sexualizing it to the nth degree. Meanwhile, stupid capitalists are more than happy to "sell the rope to those who would hang them" by using this new expanded sexuality to advertise products. Sexy ads are successful ads. And so we go down the spiral, with no one on the brakes.

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (+cx5n)

I think Ace is trying to address this issue without selling out like buzz feed.

Posted by: Draki at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (L8r/r)

31 It is scary as shit how sexualized these kids are.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:29 AM (zDsvJ)

32 17. But women are Evil, is that it? Yep All women, ALL

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 08:30 AM (KpjMV)

33 If my 12yo posted she was DTF, she couldn't do it on her back cause I would wear out my belt tanning her bony ass

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 12:23 PM (KpjMV)

I have posted this before...I have a very good friend whose granddaughter has been sexually active since age 12. Mom took her and got her BC pills--the whole nine yards. I was appalled when my friend told me this, but, all I got in reply was a shrug and they are all doing it and was told, "If you make your daughter behave, then she is a social outcast." I do not believe this to be true. I think it's an abrogation of parental duties to let your daughters and sons behave like rutting animals before they even know how to drive.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 19, 2014 08:30 AM (kXoT0)

34 Good point Zombie, families provide more for people than the government. If the family is broken they'll want to turn to other things for help.

Posted by: Draki at February 19, 2014 08:31 AM (L8r/r)

35 OK OT I know, but apparently the streaming of US Hockey is a paid deal? I got a free few minutes and then poof! Damn! Any morons that can help a hockey nut out?

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 08:31 AM (/o+xv)

36 >>24 We didn't have the internet or computers. We just had the telephone. Hell, I didn't even have that. There was one phone in our house, attached to the wall of the kitchen. No privacy whatsoever. Then again, I didn't give a shit about "boys" at twelve, either.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:32 AM (zDsvJ)

37 It frustrates me to read people in a real relationship falling back on these supposed ingrained gender differences as the reason those relationships fail. I think they fail because people are so desperate to be in the relationship that they don't apply the same high standards they do on their close friendships to the person they are sleeping with. Replace "people" with "women". Relationships were invented by women to keep men oppressed. We must overthrow our gynoverlords! Prostates of the world, unite!

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:32 AM (T0NGe)

38 My young girls certainly will not be able to 'market' themselves. They will be told they will be monitored and spied on like a NSA geek stalking a super model.

My parents barely let me leave the house after dark (school, church, or work only) until I was 17 and went to college. Instead of being tarted up and broadcasting that I was DTF, I read a lot.

They were shocked and dismayed when no one wanted to go with me to prom, and further shocked and dismayed when I was a dried-up old maid at 24, 'cause I'd been reading a lot instead of tarting myself up and broadcasting that I was DTF.

Parents reap what they sow, it's kind of interesting.

Posted by: HR at February 19, 2014 08:32 AM (ZKzrr)

39 Clearly that young woman needs a better influence in her life. I'll adopt her. Posted by: Woody Allen at February 19, 2014 12:29 PM (Aif/5) --------- **snort ** wipes coffee off monitor.... again

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 08:32 AM (nELVU)

40 35 OK OT I know, but apparently the streaming of US Hockey is a paid deal? I got a free few minutes and then poof! Damn! Any morons that can help a hockey nut out? -- I thought it was on USA network.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:32 AM (zDsvJ)

41 They really do have nefarious goals. They have no idea if Marx's theory is correct -- does Free Love facilitae Communism? -- but they plunge ahead promoting it anyway. Marx has always been wrong about everything. It's just underpants gnomes, all the way down.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:33 AM (T0NGe)

42 Remember: Winnifred is 12. Goddammit, I heard you the first three times! I'm going to burst a dick artery if you keep mentioning it!

Posted by: Roman Polanski at February 19, 2014 08:33 AM (FcR7P)

43 "If you make your daughter behave, then she is a social outcast." I do not believe this to be true.

Social outcast here...it's totally true.

Posted by: HR at February 19, 2014 08:34 AM (ZKzrr)

44 How about turning this around and broadcasting it to boys and young men, too. And I don't mean telling boys and young men that they're preprogrammed to lie, cheat and steal for sex. I mean telling boys and young men that they're better than that, and so are the girls they should be looking for. -- Completely agree, MWR. I'm not a parent and my parents just had two girls to raise, but I'm always amazed that the majority of parents I've spoken with say boys are "easier." How can that be if they are programmed to lie etc? Is it just that parents really don't give a shit what their kids are doing as long as they're not at risk of getting pregnant?

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:34 AM (zDsvJ)

45 I thought it was on USA network. Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 12:32 PM . The link on their site takes me to the NBC live feed and gives you 4 minutes of watching and then, poof!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 08:35 AM (/o+xv)

And people love taking the easy way out. And they especially love taking the easy way out when they can then clap themselves on the back and call their cowardice "bravery."

===============

I give you also: Endless "National Conversations about Race."

That's the thing that pisses me off: The people crying "racism" are not brave--they are the rankest low cowards of the worst sort.

Posted by: RoyalOil at February 19, 2014 08:35 AM (VjL9S)

47 Any morons that can help a hockey nut out?

It's probably blocked in the States, but you can try the CBC feed.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/oq3r3qv

Posted by: Waterhouse at February 19, 2014 08:35 AM (t8ySh)

48 In a culture where is a sex tape is now a de rigueur marketing tool, we already have a bunch of confused adults. Since Winnifred is in the sixth or seventh grade, just THINK what this environment does to her. Now think about what it does to everyone to have the federal government infantalize them at the same time the culture demands that they be hedonistic adults. We are living in the Age of Incoherent Stupidity or Stupid Incoherence. Pick a side.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 19, 2014 08:35 AM (659DL)

OK, I haven't finished reading yet, but why is it that the onus seems to be on women to regulate mens' behavior? Are men children to be parented or something?

Well we do still find farts funny.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (LI48c)

50 Yes, my free-love feminist minions, just keep telling the Terrans that there's no consequence for unrestrained sexual activity... Small steps corrupt.

Posted by: Essence of Slaanesh brewing in the Immaterium at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (X866z)

51 Sexy 12-year-olds? Yay! Oh, you mean girls.

Posted by: Noted Pederast Hairy Reid at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (7ObY1)

52
I choose social outcast over DTF by a zillion miles.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (n0DEs)

53 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (PYAXX)

54 It's probably blocked in the States, but you can try the CBC feed. http://preview.tinyurl.com/oq3r3qv Yep, blocked in the US.

Posted by: t-bird at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (FcR7P)

55 44. I'd rather nck be an outcast than a guest on Maury trying to find out who the baby's father is

Posted by: Navycopjoe at February 19, 2014 08:36 AM (KpjMV)

56 so.... is this a bewb thread... or not?

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (nELVU)

57 Scarface had an interesting hypothesis on "the economics of sex," as I recall...

Posted by: RobM1981 at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (owS2i)

58 Having been a young woman without a father in my life at all growing up, I can tell you how things worked *for me*. I was painfully shy, and brutally teased for most of my childhood up until puberty. Once I hit puberty, boys at least were not teasing me any more. Having no idea how to navigate that world, I stumbled around dating boys who were frankly pretty much assholes. However in my mind if I didn't do *something* (not DTF, let's say DTHJ) then I'd get a reputation as a prude and I'd be right back where I was with everyone hating me again. I had lots of freedom because my mom worked very late hours. Honestly, I didn't get into nearly as much trouble as I could have, but I did set the stage for poor relationships throughout my teen years. So what could have changed this? I think having older highschool aged girls talk to middle school girl about how they do not have to put out would be a useful message. Have the pretty, popular girls (sorry, it matters) come down and talk about how we have a lot of power in the relationship, and saying 'no' doesn't mean we're prude and all of that. Also, having a dad assuredly helps. Of course, by the time kids are teenagers that ship has long sailed so to make an impact we'd have to focus on giving incentives for the next generation to get married and stay married. Anyway, just my .02

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (CNua6)

Reading about crap like this makes me so glad I had parents who set a good example, explained about boudaries, and reminded me not to go along with the crowd.

Of course, it might have helped that I didn't give a damn what the crowd was doing at that age (I love being a introvert/ nonconformist- it's saved me from a million and one headaches over the years).

And, call me naive, but why are people talking about the economics of sex anyway? Unless you're picking up streetwalkers, economics shouldn't really come into it.

Posted by: right wing whippersnapper at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (NSh5j)

60 So HR, are you upset that the 12 Year Old You wasn't sexually active? Would that have made the Now You happier? More successful? Less socially awkward?

Posted by: Smaulz at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (AbcTu)

61 so.... is this a bewb thread... or not? Come back in six years.

Posted by: t-bird at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (FcR7P)

62 I'm not a parent and my parents just had two girls to raise, but I'm always amazed that the majority of parents I've spoken with say boys are "easier." What I have been told is that girls, when they go through puberty, are far less obedient and certainly less predictable. Boys are more predictable. They will sneak out, but when you chastise or punish them, they're more likely to take it (and then do the offending thing again). Girls will yell at your face.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:37 AM (T0NGe)

63 . The link on their site takes me to the NBC live feed and gives you 4 minutes of watching and then, poof!
Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 12:35 PM (/o+xv)

http://gofirstrowus.eu/sport/olympics.html

You'll have to get the ads to clear and close some popups though

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (LI48c)

64 And yet Libertarians continuously insist that social issues are no one's business. They just can't seem to see the Social forest because of all the Fiscal trees.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (bb5+k)

65 there has been a problem at some Houston High Schools of instagram pics being saved and posted at a website called hos of HISD or something like that youngest thunder girl is 14 its terrifying

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (zOTsN)

66 I have posted this before...I have a very good friend whose granddaughter has been sexually active since age 12. Mom took her and got her BC pills--the whole nine yards. I was appalled when my friend told me this, but, all I got in reply was a shrug and they are all doing it and was told, "If you make your daughter behave, then she is a social outcast." I do not believe this to be true. I think it's an abrogation of parental duties to let your daughters and sons behave like rutting animals before they even know how to drive.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 19, 2014 12:30 PM (kXoT0)

A lot of parents are obsessed with their children being popular and they want to be "friends" with their children which is a complete abrogation of the parental role. My role as a parent was to inculcate a healthy self respect in my children and to make them independent. Of all the things I've done in my life I probably take more pride in how I did that because it's not easy.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (2RiXU)

67 http://www.justproxy.us/ Which also has uk proxy sites and there is always hidemyass which ia another proxy site.

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (6Nj7A)

68 Iran solved some of these problems. Rather, they claimed they did . . . By taking that much control over their culture, the men who took control were immediately corrupted. So instead of the girls' fellow students and friends of the family skeeving on the girls, it was the mullahs. And where civilians can be arrested, the mullahs effectively couldn't. (Also "helped" that the Shiites redefined the age of consent to the start of adolescence, down from the end. But that's actually a side issue.)

Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (m5+rk)

69 E-Fucking-Gads! Why is a twelve year old female in the social media marketplace in the first place?

Posted by: Fritz at February 19, 2014 08:38 AM (UzPAd)

70 "A lot of feminists criticize this sort of argument, claiming it's "slut shaming" girls"

============

Of course. When your politics consists entirely of silly emotionalism, thinking about problems and critical thinking ain't your bag baby.

Am I the only one who is disturbed (and scared) that 5 years from now you will be able to have a documentary about a 10 year old (instead of a 12 year old sage) saying these things?

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (3LaGb)

71 The one that's relevant here is 12-year-old Winnifred's story. She's very precocious, and "gets it" on an adult level. She notes, for example, that FaceBook and other social media pictures of girls must always at least include the suggestion of being open for sex -- of being "DTF," as she says. (Down to F***.) Go onÂ…

Posted by: Senator Menendez at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (XvHmy)

72 My parents barely let me leave the house after dark (school, church, or work only) until I was 17 and went to college. Instead of being tarted up and broadcasting that I was DTF, I read a lot. Posted by: HR at February 19, 2014 12:32 PM (ZKzrr)

Same here. To say my parents were strict would be to way understate the case. I had a fix up date to the prom. It did not scar me for life. I came home from college to get my Driver's License. I was 18.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (kXoT0)

73 Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and Mel Reynolds approve.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (olDqf)

74 Damn it! I want my hockey! And I know that I am going to hear about the score inadvertently so there's no point watching it later. Crap!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (/o+xv)

75 >>>OK, I haven't finished reading yet, but why is it that the onus seems to be on women to regulate mens' behavior? Are men children to be parented or something? What about all of these horrible women I'm always hearing about here? Did their men fail to keep them in check? ... I went out of my way to say I don't think girls are to blame here. But on the other hand, girls are the primary parties injured by this regime. So while I agree with you about *boys* needing to hear this, I think girls, who are the primary injured parties, need to hear it more. People take care of their own problems better than other people take care of those problems, after all. If one is counting on *others* to solve one's problem, one should expect the problem to continue, because it will.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (/FnUH)

76 This is depressing. It is so because this is the end result (ongoing, mind you) of a certain block of feminism coupled with easy access to social media with a dash of bad parenting. I don't know how we fix this.

Posted by: Heralder at February 19, 2014 08:39 AM (/Mxso)

You wonder why 12 year olds feel they must post pictures that imply they are "DTF?"

I give you Miley Cyrus Twerking.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 08:40 AM (4df7R)

78 Also, great post, Ace.

Posted by: Heralder at February 19, 2014 08:40 AM (/Mxso)

79 @33 Sherrie "I do not believe this to be true. I think it's an abrogation of parental duties to let your daughters and sons behave like rutting animals before they even know how to drive. " Absolutely correct.

Posted by: RS at February 19, 2014 08:40 AM (YAGV/)

Yeah, it can't be the 12 year old's fault. It's her parents' generation and our culture. I hope that America can turn from the better and I think we can since we have fixed earlier issues our culture had.

Posted by: Draki at February 19, 2014 08:40 AM (L8r/r)

81 This whole story make me feel icky. Swear to god when I was 12 the biggest rumor at my school was that one of the girls got caught kissing a boy on a field trip.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 08:40 AM (ZPrif)

82 OK, I haven't finished reading yet, but why is it that the onus seems to be on women to regulate mens' behavior?

This is really pretty easy. Boys don't get pregnant. You can extrapolate each of their future life from there.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 08:41 AM (n0DEs)

83 There's a story recently (I saw some chatter about it on Twitter) about a Duke student who is doing porn. Apparently there was an article about it. She also, apparently, responded to the article with indignation at being termed an "attention whore".

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:41 AM (T0NGe)

84 A point ace though. Part of the reason the feminist are confused on this point is that they want women to be "like" men. And so since men are sex obsessed, they assume women should be sex obsessed too. (As one of my professors says "liberals assume sex is like air, you simply cannot exist without it." I'd append "at any stage of life" to that as well.) It never occurred to the feminist for some odd reason to think that this nature of men (sex driven) is not in fact a good thing to emulate. That the virtue is actually chastity and they should strive for that. (Note: I'm not saying that men can't hit chastity, many do, in fact, but the feminist seems to have decided that women should emulate the ones who don't. Go figure.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 08:41 AM (GaqMa)

85 >>If you make your daughter behave, then she is a social outcast." I do not believe this to be true. **Social outcast here...it's totally true. Well, I guess it depends on what's a social outcast. I certainly was in high school, at least in terms of the majority of activities that the majority of kids were doing. I was well-liked, but I just didn't do the things the majority did. Then again, the majority of people, at ANY age, don't really interest me, so I didn't care. I had a circle of friends in high school who were all sexually active, but I was not. Yeah, kind of felt left out at times, but so what? It wasn't going to change my choices just to fit in. My standard for getting serious was that it be a person whom I liked (and loved) and respected. I suppose that person could have been one of the very socially active types in his high school days if he was a person of substance, but as it turns out it wasn't. Going to the prom or dating a lot was not a priority for me. I don't think I missed out on a thing.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 08:41 AM (zDsvJ)

86 Show your boobies, get money.
Show more than just your boobies, get more money.

And there is a way to get even more money.

because there is no morality any more.

That whole Neanderthal notion of 'right and wrong' has been proven wrong, you see. The left says so, and they are never wrong.

Posted by: Work defines us at February 19, 2014 08:42 AM (bty+M)

87 64 That worked. Click a link leave the download players alone.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 08:42 AM (6bMeY)

88 I went out of my way to say I don't think girls are to blame here.

But on the other hand, girls are the primary parties injured by this regime.

So while I agree with you about *boys* needing to hear this, I think girls, who are the primary injured parties, need to hear it more.

People take care of their own problems better than other people take care of those problems, after all.

If one is counting on *others* to solve one's problem, one should expect the problem to continue, because it will.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:39 PM (/FnUH)

Agreed. We have 4 year old girls who refuse to wear this or that outfit because it's "not sexy". Walk around any mall in America and you will see gangs of little girls all done up in hooker wear and makeup.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 19, 2014 08:42 AM (kXoT0)

89 End of the first period. USA - 3 CZ - 1 Woot!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 08:42 AM (7ObY1)

90 >>>And yet Libertarians continuously insist that social issues are no one's business. some Libertarians have this crazy idea that children are children and should be treated as children, and adults are adults and should be treated as adults. Some libertarians get very annoyed when some people continue to insist that *adults* need to be treated as children. I don't give a f*** what an adult does. By the time someone is an adult, they are officially Not My Problem. Furthermore, by the time someone is an adult, they have lost the thing that children possess (relative innocence) that makes children a particular concern. So go on, please continue, insisting that you have just as much interest in patrolling the morality of a 28 year old woman as you do in objecting to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:42 AM (/FnUH)

91 Speaking in an economic sense, it's worth noting that the value of marriage to a man has been ridiculously downgraded.

Posted by: shillelagh at February 19, 2014 08:43 AM (hRzu2)

92 When my daughter was a teen, interested boys were told that I have .45, a shovel, and endless time dig holes. Seems to have worked.

Posted by: Beer Ninja at February 19, 2014 08:43 AM (598AG)

93 Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2014 12:38 PM .Thanks, I tried it, the firewalls must be blocking it or something. Appreciate the effort though.

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 08:43 AM (/o+xv)

94 "Swear to god when I was 12 the biggest rumor at my school was that one of the girls got caught kissing a boy on a field trip." We had multiple girls get pregnant in 8th grade.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 08:44 AM (CNua6)

95 "basic thrust of the argument"

Hehe

Posted by: Beavis at February 19, 2014 08:44 AM (Z7PrM)

96 I might as well proffer my usual thinking on this subject. World War II fucked us up. Any time you get this sort of imbalance in the sexes, you wreck the social constraints that normally keep people behaved. This is just basic economics people. Supply and Demand. In any population which loses a large quantity of men, the Females have to compete harder for suitable mates. To do so they have to become more promiscuous. Those that won't are ignored in favor of those who will, just as the girl says. Once society establishes that promiscuity is the norm, well, bad money drives out good. It just so happens that the "Sex Cartel" which women had previously maintained, was good for society. Whodda thunk?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 08:44 AM (bb5+k)

97 91 >>>And yet Libertarians continuously insist that social issues are no one's business. some Libertarians have this crazy idea that children are children and should be treated as children, and adults are adults and should be treated as adults. Some libertarians get very annoyed when some people continue to insist that *adults* need to be treated as children. I don't give a f*** what an adult does. By the time someone is an adult, they are officially Not My Problem. Furthermore, by the time someone is an adult, they have lost the thing that children possess (relative innocence) that makes children a particular concern. So go on, please continue, insisting that you have just as much interest in patrolling the morality of a 28 year old woman as you do in objecting to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH) *************** Unfortunately that's where things get tricky--the 28 year old adult can be a-- parent. So that's the gray area.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:44 AM (RJMhd)

98 It is getting so that you can't even tell a guy his 12 year old daughter has a nice ass anymore.

Posted by: Carlos Danger at February 19, 2014 08:44 AM (AskuI)

99 Is that Guns and Roses?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (6bMeY)

100 91 Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH) The left wants us to be sexually "mature" at younger and younger ages. And at the same time, they want us to be perpetual children and reliant on big daddy sugar (the State). Sheesh.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (olDqf)

101 I watched a documentary on Argentina where they said most kids become sexually active at age 12 or 13. Unbelievable...

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (6Nj7A)

102 a computer, or a smart phone, is like having a pornographer in your kids hands, going with them to school, and in their rooms It is impossible to completely protect them from it especially boys. Its too easy and too tempting I have told the thunder boys, as has their dad, that the sex they may have seen on line is not what real sex is like. anymore than video games are what war is like that music videos are not how relationships work

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (zOTsN)

103 IOW--we have some "values" that are not all about FREEDOM!!!

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (RJMhd)

104 We had multiple girls get pregnant in 8th grade. Yeah, sorry about that.

Posted by: Will Folks at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (2/ClZ)

105

Reminds me of the price of sex at an engineering college I went to.... hardly any of the girls put out, even though half of the men were interested in D&D instead......

Posted by: Draki at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (L8r/r)

106 OK, I haven't finished reading yet, but why is it that the onus seems to be on women to regulate mens' behavior? Are men children to be parented or something?

What about all of these horrible women I'm always hearing about here? Did their men fail to keep them in check?

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 12:21 PM (zDsvJ)

In my opinion, it's not that the onus falls on the woman to keep her man in check, it's that a man often needs a woman to keep himself in check. Moreso, I think than a woman needs a man for the same because of the some of the prime differences between us.

Posted by: Heralder at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (/Mxso)

107 "let's say DTHJ"

What are you doing this weekend?

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (3LaGb)

108 some Libertarians have this crazy idea that children are children and should be treated as children, and adults are adults and should be treated as adults.

Ok, but that seems like an artificial standard imprinted in you by your culture.

What's the Libertarian position on age of consent? How should it be determined? When is a child no longer a child?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (45N4D)

109 At twelve years old, I was taught that all girls had cooties.

They did.

Posted by: Fritz at February 19, 2014 08:45 AM (UzPAd)

110 99 It is getting so that you can't even tell a guy his 12 year old daughter has a nice ass anymore. Posted by: Carlos Danger at February 19, 2014 12:44 PM (AskuI) Not without a fistful of Rufies and a 32 oz. screwdriver.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 08:46 AM (olDqf)

111 I had... *tries to remember* six(?) girls get pregnant my senior year of high school. That was 1998. I expect that, were we talking about today, we'd have to backup from senior year of high school to 8th grade.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 08:46 AM (4df7R)

112 By the time someone is an adult, they are officially Not My Problem. Yeah, about that... http://tinyurl.com/mlc7qaa

Posted by: Your friendly neighborhood social welfare behemoth at February 19, 2014 08:46 AM (T0NGe)

113 >>>Unfortunately that's where things get tricky--the 28 year old adult can be a-- parent. So that's the gray area. ... You will always be able to find a "good reason" to exert control other people if you set about on looking for one.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:46 AM (/FnUH)

114 I give you Miley Cyrus Twerking.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 19, 2014 12:40 PM (4df7R)

Never forget that Miley was first Hannah Montana with all the little girls in America as her adoring fans. Well, Miley wants a grown-up career, so Miley goes full bore whore with all the messages that sends girls in America.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 19, 2014 08:46 AM (kXoT0)

115 We had multiple girls get pregnant in 8th grade. Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 12:44 PM (CNua6) ---- Holy shit. I had over 200 people in my graduating class. Not one pregnancy.... that I know of. There were a couple in classes ahead that "had to get married".

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 08:47 AM (nELVU)

116 I have a problem with feminists on this point. They are so eager to attack me, a convenient member of the hated "Patriarchy," that they're unwilling to listen at all to Winnifred, or lift a finger to help her. Sure, they're willing to help her. Just not in any way that actually helps her. It's one of: a. just give in to your needs, it will liberate you b. just give in to lesbian sex c. all sex is rape, abstain d. avoid heteronormative sex See?? plenty of help.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 19, 2014 08:47 AM (1hM1d)

117 114 >>>Unfortunately that's where things get tricky--the 28 year old adult can be a-- parent. So that's the gray area. ... You will always be able to find a "good reason" to exert control other people if you set about on looking for one. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:46 PM (/FnUH) *********** Ya--that's a pretty damn good reason. The state has a duty to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:47 AM (RJMhd)

118 The left wants us to be sexually "mature" at younger and younger ages.

And at the same time, they want us to be perpetual children and reliant on big daddy sugar (the State).

Sheesh.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 12:45 PM (olDqf)

The left hates children because they remind them of how emotionally stunted they are and that the children can outgrow it.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 19, 2014 08:47 AM (2RiXU)

119 Winnifred should have been married six years ago. Little spinster whore.

Posted by: Muhammad, Prophet of Islam at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (YHegH)

120 Really interesting.

I have four young daughters. Say what you like about socons and stuff. A lot of it will be accurate. But the fact is that our modern world is set up to screw up and screw over my girls. Yeah, people can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom or whatever, but the fact is that in aggregate those choices haven't turned out to be truly private. They've created a permissive porn culture where my girls will be literally shamed--not "slutshamed," literally shamed--and marginalized for not participating.

I believe in freedom. But when my girls came along, I discovered I believed in them more. I don't think I'm alone. I think many, many parents are like me. But libertarians and other freedom advocates have nothing to offer us. That needs to change. Because otherwise we're in a Weimar-type situation, where decent people can't take it anymore and are willing to accept extreme measures that they know are bad, because the continued disorder and decay is intolerable.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (ZMzpb)

121 I watched a documentary on Argentina where they said most kids become sexually active at age 12 or 13. Unbelievable... Posted by: Judge Pug
..........
Animals..

I think it's the Latino languages they speak.. does it every time!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (Z7PrM)

122 >>>Ya--that's a pretty damn good reason. The state has a duty to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves. ... right, someone might be a parent, so it's your responsibility to nanny them throughout their adult lives.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (/FnUH)

123 Plus actually protecting or promoting "family values" gets you less State.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (RJMhd)

124 This is why I take a flamethrower to "the marketplace". What's the value of a crispy venue, its well-done builders and future participants? Worth the risk?

The answer is not engaging in that marketplace and creating a venue of your own. Where you make the rule and set values.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (GGCsk)

125 Actually with the Welfare state children from 8 to 80 and beyond are your problem. It takes a village to pay out gibsmedat checks.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (6bMeY)

126 I DID NOT see Hairless Pie open for Down to Fuck at the Orpheum.

At least not until my girlfriend was 18.

Posted by: Sharkman at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (TM1p8)

127 Apparently many agree with Hillary Clinton's aphorism that it takes a village to raise a child, and that "child" can include 30 year olds.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:48 AM (/FnUH)

128 right, someone might be a parent, so it's your responsibility to nanny them throughout their adult lives. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH) 124 Plus actually protecting or promoting "family values" gets you less State. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (RJMhd) ************ ^Na the comment I made here goes to that.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (RJMhd)

129 I don't remember anyone bringing it up when the weightless boobies were floppin yesterday, but Robt Heinlein wrote about a chapter's-worth of Moon Harsh Mistress about what big mammary sheaths did in zero-grav. And the person they were attached to was named Y.Knott. For those of you who track nics.

Well, we have to deal with the Culture that's out there, not the one we'd like to be in, right? Or will we get all over the publicly-accessible media, grafix novels, game designers, tentacle-importers, to make the world safe for 12 year old girls, whilst caring not one whit for the well-being of American semen? Repeal the Jones Act? Never, sir.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (xq1UY)

130 "If you make your daughter behave, then she is a social outcast." I do not believe this to be true. I think it's an abrogation of parental duties to let your daughters and sons behave like rutting animals before they even know how to drive. Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, think mink. at February 19, 2014 12:30 PM (kXoT0) If people think of their own children, and their own family unit as being independent of the larger society, then they are making a mistake. Yes, how other people behave DOES AFFECT your children because they are part of the consensus of that social system. There is a "Herd mentality" with any population, and social norms are what the herd says is normal, not what an individual parent says is normal. Much of what is now regarded as "Normal" starts with the propaganda agents in California who produce "entertainment."

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (bb5+k)

131 Thanks for the score update, go Oshie!

Posted by: Draki at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (L8r/r)

132 128 Apparently many agree with Hillary Clinton's aphorism that it takes a village to raise a child, and that "child" can include 30 year olds. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH) ********** I think you are borrowing arguments from other people that I have not made here.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (RJMhd)

133 My stance is that I want my children to be outcasts from a society that promotes the current culture of trash music, trash television, trash movies, and gutter sexual mores. We have our own subculture that respects traditional values.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (AskuI)

134 When my daughter was a teen, interested boys were told that I have .45, a shovel, and endless time dig holes. Seems to have worked.>>

I followed up that talk with my daughters telling them I was more than happy to go to prison for them but please don't make me for something stupid you do.

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 19, 2014 08:49 AM (tf9Ne)

135 they're unwilling to listen at all to Winnifred, or lift a finger to help her. I'll drop a digit to help a girl out.

Posted by: Paula Poundstone at February 19, 2014 08:50 AM (2/ClZ)

136 When I was in high school, girls didn't get "pregnant." They just "changed to a Catholic school." In the middle of a semester. Without saying any goodbyes. Within about 9 months later they were back in public school. Amazing how that worked.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 08:50 AM (7ObY1)

137 We're up by two baskets.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 08:50 AM (6bMeY)

138 I would say that there is a trickle down morality. I think you had an article a while back about how MTV isn't really even for teenagers, it's for 12 year olds? Well, all those people sleeping around on The Real World are adults. Yet their behavior is directly influencing pre-teens. That's not so much a legal battle, but it does show the power of adult culture to impact children.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 08:50 AM (CNua6)

139 >>>I think you are borrowing arguments from other people that I have not made here. well you did say that because an adult can influence another life, you had the responsibility to continue the nannying over sexual choices.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:51 AM (/FnUH)

140 I'm thinking of child abuse--but you might be attributing something else to what my comments are in regards to. Whatever.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:51 AM (RJMhd)

141 The cruel thing the Left and Feminism has done is to tell young girls that the feelings of shame and disgust they get when they engage in sexual behavior too young and too freely are something to be ignored, are an unfair, evil thing imposed on them by a sexist society --instead of it being their conscience telling them that they are doing something unwise, harmful, and not in their self-interest. BTW, Pink has a new song for tween girls -- Walk of Shame. The Left acknowledges that these intense feelings of shame are universal among women who behave like this -- but they say it's something to be overcome. That you feel this shame because society, the patriarchy, etc are trying to oppress women and female sexuality. And, I think some feminists honestly believe that if enough women keep powering through their own walks of shame that ... someday those feelings will go away for future girls? Reality, of course, is these feelings are hard-wired. Every generation of young girls will grow up not wanting to be though of as a whore.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 08:51 AM (ZPrif)

142 I have a 12 year old boy and he is very much NOT interested in dating right now, let alone sex. He is not alone among his friends and mostly they are confused at what the girls are doing. So, maybe in more progressive parts of the country (though come on I am in the Seattle area...) the 12 year old boys are all "be down with f* or I won't date you cause that is what I want" but not here.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 19, 2014 08:51 AM (RZ8pf)

143 My stance is that I want my children to be outcasts from a society that promotes the current culture of trash music, trash television, trash movies, and gutter sexual mores. We have our own subculture that respects traditional values.

This is also the general LDS view.
"In the world but not of the world."
"We are a peculiar people."

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 08:51 AM (45N4D)

144 Degradation of women is a natural by-product of the diminishing respect/protection of "traditional marriage" (which isn't just 'traditional' but the only real form). Cohabitation (formerly "shaking up"), acceptance/approval of homosexual "couples", and so forth all kind of go into this roiling cultural pot. The soup which emerges says "Sex should be easy, it should be 'fun,' it should be without consequence, and it should not be anyone else's business." When the truth is that sex should be hard (there should, generally speaking, be one way to get it- within a committed monogamous relationship generally known as "marriage). Sex should be "fun" for given values of "fun." It should not be "fun" as in "something to do in place of dinner and a movie." It certainly IS not without consequence. Intimacy has consequences even ignoring the possibilities of pregnancy and disease. And while the specifics of your sex life are certainly not anyone else's business, the generalities are- insomuch as we seek to defend women (and, yes, men) from this very culture we see today- where a 12 yr old girl has to be seen as "DTF" to get any interest from boys. Now, if you're so committed to "keeping government out of my bedroom" that you're willing to accept these consequences, that's fine. Just be honest that these consequences will always (I won't say "necessarily") follow.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (PYAXX)

145 Fifteen bucks, Father, same as in town.

Posted by: That nun everybody talks about at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (2oU2+)

146 Please let there be a Lena Dunham post today. PLEASE?

Posted by: MJ at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (oari7)

147 5 of the 22 US hockey players are named "Ryan." That's 23 % of the team. If you want your baby to hit the hockey big time one day, better name him "Ryan."

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (7ObY1)

148 I am close friends with a famous feminist who actually does influence the culture. (She has no idea of my political leanings, btw.) She is obsessed with this "sexualization of girls" thing as sees it as a terrible development, but cant figure out a way to stop it or even criticize it. I have been secretly feeding her conservatarian ideas, without labeling them as such, as she's very intrigued by them -- blown away, actually. "Wow, I never thought of it like that," is her typical response. I can get through her barrier because she thinks I am a fellow radical feminist. Anyway, she thinks that the sexualization of girls is a terrible thing, and "lowering the price of sex" just enables the patriarchal exploitation of girls, and wants to stop it. More than that -- she wants to drag feminist thought in the direction of stopping it. She's one of those "thought leaders" you hear about. Through her, I am trying to influence feminism back in the sane direction.

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (+cx5n)

149

This downward spiral of sexual permissiveness has, of course, resulted in these memorable words being recorded for posterity:

Â“Somebody is going to eat my pussy or IÂ’m going to cut your fucking throat.Â”

http://preview.tinyurl.com/322f7cc

Thank you, West Virginia and in particular, Melissa Williams.

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (BAS5M)

150 Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH) Come now. Some of us note the difference between "moral rules" and "legal coercion." I can take a look at the 28 year old and wish they would adopt a moral system that keeps them in check, and even attempt to convince said person they should, but also acknowledge the government has no role in forcing her to adopt said moral system.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (GaqMa)

151 140 >>>I think you are borrowing arguments from other people that I have not made here. well you did say that because an adult can influence another life, you had the responsibility to continue the nannying over sexual choices. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:51 PM (/FnUH) 141 I'm thinking of child abuse--but you might be attributing something else to what my comments are in regards to. Whatever. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:51 PM (RJMhd) ************* Exactly where am I saying that?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (RJMhd)

152 >>>I'm thinking of child abuse--but you might be attributing something else to what my comments are in regards to. what? As for child abuse-- of course it's a law on the books and of course I support it. I have no idea why you would bring it up, if not to suggest a general need to nanny people through adulthood. Child abuse is, and should be, prosecuted. Kids should be taken away from demonstrably unfit parents. Of course. No one's saying anything different.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (/FnUH)

153 the 12 year old boys are all "be down with f* or I won't date you cause that is what I want" but not here. talk to me in six months

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (zOTsN)

154 Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 19, 2014 12:51 PM (RZ8pf) 12 yr old girls rarely want 12 yr old boys. Just sayin'.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (PYAXX)

155 The problem is that Winnifred faces is that there will be some boy who's so totally infatuated with her she could literally walk on his back and he'd take that as a sign of affection. She will, of course, have complete and total disdain for this fellow, and instead throw her lot in with the dangerous fellow who seems immune to her charms, which she will give up willingly, eagerly, and then find out that's what he wanted, and once he's had his, discard her like a newspaper at the recycling bin. And she'll cry and cry and wonder why no one loves her and ignore the ones that will take her worst abuse and come back for more. Blame? yeah, start with the fairy tales of princesses acting foolishly but still getting their happily ever after because some dimwitted prince charming is willing to swoop in and save her. We need more "actions have consequences" stories...

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (1hM1d)

156 Yea I have some browser issues or something. Thanks for the updates Horde! Go Team USA!!!!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 08:52 AM (/o+xv)

157 138 We're up by two baskets. But the other team is Czeching like crazy. (rimshot)

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 08:53 AM (7ObY1)

158 I remember having 3 pregnancies in our High School class and I graduated way, way before Al Gore Invented the Internet

Posted by: Jay in PA at February 19, 2014 08:53 AM (3LaGb)

159 When I was in 9th grade, I had sex quite often. With a stack of Penthouse mags.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 08:53 AM (olDqf)

160 Teen pregnancy rates have steadily declined, I believe. Especially for non-immigrant children. The pornifcation of America and young girls has not led to increasing teen pregnancy.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 08:53 AM (ZPrif)

161 "Wow, I never thought of it like that," is her typical response. Let me guess...she's "well-educated"?

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (T0NGe)

162 Â“Somebody is going to eat my pussy or IÂ’m going to cut your fucking throat.Â” OK, but first you will blow me.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (7ObY1)

163 <<If you make your daughter behave, then she is a social outcast.">>

No. You make a leader and not a follower. You grow confidence and promote critical thinking and independence. You create a closer bond and relationship with someone who matures early and learns to be reponsible.

Ultimately you get a change to actually make the case for a better, healthier lifestyle.

But for some parents that's too hard. They want to be a "friend" to their kids. Which is a recipe for complete failure.

Posted by: Marcus T at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (GGCsk)

164 Ace,
I hear you on the 28-yer old v. 14-yr-old thing.
But here's the problem, and I'll admit up front that I don't know what to do about it. I'm just pointing out that there's a real problem here that doesn't go away just by shrugging and saying, 'well, they're adults.'

The problem is that our culture and entertainment doesn't and probably can't distinguish very well between the messages it sends to kids and the messgaes it sends to adults. Kids aren't hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world. In fact, if I recall the Supreme Court has made it illegal to censor material based on age.

The problem is that you are arguing for fine distinctions--legal permissiveness is OK for adults, not for kids, and legal permissiveness does not mean endorsement--but our culture doesn't do fine distinctions. No culture really does fine distinctions.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (ZMzpb)

165 The "but the market!" argument assumes one type of "buyer." Yes, it's largely true, but if you market yourself towards a specific type of buyer, guess who you end up with? There are different kinds of guys, just as there are different kinds of girls. The "market" might be smaller, and you might have to "shop" around, say, your church instead of your public school, but there are alternatives. I hope Winnifred comes/came to understand this.

Posted by: overachiever at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (oATMN)

166 tasker, if your point was that Libertarians don't agree with child abuse laws, then you are ludicrously parodizing "libertarianism" as "anarchism" and attempting to prove the former is faulty by introducing complaints about the latter. You said "gray area" about a 28 year old, because that person can be a parent. The only issue under discussion was the sexual marketplace. Now you say you meant "child abuse," but how would I know that, as the topic of child abuse had never been introduced?

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (/FnUH)

167 When I was that tweener age I was madly in love with grown women but I thought girls my age were gross.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (KXm42)

168 >>134 Right on!

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 08:54 AM (5xmd7)

169 12 yr old girls rarely want 12 yr old boys. Just sayin'. Melvin Jay Reynolds just called in from Zimbabwe to say damn straight!

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (1hM1d)

170 The solution preferred by the usual suspects is, as also usual, a demand to eliminate any potential negative consequence appending to the desired behavior. Remember "...on demand and without regret?" Whose problem is the "without regret" part, exactly?

Posted by: A message at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (fsHdl)

171 I remember having 3 pregnancies in our High School class and I graduated way, way before Al Gore Invented the Internet

I personally knew one girl in HS who got pregnant. I have no idea how many others there were.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (45N4D)

172 @Fritz -- isn't it amazing that someone who is not even a teen yet is talking about dtf. The culture of society is completely garbage now and you see that with almost half the kids born out of wedlock. And that is not even considering the falling marriage rate. Ace is right; the fact she's 12 years old is scary shit.

Posted by: MJH at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (CrYUO)

173 Teen pregnancy rates have steadily declined, I believe. Especially for non-immigrant children. abortion is also down? Teen births maybe down but teen pregnancy? and PP wont report teen abortions either

Posted by: thunderb at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (zOTsN)

174 Yes, well... when you abandon all ethical foundations and replace them with nothing, this is what you get. We are reduced more and more to animals and brutes, grunting barbarians losing their humanity and everything that makes us better.
This shouldn't be shocking, its inevitable, and just the next step before it gets worse. Pedophilia is a matter of time before it is pushed on us by the cultural elites, a matter of when not if.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (zfY+H)

175 153 >>>I'm thinking of child abuse--but you might be attributing something else to what my comments are in regards to. what? As for child abuse-- of course it's a law on the books and of course I support it. I have no idea why you would bring it up, if not to suggest a general need to nanny people through adulthood. Child abuse is, and should be, prosecuted. Kids should be taken away from demonstrably unfit parents. Of course. No one's saying anything different. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:52 PM (/FnUH) ************** Well that's what I was referring to. You cannot have a carte blanche attitude towards all actions of a 28 year old adult. Also promoting "family values" gets you less government--about the only ideas I had in regard to my comments.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (RJMhd)

176 163 Â“Somebody is going to eat my pussy or IÂ’m going to cut your fucking throat.Â” OK, but first you will blow me. Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at February 19, 2014 12:54 PM (7ObY1) LOL!

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 08:55 AM (olDqf)

177 143 I have a 12 year old boy and he is very much NOT interested in dating right now, let alone sex. He is not alone among his friends and mostly they are confused at what the girls are doing. So, maybe in more progressive parts of the country (though come on I am in the Seattle area...) the 12 year old boys are all "be down with f* or I won't date you cause that is what I want" but not here. Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 19, 2014 12:51 PM (RZ8pf) Good point. Kids should not be unchaperoned for long periods of time and that includes whent they are at other people's homes. There is a story of a kid in the DM who told his parents he was going to sleep over at a friends home but instead jumped on a train to meet a sexual predator who was grooming him and was stabbed to death. There was also reported that the kid has been acting out for a while and had just retruned from a 12 day trip in Spain. Why are you rewarding your kid for bad behavior by sending him on trips to Spain?

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 19, 2014 08:56 AM (6Nj7A)

178 Anyway, she thinks that the sexualization of girls is a terrible thing, and "lowering the price of sex" just enables the patriarchal exploitation of girls, and wants to stop it. More than that -- she wants to drag feminist thought in the direction of stopping it. She's one of those "thought leaders" you hear about.

Through her, I am trying to influence feminism back in the sane direction.

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 12:52 PM (+cx5n)

Unfortunately what is more likely to happen is once you finally do crack her and she begins this push back, they will ostracize her and ditch her for preaching that sanity.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2014 08:56 AM (LI48c)

179 Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 12:53 PM (ZPrif) Some of that (to much So-Con chagrin) is that "here, you're going to do it anyway, so at least use a condom" is at least partially working. But there's also the question of when you start counting. Have they declined since the 50s? I sort of doubt it. Since the 70s? Okay, believable. 80s or 90s? Sure, still believable.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 08:56 AM (PYAXX)

180 How many 20 minute thingees?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 08:56 AM (6bMeY)

181 The "price" of sex used to be a baby, which meant either marriage (shotgun) or "visiting relatives" for about six months followed by a clandestine adoption. Now the government pays young ladies (and I mean any girl who is capable) to have babies. You get what you pay for.

"Shaming" young women used to be a good thing. Now all those lovely feminazis tell girls to do it all the time, that somehow spreading your legs for anything that shows remote interest is "empowering."

Messaging isn't quite what it used to be, but it is pretty damned clear.

Women think they are just screwing, but they are really screwing themselves over.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 08:56 AM (3kDQa)

182 Through her, I am trying to influence feminism back in the sane direction.

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 12:52 PM (+cx5n)

That's a really great opportunity. Do you mind sharing some of the conservatarian ideas you've been feeding her? I'd be interested in hearing them.

Posted by: Heralder at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (/Mxso)

183 Ace, Last week you said something; that our culture has changed since 1950, and that so far as you're concerned, for the better since people have the right to have sex however and whenever they will without constraint. Though you're discussing adults, NONE THE LESS, these days what any age group does, the others do as well. Old people remain juvenile. Youngsters pretend to be adults. And Obama with the popular Progressive agenda does empower the destruction of all innocence. As Clinton answered, "Because I Could." Prostitution of love is nothing to scoff or promote. It's the degradation and destruction of humanity. Given the lack of respect honoring life, abortions, who's surprised at OUR culture's loss of childhood innocence? Our country has effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater. http://tinyurl.com/lmnqbz From "The Genesis Factor" by Dr. Stephen A. Hoeller: SOME YEARS AGO, Elaine H. Pagels, the noted religious historian, had the importance of the Book of Genesis brought to her attention in a most unusual manner. She was in Khartoum, in the African Sudan, holding a discussion with the then foreign minister of that country, who had written a book on the myths of his people. A prominent member of the Dinka tribe, her host told her how the creation myth of his people relates to the whole social, political, and religious culture in that part of the Sudan. ...Stimulated by her conversation in Africa, she quickly recognized that many people, even those who do not literally believe it, still return to the archaic story of creation as a frame of reference when faced with challenges to their traditional values. ... Pagels realized that, like creation stories of other cultures, the Genesis story addresses profound and basic questions. ...

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (MhA4j)

184 Is this the Hockey thread? Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 12:22 PM (6bMeY) subliminally, yes

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (IXrOn)

185 To a point, Marcus T., but take it to far and ultimately that kind of thinking is utopian. Beliefs don't ultimately override the facts on the ground. Parents shouldn't have to be self-sufficient Nietzschean ubermensch just to raise their kids decent.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (ZMzpb)

186 181 How many 20 minute thingees? A-one A-two-hooo A-three

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (7ObY1)

187 Thank you, West Virginia and in particular, Melissa Williams.

I remember that story and I'm not going back there.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (KXm42)

188 Got it to work!!!! I owe you all a beer. Hockey is my favorite sport. US Olympic Hockey is even better!!!! Woot Woot!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (/o+xv)

189 Yeah this girl isn't being "slut shamed" but she's being shamed nevertheless. They are shameful.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (zfY+H)

190 This just goes to show that feminism isn't about helping women or promoting their interests. Neither is it even a coherent philosophy or ideology. It is a set of interwoven mannerisms, affectations and posturings created as a smoke screen for hatred of humanity as a whole.

If feminists actually cared about the happiness and well-being of women, they'd be the biggest slut-shamers of all. Women who are promiscuous and/or quick to have sex undermine women as a whole.

Used to be that women formed a defacto sexual cartel. Women were required (by other women) to hold a man at arm's length until he met certain conditions. Far from being an artifact of "patriarchy," this was the foundation of female power.

Today, so-called feminists attack women who still adhere to this high standard and pretend that by accepting the preferred sexual standards of adolescent males, women will somehow be "empowered."

Mimicking the worst behaviors of which men are capable is no way to claim equality with them.

Posted by: Lee Reynolds at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (0bC+U)

191 has the price really come down or is the market discounting for quality?

Posted by: X at February 19, 2014 08:57 AM (KHo8t)

192 >>>Ace, I hear you on the 28-yer old v. 14-yr-old thing. But here's the problem, and I'll admit up front that I don't know what to do about it. I'm just pointing out that there's a real problem here that doesn't go away just by shrugging and saying, 'well, they're adults.' The problem is that our culture and entertainment doesn't and probably can't distinguish very well between the messages it sends to kids and the messgaes it sends to adults. Kids aren't hermetically sealed off from the rest of the world. In fact, if I recall the Supreme Court has made it illegal to censor material based on age. The problem is that you are arguing for fine distinctions--legal permissiveness is OK for adults, not for kids, and legal permissiveness does not mean endorsement--but our culture doesn't do fine distinctions. No culture really does fine distinctions. ... True but 1, we should make such distinctions, and 2, if the suggestion is that adults cannot enjoy adult pleasures due to the effect (inevitable, as you suggest) it will have indirectly on children, I simply cannot agree. Essentially you're arguing (I think) that someone must live his life *for the sake of others*, which no one accepts in any other context. If a leftist were to suggest you must give up your freedoms so that the poor or minorities could benefit, you'd say, that's ridiculous, my legal duty is to not harm them, and my moral duty is to help them, should conscience stir me to do so, but I have no legal obligation to help them, and to assert I do impinges on my liberty. One can always make these sorts of arguments that something you're doing indirectly "harms" someone else, so you shouldn't have the right to it. (See: guns.) And we generally reject those. There are reasonable restrictions one may place on adults, sure, but some kind of per se ban on adult sexual activity or normal sexual interest (outside the consecrated environment of marriage) because it will (concededly) indirectly affect children is a bridge too far.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 08:58 AM (/FnUH)

193 The video about the economics of sex was spot on, but to understand it you have to understand that "economics is human action" which lefties refuse to accept.

Posted by: 58W58 at February 19, 2014 08:58 AM (8HX2g)

194 160 When I was in 9th grade, I had sex quite often. With a stack of Penthouse mags.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at February 19, 2014 12:53 PM (olDqf)

So were June and July stuck together.

Posted by: buzzion at February 19, 2014 08:58 AM (LI48c)

195 The problem is that you are arguing for fine distinctions--legal permissiveness is OK for adults, not for kids, and legal permissiveness does not mean endorsement--but our culture doesn't do fine distinctions. No culture really does fine distinctions.

Add to the fact that the dominant American media culture is blurring lines all over the place regarding who is a child and who is an adult.

I'm still curious ace, what's the Libertarian position on the age of consent, and where should it be placed?

My contention is the current placement is cultural, and given the movement of the culture, it's a weak anchor to attach such an important distinction.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 08:59 AM (45N4D)

196 There was some LA serial killer who use to force guys to give him a blow job and who would shoot them in the head when they did. Sounds problematic...

Posted by: Judge Pug at February 19, 2014 08:59 AM (6Nj7A)

197 Pink's tween girl song, Walk of Shame It's a bonding song for young girls about that shared walk of shame experience. http://www.directlyrics.com/pink-walk-of-shame-lyrics.html One step, two steps, Counting tiles on the floor. Three steps, four steps, Guess this means that I'm a whore. Oh oh, hell no, How long till I reach the door? F-ck me, my feet are sore I'm wearing last night's dress And I look like a hot ass mess Although my hair looks good 'cause I haven't slept yet. Make the elevator come a little faster. I'm pushing all the buttons But nothing's happening Please, God, don't let anybody see me Please, God, I'll do anything you ask me I promise no more walks of shame So walk this way (We're walking, we're walking) Walk this way (We're walking, we're walking)

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 08:59 AM (ZPrif)

198 >>So go on, please continue, insisting that you have just as much interest in patrolling the morality of a 28 year old woman as you do in objecting to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH) How about when a 28 year old decides that her 12 year old and YOUR 12 year old can go ahead and get it on like 28 year olds in her presence?

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 08:59 AM (5xmd7)

199 Hmm. Take an increasingly desperate gutter-trash popular culture, mix with feminist ideas of the absolute sovereignty of female sexual choice over everything else...and here we are. Hmm.

Posted by: Stu-22 at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (AiYlm)

200 167 tasker, if your point was that Libertarians don't agree with child abuse laws, then you are ludicrously parodizing "libertarianism" as "anarchism" and attempting to prove the former is faulty by introducing complaints about the latter. ******* No--not doing that--just trying to find out where your limits are. Hell it's getting weird because you seem to want us to police our side to an extreme and I do get that--but that's not exactly a Libertarian value--is it? Hell we are trying to get them to not even bring things up for debate--and so because the media is policing Republicans overtime--we also have to. I find it "practical" but I don't find that to be Libertarian. You said "gray area" about a 28 year old, because that person can be a parent. The only issue under discussion was the sexual marketplace. Now you say you meant "child abuse," but how would I know that, as the topic of child abuse had never been introduced? Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:54 PM (/FnUH) ************* Fair point. Sorry about that.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (RJMhd)

201 Some of that (to much So-Con chagrin) is that "here, you're going to do it anyway, so at least use a condom" is at least partially working. --- And morning-after pills.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (zDsvJ)

202 And isn't it worrywart? Never heard of worryword.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (ZPrif)

203 As the song goes, "people are no damned good. And women are worse."

Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (2oU2+)

204 The most potent (and destructive) influence is media, which is controlled by the Left and consumed by all. They've been upping the ante of sex and nudity for decades to the point that we're now a bit upset if you don't see so-and-so's breasts during a love scene, which may or may not be superfluous and gratuitous (either the scene, the breasts, or both). To get our attention and money, they need to make things more explicit and more frequent.

Most of us, even on the conservative side, aren't willing to stop feeding the monster - I'm sure the percentage of readers who subscribe to HBO and are waiting like starved dogs for another look at Emilia Clarke's bare breasts in a month or so (myself included) is fairly high. To do so alone or even in concert wouldn't have much of an effect anyway, and we're not too keen on censorship or the other sorts of things that would be necessary to reverse course.

I suppose we can't put that toothpaste back in the tube at this point.

Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (nnkXw)

205 Are there any HD Links?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (6bMeY)

206 116 We had multiple girls get pregnant in 8th grade. Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 12:44 PM (CNua6) ---- Holy shit. I had over 200 people in my graduating class. Not one pregnancy.... that I know of. There were a couple in classes ahead that "had to get married". Posted by: fixerupper Seriously? My high school had its own nursery and daycare center. So many girls were mothers that they constituted a significant demographic within the school. The principle reasoned that if the school agreed to take care of the babies during the day, that would prevent the girls/moms from dropping out. 10%? 15%? of the student body were parents. No one ever did an official tally, but it was significant. THis was an inner city high school, however, so your mileage may vary.

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 09:00 AM (+cx5n)

207 143 I have a 12 year old boy and he is very much NOT interested in dating right now, let alone sex. He is not alone among his friends and mostly they are confused at what the girls are doing. Well, yes, most likely because The Change hasn't happened just yet. Let us know when he starts eating you out of house and home, or when he and his friends descend upon your food stocks like a swarm of hungry locusts.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 19, 2014 09:01 AM (1hM1d)

208 I have a 12 year old boy and he is very much NOT interested in dating right now, let alone sex. He is not alone among his friends and mostly they are confused at what the girls are doing. So, maybe in more progressive parts of the country (though come on I am in the Seattle area...) the 12 year old boys are all "be down with f* or I won't date you cause that is what I want" but not here.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 19, 2014 12:51 PM (RZ8pf)

I suspect the 12 year old girls are more interested in older boys.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 09:01 AM (4df7R)

209 >>>You cannot have a carte blanche attitude towards all actions of a 28 year old adult. and this is a ridiculous parody of my statements. I never suggested that a 28 year old had the "right" to abuse a child, or commit murder, or whatever else you're thinking "libertarian" means. Like it's Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:01 AM (/FnUH)

210 Unfortunately what is more likely to happen is once you finally do crack her and she begins this push back, they will ostracize her and ditch her for preaching that sanity.

Tammy Bruce?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:01 AM (45N4D)

211 There is another element of the "marketplace" approach that is overlooked here. Sex is only cheap so long as there is no reproduction. The legal system has insured that formal binding commitment by an American man is the worst, most expensive deal he can make in his life. Even if women collectively decide to shut off the pussy supply until their demands were met, men would still be fools to give in to formal commitment. Marriage is an act by which a man chooses to give a woman arbitrary power to take his goods, the bulk of his income, and his children on a whim - and he gains not one single entitlement in return. It's dumb. Besides - many women like the new regime. We have a kind of serial polygamy - more women get to (briefly) enjoy being with high status men. They prefer this to having to settle for the lower status men who would be all they could obtain in a monogamous culture.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 19, 2014 09:01 AM (D20iS)

212 182 tcn It takes two to tango. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. Equal Responsibility. Otherwise, guys are not winning any virtue (or the perceived war against women by chauvinist pigs) by casting stones from your guilty hands.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 09:01 AM (MhA4j)

213 And people love taking the easy way out. And they especially love taking the easy way out when they can then clap themselves on the back and call their cowardice "bravery." I used to think - they just don't have daughters of their own, but, then I see the loonies forcing gender change operations on the very young. All of these groups that have a "cause" will allow the collateral damage because they feel they have to push their ideology to the most extreme. They cannot give an inch, else, all their energy might reverse what they believe they "won." It is the same with other extreme positions.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:02 AM (IXrOn)

214 So go on, please continue, insisting that you have just as much interest in patrolling the morality of a 28 year old woman as you do in objecting to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH) The normalization of destructive behavior of a 28 year old is what leads to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl via those new sexual norms. Even if the government shouldn't be banning behavior by adults, it doesn't mean that anything less than a lassaiz faire attitude towards that should be the only sexual taboo. Just because someone can legally do something, does not mean that they shouldn't be criticized for it. Culture matters. That is why the Left have been so keen on changing it, and aggressively so, since at least the Frankfurt school.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 09:02 AM (XvHmy)

215 @175 Sharia in family law gets them to pedophilia so long as there is a marriage. The Shia have 'temporary marriage' for a workaround of that requirement. See, UK grooming scandals (dozens) for what they do to non-Muslim girls.

Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 09:02 AM (YHegH)

216 And the "walk this way" part of the song is when all the dancers (wearing morning after half-outfits) do a kind of drunk girl, broken heel walk.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:03 AM (ZPrif)

217 210 >>>You cannot have a carte blanche attitude towards all actions of a 28 year old adult. and this is a ridiculous parody of my statements. I never suggested that a 28 year old had the "right" to abuse a child, or commit murder, or whatever else you're thinking "libertarian" means. Like it's Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 01:01 PM (/FnUH) ************ Ya--[insert swear word] again I'm just trying to figure out where your lines are at-- plus I am watching the hockey--and I suck. I should butt the hell out.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:03 AM (RJMhd)

218 So go on, please continue, insisting that you have just as much interest in patrolling the morality of a 28 year old woman as you do in objecting to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH) You DO have a tendency to fire back with strawmen. My point is that it's all interconnected. It moves as a system. The Social and the Fiscal are different sides of the same coin, and they are interrelated in ways that Libertarians either don't, or can't notice. I keep saying this. ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY. The only question is "who's?" Society was far better off when women maintained their sex cartel. For the longest time, it was maintained by both law, AND social pressure, because both law and social pressure are also synergistically interrelated.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:03 AM (bb5+k)

219 199 The situation you suggest---the parent of one child allowing or encouraging him/her to have sex---is child abuse.

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 09:04 AM (YPCWp)

220 Damn it though--I never said the opposite. Mother PUCKER!

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:04 AM (RJMhd)

221 210 ace, karma ain't so sweet after playing Alinsky attacking the libertarian republican candidates. So, have you the grace of Saul turned into Paul? Paul certainly made his impact in his day's zeitgeist, long lived to this day and beyond.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 09:04 AM (MhA4j)

222 Are there any HD Links? Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 01:00 PM .It's a bit choppy and pixelated but I'll take what I can get, US on the power play! Thanks again to the Horde for coming through!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 09:04 AM (/o+xv)

223 THis was an inner city high school, however, so your mileage may vary. Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 01:00 PM (+cx5n) --- Yeah.... My high school was in a small farming community of about 4 thousand people. Very strong Catholic part of the country.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 09:04 AM (nELVU)

224 First they came for the Strawmen......

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:04 AM (6bMeY)

225 For the longest time, it was maintained by both law, AND social pressure, because both law and social pressure are also synergistically interrelated.

Are infidelity laws still on the books anywhere?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:05 AM (45N4D)

226

Yes, Winnifred is 12 and her father should shut her the hell down: no online contact anywhere with anyone under any circumstances until she's otherwise given permission. No phone. No texts. No nothing. She goes to school, she comes home from school. She does her chores like any other member of the family. She goes nowhere unattended until she's proven that she can behave responsibly. That's how it is.

One does not engage in reasoned arguments with 12-year-old children putting 'Down To Fuck' on their Facebook profile. One brings the hammer down. And no, doing so does not constitute abuse.

I'm a father of a beautiful daughter, and she's fine, thanks. She's a young adult, a senior in college, a Gold Award Girl Scout, and she's engaged to a kind, hardworking, earnest young man who drove across the state to formally ask for her hand in marriage.

I'm not a lucky parent. I'm a parent who never tried to be friends to my children. A father is not a friend.

Posted by: troyriser at February 19, 2014 09:05 AM (V9ol4)

227 About Hollywood influence, go watch some steamy film from the 40's or 50's. I guarantee that the sex was just as hot, but not graphic. Now if we don't see boobs and butts, we think the movie is shortchanging us. I, for one, could do with less nudity and more steam, but that's just me, I suppose.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:05 AM (3kDQa)

228 "202 Some of that (to much So-Con chagrin) is that "here, you're going to do it anyway, so at least use a condom" is at least partially working. --- And morning-after pills." Actually wrong on both counts. Abstinence only sex ed is equally effective as "comprehensive" and the morning after pill does not work at all at the population level, nor at the individual level for anyone weighing more than about 160lbs.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 09:05 AM (CNua6)

229 The first semi is set. Finland and Sweden. It's the Dirty Scandi playoffs!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 09:05 AM (/o+xv)

230 92 Speaking in an economic sense, it's worth noting that the value of marriage to a man has been ridiculously downgraded. Posted by: shillelagh at February 19, 2014 12:43 PM (hRzu2) Glenn Reynolds and his Wife have been making this point regularly. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? And how does that result work out for the larger society Mr. Ace? Do unmarried women having children result in any Fiscal issues? Is there a COST for not policing the morality of 28 year old women? Does this make those of us who are forced to pay those costs victims in the Libertarian understanding of the word?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:06 AM (bb5+k)

231 220 199 The situation you suggest---the parent of one child allowing or encouraging him/her to have sex---is child abuse. Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 01:04 PM (YPCWp) Yet black being white, up being down, the parent teaching abstinence will be prosecuted by the State/society for child abuse in this assbackwards post-constitutional era.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 09:06 AM (MhA4j)

232 Parise!

Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (2/ClZ)

233 This is just so depressing - a 12 year old contemplating how to broadcast being DTF.

>>Never forget that Miley was first Hannah Montana with all the little girls in America as her adoring fans. Well, Miley wants a grown-up career, so Miley goes full bore whore with all the messages that sends girls in America.

Aaaaaand this is where the whole "empowerment by embracing your sexuality" schtick shows itself to be a total crock. Miley and so many others who are hyped by the media are telling girls that their behavior is the ultimate grrrrl power, when it is in fact the road to depression and potential abuse.

Posted by: Barack the Magnificent at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (POpqt)

234 Was that another basket?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (6bMeY)

235

We could have avoided this whole thing if Eve had made a sammich for Adam instead of ordering take out.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (n0DEs)

236 The situation you suggest---the parent of one child allowing or encouraging him/her to have sex---is child abuse.

But that's a squishy statement. If you move the age of consent, which is culturally determined, viola, they're not children.

As I've been trying to get ace or anyone else to chime in on. What's the Libertarian position on the age of consent? How should it be determined?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (45N4D)

237 Ok I also have an objection to the girls aren't to blame. I mean I guess you can argue that society is putting them into a position where they think they should be doing these things, but the girls themselves are taking the ball and running with it. It is odd being the mother of a boy and watching the girls around him become very sexualized (that happened in 5th grade). The argument here seems to be "the boys my age are insisting I do this" yet I have watched 2 years go by now where the girls are the aggressors in this arena and the boys are "WTF ewww" Now I am sure Thunderb is right and in a year I will be singing a different tune. But for now the girls want to put out for boys who don't want it.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (RZ8pf)

238 >>>Hell it's getting weird because you seem to want us to police our side to an extreme and I do get that--but that's not exactly a Libertarian value--is it? nope, probably not. A full-on libertarian would probably say that even attempting to get people to pressure each other into political acceptability would be an impingement on their unfettered rights of expression and belief. I believe that too, pretty much, except here's the thing: I would also like to stop a descent into tyranny, and at some point that means winning an election, and so that means, at some point, that the most unpopular parts of conservatism are going to have to be abandoned or muted. Furthermore, it's not so much that I'm telling people they must cease to believe. Rather I'm trying to convey to them that there are certain things that are not only loser issues in and of themselves, but furthermore activate the gut-level decision on affiliation with a group. Virtually anyone except a committed ideologue would read the piece above and either say "Makes sense" or at least not object much. But people do object, and with emotional hostility, to this idea of being endlessly bothered by someone else's sexual code. This doesn't even mean people *disagree* with that sexual code -- rather, it's that they resent someone else presuming to be their Daddy, telling them the rules. I happen to agree with most social cons on the advisability for sexual restraint, sexual modesty, criticizing the media for endlessly sexualizing children, and so on. Most people would agree. But there are big things people not only disagree with, but disagree with strongly. Take Todd Aiken. His belief about every life being sacred -- even those created in rapes -- is itself not objectionable But yeah, if he then goes on to say "And I intend to make it the law that not even a raped woman can seek an abortion, even in the first 36 hours post-rape, via the morning after pill," you're not completely losing the issue, and not just the issue, but the election.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (/FnUH)

239 Laws can't, literally can't, legislate morality. Morality is a moral choice voluntarily made, not avoiding punishment.

Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 09:07 AM (YHegH)

240 The govt tells men under 26 that they are still children for the purposes of health insurance. So you're a 25 year old. You live at home with mom and dad, you are a "child" on their health insurance. You play video games 5 hours a day.

Marriage? Yeah right.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (0LHZx)

241 212 Exactly. Watching my father, my best friend's father, and a couple of friends go through bad divorces took me completely out of the marriage market.

Posted by: shillelagh at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (hRzu2)

242 Now if we don't see boobs and butts, we think the movie is shortchanging us. I, for one, could do with less nudity I would like to un-subscribe to your newsletter.

Posted by: garrett at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (2/ClZ)

243 Part of our parenting philosophy was this -- There are/were no taboo subjects, though there ARE taboo actions. When any kid can just look shit up on the internet, you'd better be willing to recognize that fact. Only through frank discussions can you make your case as a parent and adult.

You might even clear up a few misconceptions along the way. Not that the internet ever gets anything wrong, of course.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (wNF3N)

244 Okay--you know what? Do you have the Libertarian idea that government should get out of the marriage license business? Interestingly--Gabe does NOT believe that. That is another thing I am thinking about when I try to address what are your limits to-- "Leave Me Alone" philosophy--and or government.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (RJMhd)

245 Woot Woot! Parise of Minn just scored. 4-1 good guys!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (/o+xv)

246
I'm not a lucky parent. I'm a parent who never tried to be friends to my children. A father is not a friend.

Cut. Jib. Fucking Newsletter.

Posted by: GMan at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (sxq57)

247 Unfortunately that's where things get tricky--the 28 year old adult can be a-- parent. So that's the gray area. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:44 PM (RJMhd) The 28 year old women is damn likely to become a parent, and just as damn likely to make *US* pay for her bad decisions. Libertarians are simply unable to see the connection between other people's bad behavior and OUR WALLET.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:08 AM (bb5+k)

248 of course it's a law on the books and of course I support it. But in libertarian Utopia, laws can sunset. So since morality is just Socon nanny-ism, I guess the 12 year old girls in libertarian Utopia will have to hope for a majority rule every few years.

Posted by: noone, really [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 09:09 AM (5ikDv)

249

Lessee . . .

Paris Hilton - wildly famous, starred on TV shows, on every media cover for years, paid to be a celebrity at events . . .

Kim Kardashian - wildly famous, starred on TV shows, on every media cover for years, paid to be a celebrity at events . . .

Pamela Anderson - wildly famous, starred on TV shows, on every media cover for years, paid to be a celebrity at events . . .

Ditto for Teen Mom Farrah Abraham, Sydney Leathers, Tile Tequila, Kendra Wilkinson, Joanie "Chyna" Laurer, etc. ad nauseated.

Fame and fortune awaits your "stolen" sex tape!!!

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 19, 2014 09:09 AM (BAS5M)

250 Ever hear of the Book Of Revelation? You know, the one at the back of the Holy Bible?

Posted by: Erowmero at February 19, 2014 09:09 AM (OONaw)

251 >>> It's the Dirty Scandi playoffs! For the record, the Suomi (Finland) do not consider themselves Skandi.

Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 19, 2014 09:10 AM (8mhW/)

252 252 >>> It's the Dirty Scandi playoffs! For the record, the Suomi (Finland) do not consider themselves Skandi. Posted by: Mr. Dave at February 19, 2014 01:10 PM (8mhW/) They're certainly entitled to their opinion.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 19, 2014 09:10 AM (bCEmE)

253 226 MD's is still on the books. $25 fine.

Posted by: shillelagh at February 19, 2014 09:10 AM (hRzu2)

254 246 Woot Woot! Parise of Minn just scored. 4-1 good guys! America - FUCK YEAH!

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:10 AM (7ObY1)

255 223 Are there any HD Links?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 01:00 PM
.It's a bit choppy and pixelated but I'll take what I can get, US on the power play! Thanks again to the Horde for coming through!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 01:04 PM (/o+xv)

Oh, hockey! I originally thought the question was about the DTF 12 yr old. I know this place is a little messed up, but that was a little far.

Posted by: red sweater at February 19, 2014 09:10 AM (oATMN)

256 239 >>>Hell it's getting weird because you seem to want us to police our side to an extreme and I do get that--but that's not exactly a Libertarian value--is it? nope, probably not. A full-on libertarian would probably say that even attempting to get people to pressure each other into political acceptability would be an impingement on their unfettered rights of expression and belief. I believe that too, pretty much, except here's the thing: I would also like to stop a descent into tyranny, and at some point that means winning an election, and so that means, at some point, that the most unpopular parts of conservatism are going to have to be abandoned or muted. Furthermore, it's not so much that I'm telling people they must cease to believe. Rather I'm trying to convey to them that there are certain things that are not only loser issues in and of themselves, but furthermore activate the gut-level decision on affiliation with a group. Virtually anyone except a committed ideologue would read the piece above and either say "Makes sense" or at least not object much. But people do object, and with emotional hostility, to this idea of being endlessly bothered by someone else's sexual code. This doesn't even mean people *disagree* with that sexual code -- rather, it's that they resent someone else presuming to be their Daddy, telling them the rules. I happen to agree with most social cons on the advisability for sexual restraint, sexual modesty, criticizing the media for endlessly sexualizing children, and so on. Most people would agree. But there are big things people not only disagree with, but disagree with strongly. Take Todd Aiken. His belief about every life being sacred -- even those created in rapes -- is itself not objectionable But yeah, if he then goes on to say "And I intend to make it the law that not even a raped woman can seek an abortion, even in the first 36 hours post-rape, via the morning after pill," you're not completely losing the issue, and not just the issue, but the election. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 01:07 PM (/FnUH) *************** I hate to tell you this --but--you could apply almost all of your rational in this response to something that is very near and dear to your heart. Can we even discuss that topic here at this blog in a rational manner-- je pense que--- non.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:11 AM (RJMhd)

257 Yeah, about that... http://tinyurl.com/mlc7qaa Posted by: Your friendly neighborhood social welfare behemoth at February 19, 2014 12:46 PM (T0NGe) Thank you. My point exactly. Apparently not policing the morality of the 28 year old women in our society costs us a fucking LOT of money. Doesn't taking my money make me a victim? Does it not injure me?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:11 AM (bb5+k)

258 237 The libertarian concept of age of consent, as far as I can tell, is that it should also be the age at which one can make other major legal decisions, and the age at which one's parents are no longer obligated to provide care. So, 12 year olds wouldn't be legally able to consent to sex unless they could also join the military at 12. Do you have any links to actual libertarians agitating for lowering the age of consent to 12?

Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 09:11 AM (YPCWp)

259 212 Exactly. Watching my father, my best friend's father, and a couple of friends go through bad divorces took me completely out of the marriage market.

It's crazy. Marriage is just not a good deal for men.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:12 AM (KXm42)

260 213 182 tcn It takes two to tango. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander. Equal Responsibility. Otherwise, guys are not winning any virtue (or the perceived war against women by chauvinist pigs) by casting stones from your guilty hands.

Posted by: panzernashorn at February 19, 2014 01:01 PM (MhA4j)

Of course it takes two, but before legal abortion, the girl was always the one left holding the bag, so she had more at stake when defending her "honor." Now, with the "freedom" (read: license) granted by birth control and abortion, women can just give it away without any contract whatsoever, and the price of that is the complete loss of dignity and safety. Herpes, AIDS, chlamydia and cervical cancer, single parenthood, all manner of evil proliferates in this climate. Not particularly empowering to women, or men for that matter.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:12 AM (3kDQa)

261 Citizens for a Really Safe Ashland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhsuB6xMR8

Posted by: Harry Reid's kidney at February 19, 2014 09:12 AM (e8kgV)

262

May I just point out that these are lyrics to the current #2 song in the country:

"Talk Dirty"

by Jason Derulo feat. 2-Chainz

[Jason Derulo:]
I'm that flight that you get on, international

First class seat on my lap girl, riding comfortable

Cause I know what the girl them need, New York to Haiti

I got lipstick stamps on my passport, you make it hard to leave

[Jason Derulo:]
Been around the world, don't speak the language

But your booty don't need explaining

All I really need to understand is

When you talk dirty to me

Talk dirty to me

Talk dirty to me

Talk dirty to me

Get jazzy on me

And then the 2Chainz bit,w hich is worthy of Shakespeare:

[2 Chainz:]
Dos Cadenas, closed the genius

Sold out arenas, you can suck my penis

Gilbert Arenas, guns on deck

Chest to chest, tongue on neck

International oral sex

Every picture I take, I pose a threat

Boat or jet, what do you expect?

Her pussy so good I bought her a pet

Anyway, every day I'm trying to get to it

Got her saved in my phone under "Big Booty"

Anyway, every day I'm trying to get to it

Got her saved in my phone under "Big Booty"

Young girls hear this. Young boys hear this. They hear it on the bus in the morning going to school, and on the radio at home, and on Pandora, and on whatever frigging Sirius station they've got plugged in to their speakers. Is it any wonder girls think the only way boys will like them is if they give it up, and boys think that they've only got value if they fuck a lot of girls?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 09:12 AM (4df7R)

263

I would also like to stop a descent into tyranny, and at some point that means winning an election, and so that means, at some point, that the most unpopular parts of conservatism are going to have to be abandoned or muted.

Which ones? Abortion isn't a social issue, it is a human rights issue. Homosexual marriage is a religious issue; if it were about any other subject, civil unions would suffice. Sexuality? Because of the welfare state, everyone has a financial interest in keeping children from becoming pregnant.

From where I stand, traditional values are not just contentious issues, they are literally under legal attack.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 09:13 AM (AskuI)

264 The state has a duty to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:47 PM (RJMhd)

From everything? What about poor financial decisions?

Having a child affects you financially, right? So does buying a car. Should the state have to check out your income to see if you qualify for the car you want, or is the bank (the private entity) acceptable?

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 09:13 AM (fwARV)

265 here's the thing: I would also like to stop a descent into tyranny, and at some point that means winning an election,

Well, if you are talking about the GOP, good luck. The Libertarians have a better chance at this point.

and by GOP, I mean Dems, Team B.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 09:13 AM (n0DEs)

266 Thank you. My point exactly. Apparently not policing the morality of the 28 year old women in our society costs us a fucking LOT of money.

Doesn't taking my money make me a victim? Does it not injure me?

Yeah, that's why we can't get to Libertarianism from here. It requires dismantling the welfare state, which would be political suicide for any party that tried it.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:13 AM (45N4D)

267 248 Unfortunately that's where things get tricky--the 28 year old adult can be a-- parent. So that's the gray area. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:44 PM (RJMhd) The 28 year old women is damn likely to become a parent, and just as damn likely to make *US* pay for her bad decisions. Libertarians are simply unable to see the connection between other people's bad behavior and OUR WALLET. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 01:08 PM (bb5+k) ******* Yep. I think that is where the great debate now lies and where the future paradigm shift for America will come from--in one direction or another.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:13 AM (RJMhd)

268 the morning after pill does not work at all at the population level, nor at the individual level for anyone weighing more than about 160lbs. Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 01:05 PM (CNua6) -- We were talking about teen pregnancy/birth rates. Although I see the morning after pill as an abortifacient, the effect of it is to "eliminate" teen pregnancies. At least the ones that we can see.

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 09:13 AM (zDsvJ)

269 You will always be able to find a "good reason" to exert control other people if you set about on looking for one. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:46 PM (/FnUH) You did see this chart, Yes? http://www.heritage.org/~/media/Images/Testimonies /2009/Uncovering%20the%20Hidden%20Welfare% 20State/AppendixC3792.ashx How much money does it have to cost before YOU decide some control needs to occur?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:14 AM (bb5+k)

270 The icky socons never seem to pass any sexual morality laws. Only sexual morality laws and codes that seem to actually be enforced these days are things like campus morality codes and rape shield laws. The only legal, institutional interference I see being enforced comes from the Left. But purge away.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:14 AM (ZPrif)

271 Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 12:52 PM (PYAXX) Are you judging the decision in casa tsr to not go out last night

. (OK the joke is late, I lost internets.)

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 09:14 AM (GaqMa)

272 I've linked to this before, but Bookworm's "Sex and State Power" essay reveals the seedy underbelly of all of this 'sex, earlier and more often, and with more partners' lifestyle the Left has been pushing.
Hint: it's not really about sex.

If you don't recognize the boundaries between your body and others, you're easier to manipulate by the state. They want Winnefred and all of her contemporaries to be a mess.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bw9q7b

Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2014 09:14 AM (POpqt)

273 It's crazy. Marriage is just not a good deal for men.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 01:12 PM (KXm42)

Depends on the marriage, doesn't it? Mine appears to be a good deal for my husband. He gets offspring, clean laundry, a clean house, all errands run, regular sex, etc for considerably less than he would pay on the open market. And then there's the intangibles. No more dating, but plenty of companionship.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:14 AM (3kDQa)

274 Libertarians are simply unable to see the connection between other people's bad behavior and OUR WALLET. Posted by: D-Lamp libertarians are opposed to the welfare state. are you ignorant of that?

Posted by: X at February 19, 2014 09:14 AM (KHo8t)

275 265 The state has a duty to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:47 PM (RJMhd) From everything? What aboutpoor financial decisions? Having a child affects you financially, right? So does buying a car. Should the state have to check out your income to see if you qualify for the car you want, or is the bank (the private entity) acceptable? Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 01:13 PM (fwARV) ************** No. Right now I am participating in a trial for two adults who are being declared mentally incompetent. You will be surprised what a nightmare that is.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:15 AM (RJMhd)

276 If we can get more girls to screw-up their lives we believe it will make us feel less icky about our own screwed-up lives.

Posted by: Modern Day "Feminists" at February 19, 2014 09:15 AM (MNq6o)

277 >>They're certainly entitled to their opinion. Thread-winner!

Posted by: Y-not at February 19, 2014 09:15 AM (zDsvJ)

278

Okay, nothing in this thread or comments is making any sense to me. Therefore, I declare all of your economic agruments invalid.

[strokes cat]

Sex is icky.

Posted by: Nobel Prize Winner and Enron Advisor Paul Krugman at February 19, 2014 09:15 AM (BAS5M)

279 I have four young daughters. Say what you like about socons and stuff. A lot of it will be accurate. But the fact is that our modern world is set up to screw up and screw over my girls. Yeah, people can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own bedroom or whatever, but the fact is that in aggregate those choices haven't turned out to be truly private. They've created a permissive porn culture where my girls will be literally shamed--not "slutshamed," literally shamed--and marginalized for not participating. Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (ZMzpb) Like I said before, society is a SYSTEM. It can tolerate some degree of idiot behavior, but when it is the norm, that shit falls apart.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:15 AM (bb5+k)

280 I think the age of consent should be 26. See: PP/ACA.

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (CeHbE)

281 Boat or jet, what do you expect? Her pussy so good I bought her a pet Anyway, every day I'm trying to get to it Got her saved in my phone under "Big Booty" Anyway, every day I'm trying to get to it Got her saved in my phone under "Big Booty" ---- I liked the world a lot better when "Paradise By the Dashboard Lights" was scandalous. My Mom FLIPPED OUT when I spun that vinyl for the first time. Yes.... I said vinyl.... and get off my lawn.

Posted by: fixerupper at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (nELVU)

282 "True but 1, we should make such distinctions,"

But we don't and we never have. Basically you are telling me that because the conflict between total adult freedom and raising kids if we did something that's theoretically possible but practically impossible, we can ignore the conflict

"and 2, if the suggestion is that adults cannot enjoy adult pleasures due to the effect (inevitable, as you suggest) it will have indirectly on children, I simply cannot agree"

OK, fine, but what's your solution? I'm willing to let you do whatever the hell if it doesn't affect my kids. But I won't accept that my kids welfare and well-being is secondary to you getting your rocks off. Let's be frank. A country made up of Aces is doomed. No kids, no future. So why should you getting what you want trump me getting what I want? If that's your bottom line, all that happens is that you are building up an interest group of parents who are gonna hate libertarianism. As the pornification of the very young becomes more and more apparent, the pressure to do something about it will also grow. So if your bottom line is that in practice sexual libertarianism is opposed to children's welfare, you are making it inevitable that sexual libertarianism will be deeply curtailed.
But most parents are OK with adults doing their thing, so long as the experience of growing up isn't cheapened and sexualized by it. So you should try to appeal to them by trying to find a way to make that work. A practical way, not telling them to make some theoretical fine distinction that in practice can't and won't happen, or saying that feminists(!) will take care of the problem.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (ZMzpb)

283 What scares me about this whole subject right now is how vulnerable boys (and men too) are to really messed up in the head girls and women. Look at the number of college age guys booted from school for sexual misconduct, or worse thrown in jail for rape when at the time the action was consensual. Or the number of kids who end up in trouble for sexually explicit content on their phone because some girl sent it to them. One case here, a 14 year old broke up with his girlfriend and she proceeded to accuse him of raping her. It took a lot of time, attorneys, and money to untangle him from the false accusation.

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (RZ8pf)

284 The 28 year old women is damn likely to become a parent, and just as damn likely to make *US* pay for her bad decisions.

Libertarians are simply unable to see the connection between other people's bad behavior and OUR WALLET.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 01:08 PM (bb5+k)

__________

You have it 100% backwards. I am pro-choice precisely so the 28 year old (or 18 year old or 38 year old) can get an abortion and NOT cost the tax payers any money.

Abortion = tax savings.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (0LHZx)

285 225 First they came for the Strawmen...... Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 01:04 PM (6bMeY) And they got their strawberries snipped off.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (LIQGY)

286 276 Are they U.S. Senators?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (6bMeY)

287 [2 Chainz:]Dos Cadenas, closed the genius Sold out arenas, you can suck my penis Gilbert Arenas, guns on deck Chest to chest, tongue on neck International oral sex Every picture I take, I pose a threat Boat or jet, what do you expect? Her pussy so good I bought her a pet Anyway, every day I'm trying to get to it Got her saved in my phone under "Big Booty" Anyway, every day I'm trying to get to it Got her saved in my phone under "Big Booty" -------------- And to understand how well and truly fucked our culture is, just think that he probably made more money of that one song than most of us will make in our lifetime.

Posted by: Adam at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (Aif/5)

288 Boys today are getting more snatch than an Olympic weightlifting competition.

Posted by: Not the Deaf Frat Guy at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (ZhNCB)

289 The state has a duty to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:47 PM (RJMhd)

Protection from stupid and self-serving politicians ?

Posted by: Harry Reid's prostrate at February 19, 2014 09:16 AM (e8kgV)

290 Abstinence only sex ed is equally effective as "comprehensive" "equally effective" means they either both have some effect or neither have any effect. By definition. We may not *like* it, but it does have some effect.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (PYAXX)

291 Okay, I guess i'm going to out myself as a patriarchal bastard, but- What's the problem with "slut shaming"? If the problem is girls, twelve or older, having sex they neither particularly want or at least want to date until they feel comfortable about it, what's wrong with "slut shaming"? If you want to discourage a behavior, you increase the price of it. (to keep with the economic theme here) And yes, it's not fair but girls/women are in sole control of the commodity that boys/men want, so they have to be the responsible party. For myself, the girl always controlled whether we were going to have sex or not. If they were willing, awesome. If not, well I might date and test a bit to see how committed to that position they were, but in the end, no means no. If they weren't going to have sex, they needed to bring something else to the table - beauty, great personality, be fun, common interests, great cook, etc. Part of the problem is too many girls don't bring the other stuff to the table, worse yet they don't even try. So, with them dating by default is going to be sex or nothing.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (0cMkb)

292 The main groups I see trying to interfere with consenting adults are the Campus Left.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (ZPrif)

293 289 Boys today are getting more snatch than an Olympic weightlifting competition. Not to mention...cleaning and jerking.

Posted by: akula51[/b][/i][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (CeHbE)

294 Protection from having Guam capsize and sink into the ocean

Posted by: Hank Johnson at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (e8kgV)

295 Young girls hear this. Young boys hear this. They hear it on the bus in the morning going to school, and on the radio at home, and on Pandora, and on whatever frigging Sirius station they've got plugged in to their speakers. Is it any wonder girls think the only way boys will like them is if they give it up, and boys think that they've only got value if they fuck a lot of girls?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 19, 2014 01:12 PM (4df7R)

After reading those reviling lyrics, I am now completely shorted out by rage.

O.o I think I will take the remainder of the day away from politics... I'm just too disgusted to formulate a worthwhile thought.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (9LuAk)

296 The liberals have all sorts of cultural pushes that are way outside the mainstream. Making the morning after pill available OTC to 12 year olds? That's so far out in left field that you can't even see mainstream from that location... And yet when conservatives fight back against that, we're told "shut up, you're scaring the moderates!" The truth is that if you agree that a 12 year old should be able to buy a dangerous (yes, all hormonal birth control is dangerous) drug OTC that's only purpose is to facilitate unprotected sex, you aren't going to pull the lever for any republican anywhere anyway.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 09:17 AM (CNua6)

297 "But people do object, and with emotional hostility, to this idea of being endlessly bothered by someone else's sexual code."

___________________________________

It is this objection that makes half of the Country or so "homophobes," is it not?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 19, 2014 09:18 AM (nnkXw)

298 I thought 26 was still considered a child. Why are you guys arguing about a 28 year old adult. Obama has made this very clear.

Posted by: MJ at February 19, 2014 09:18 AM (oari7)

299 This is just so depressing - a 12 year old contemplating how to broadcast being DTF. yep Some of us were so very lucky. We could be kids, until we weren't. The over-sexualizing of the young (male or female) overrides at a very early age what is more important while growing up. Their brains are now imprinted with this junkscience. Not, responsibility, self-worth, intellect, play, confidence, etc. The force is so strong (it's everywhere), that they literally have no way to fight it unless the parents become very involved.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:18 AM (IXrOn)

300 Does Britain have a Hockey team?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:18 AM (6bMeY)

301 right, someone might be a parent, so it's your responsibility to nanny them throughout their adult lives. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH) "Nanny" is a word Libertarians love to use. It is basically a deliberate and subtle ad hominem. How about we just stick with the financial issue? How much does it cost me to pay for unmarried women with children? Can I also count the cost when her little hellions rob or assault me? Can we put that in Fiscal numbers so that a Libertarian can notice it?

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:18 AM (bb5+k)

302 The libertarian concept of age of consent, as far as I can tell, is that it should also be the age at which one can make other major legal decisions, and the age at which one's parents are no longer obligated to provide care. So, 12 year olds wouldn't be legally able to consent to sex unless they could also join the military at 12.

Do you have any links to actual libertarians agitating for lowering the age of consent to 12?

Being able to make legal decisions is tied to age of consent, so that part's a circular argument. As to "no longer obligated to provide care", could you elaborate? Obligated legally?

As to joining the military, historically very young people joined the military. Drummer boys in the Civil War for example walked into battle.

As to links RE libertarians arguing for a low age of consent, I don't have them. I'm asking because I don't see and can't find a libertarian position on the subject.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:18 AM (45N4D)

303 My Mom FLIPPED OUT when I spun that vinyl for the first time. Queen's album "Jazz," the one that came with the poster of nekkid girls riding bikes? Yeah, hanging that one on my wall got me grounded for a week with extra chores.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:19 AM (7ObY1)

304

Society was far better off when women maintained their sex cartel. For the longest time, it was maintained by both law, AND social pressure, because both law and social pressure are also synergistically interrelated.

Cut. Jib. Newsletter

Posted by: The Committe for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice at February 19, 2014 09:19 AM (A0sHn)

305

Oh, and this one, which is currently #20 on the top 100 Billboard chart, but which I heard yesterday afternoon on 105.5 WJYY, which is pretty much the go-to station for pop music here in central NH:

"Show Me"

Kid Ink feat (woman beater) Chris Brown

[Bridge 1: Chris Brown]

Baby let me put your panties to the side

I'm a make you feel alright

'Cause I'm a give you what you need, yeah

Mami you remind me of something

I don't know what it is

You remind me of something

You gotta show me

Alright, you remind me of something

I don't know what it is right now

You remind me of something

Girl you gotta show me

[Verse 1: Kid Ink]

Uh, on the real no lie

I don't know what it is but you just my type

Everything just right

B set put us to the left

Don't listen to the hype though

Got a cup in your hand

Baby sitting but you ain't got no kids

We ain't leaving 'til there ain't no more left

Can't see no time on the Rolex

I could tell you a freak, go and show it

Looking for the after party, where to go at?

Go on the floor like a doormat

Baby you know where to throw that

Inspiring.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 09:19 AM (4df7R)

306 The state --I feel should protect individuals from being preyed upon by others. Alzheimer's is going to get really, really ugly. So in some instances the state I guess does have a right to make sure--you do what is economically feasible or --more so--an appointed guardian does what is economically feasible. I know I am talking about extreme cases and rare examples--although with the aging baby boomers unfortunately it isn't going to be all that rare and the "law" is going to have to adapt rapidly.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:19 AM (RJMhd)

307 301 Does Britain have a Hockey team? No, but they might as well have, given the general condition of their teeth.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:19 AM (7ObY1)

308 Right now I am participating in a trial for two adults who are being declared mentally incompetent.

You will be surprised what a nightmare that is.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 01:15 PM (RJMhd)

I would like it to be difficult to be declared mentally incompetent against my will. With all seriousness, think what power the state would wield (vice now) if they could have their attorney declare me mentally unfit at a whim?

My principals (Leave People Alone) demand that I not impose my morals or values onto other people

The next sentence is important though, and it's the one most-often ignored by those who are anti-libertarianism:

My principals ALSO demand that other people not impose my money onto themselves to pursue their morals or values.

Living in the real world as I do though, I don't think that's possible. The welfare state is here. It will not be modified or restructured. It will simply collapse. When that happens, God help us all.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 09:20 AM (fwARV)

309 301 Does Britain have a Hockey team? Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 01:18 PM (6bMeY) Their teeth say yes, their culture says no.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 09:20 AM (LIQGY)

310 The late 70s was the point I think the sexualization of young girls really broke loose in Hollywood. Here are 3 examples.

Brooke Sheilds: Pretty Baby
Tatum O'Neal: Paper Moon
Jodie Foster: Taxi Driver

Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 19, 2014 09:20 AM (tf9Ne)

311 So is objecting to morning after pills being handed out to middle school girls one of those icky socon positions that has to be purged from the Republican Party (a party Ace no longer is a member of) to save us from tyranny?

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:21 AM (ZPrif)

312 Leave British teeth aloooooone..........

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:21 AM (KXm42)

313 So go on, please continue, insisting that you have just as much interest in patrolling the morality of a 28 year old woman as you do in objecting to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:42 PM (/FnUH)
----------------

Is that 28 year old woman a celebrity selling that morality? Is "she" a dominant social presence in society? Is she bouncing ass "out and proud"?

Here's the problem - there are 4 levels of "wrong" - 1) legally (bad because legislature says so) 2) morally (mala in se, a true evil/wrong, recognized by religion, philosophy, etc.) 3) socially (herd regulates itself, cultural norm) and 4) under mom & dad's roof (parents' rules).

What's happened is that No. 2 has been tommy gun-assaulted by moral relativism for decades, so no one even agrees on what's mala in se anymore (see post-birth abortion, etc.). And that leads to No. 3 not being enforced (because I can't be seen "practice my own morality" by "patrolling" a 28 year old's immorality, and ergo, I'm forced to fund it, so here's $$ for your rubbers, Sandra).

That leaves No. 1 and No. 4 - so if's it legal, then it's A-OK and perfectly acceptable. In other words, if it's legal for a 12 year old to bang another 12 year old, then its A-OK, and why oh why does Mommy and Daddums have an "problem" with it? "Why have some "out-dated" morality contra to that enforced via the herd, and certainly not via the law! Prudes!"

I'm not saying that I want a Bible-banger law that bans "sluts" - I'm saying that I want the protected First Amendment right to call a spade a spade, to call a slut a slut, at any age, because a SLUT is a SLUT. And I know that I may have someone do the same to me for something. And THAT'S OK. And if my 12 year old daughter sees how society regards sluts, not by locking them up but by saying "freak ho, bounce dat ass and make ya knees touch ya elbows", then they may be inclined toward better behavior and not idolize or follow the lead of a 28 (or 19) year old whore who sells that image for money. See South Park's Paris Hilton episode for more, where even Mr. Slave tells Wendy that he's knows he a whore, and that she SHOULDN'T want to be like him.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 19, 2014 09:21 AM (i6shs)

314 @274:
The problem is that you _could_ just divorce on a whim and take all his stuff, his children, and most of his future income, for no reason at all. Obviously not saying that you _will_, but the danger is there.

The family courts/no-fault divorce are the issue. Marriage is an insane risk for men nowadays.

(Aside: The Dark Enlightenment stuff that came up last week? THIS is what it's about.)

Posted by: Jabari at February 19, 2014 09:21 AM (gyNYk)

315 290 The state has a duty to protect individuals that cannot protect themselves. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:47 PM (RJMhd) Protection from stupid and self-serving politicians ? Posted by: Harry Reid's prostrate at February 19, 2014 01:16 PM (e8kgV) ********* Ha! I wish! I don't think they make a prophylactic that is big enough.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:21 AM (RJMhd)

316 Heh, leave it to us morons to instantly make numerous Limeys-teeth-hockey jokes.

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (7ObY1)

317 We keep reading "conservative" blogs refer to this as a country with Christian-Judeo roots but it's been a long downward slide. I come too this blog for the laughs and, more importantly, the non-mainstream news, but as a man with a daughter, a wife, and a mother, I started blocking the images a couple years ago.

I think St. Thomas said it best, "Images affect attitudes."

When did it start with the conservative websites? I noticed a couple years ago even NRO started putting sexy teaser links at the bottom of every article.

Posted by: Matt at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (y2oc5)

318 313 Leave British teeth aloooooone.......... Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 01:21 PM (KXm42) NEVER!

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (LIQGY)

319

Okay, I guess i'm going to out myself as a patriarchal bastard, but-

What's the problem with "slut shaming"?

I've got no problem with slut shaming, provided it goes both ways. I don't care if you've got a penis; if you have no willpower to keep it in your pants, you're a slut as bad as any fucking Kardashian.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (4df7R)

320 Young males are never the "buyer" in that they are never choosey. They will hump the straight a student just as readilly as the foul mouthed emo. All that matters is if they are attractive. Males are the "seller" in that they will sell their sperm to just about any taker. The female is the buyer, who has a limited budget to work with, thus shops around for their favorite mate.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (Z9BWx)

321 The next sentence is important though, and it's the one most-often ignored by those who are anti-libertarianism:

My principals ALSO demand that other people not impose my money onto themselves to pursue their morals or values.

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter and weekly ginger babe pics.

Posted by: EC at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (GQ8sn)

322 Boys today are pulling more tail than a special needs class at a petting zoo. (Best one from this week)

Posted by: also not deaf frat guy at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (OOhXw)

323 274 That's nice for you two, but that doesn't mitigate the very real risk. The divorce rate is about half, and the initiator is overwhelmingly women. It's a pretty high risk of failure, with a pretty high cost of that failure. Think of it as an investment: You can either keep all your money, or you can invest all of it. (It's all in or nothing in marriage.) The investment has a 50% chance of losing 50% of everything. The other 50% will provide you with "intangibles" and other things you could get if you just kept your money uninvested in the first place.

The only reason a man would get married these days are if he really wants children.

No one thinks they'll be just a statistic, and that includes the half that end up divorced.

Posted by: shillelagh at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (hRzu2)

324 Anyway, the blatant use of the IRS as the DemocratsÂ’ catÂ’s paw has clearly taken root within individual Democratic campaigns. An article in The Hill quotes several vulnerable Senate Democrats Â— such as Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) Â— who are openly demanding the IRS increase their intimidation of organizations that may oppose them. Obviously, the Democrats expect more from their team members at the IRS in the months leading up to the 2014 elections. @ Washington post The Insiders: The IRS, the DemocratsÂ’ catÂ’s paw By Ed Rogers February 14 at 2:59 pm so expect more intimidation tactics i guess.

Posted by: willow at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (nqBYe)

325 Notice that they weaved in the evil petrochemical makers of pesticides. I'm surprised they didn't site global warming as a co-conspirator.

Posted by: Buffalobob at February 19, 2014 09:22 AM (RZBmV)

326 Are you judging the decision in casa tsr to not go out last night . Yeah... I knew some wise-mouth was going to go there. You knew what I meant.

Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 09:23 AM (PYAXX)

327 Ages of consent vary by state and marital status. I would not support one lower than sixteen. Used to be, still is?, in Florida kids with parental permission could marry at 14. I just saw a story where a 19-yr-old guy is having to live with a bunch of hardcore sex offenders in Pahokee because he is on the list for having sex with his 15-yr-old girlfriend.

Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 09:23 AM (YHegH)

328

I don't think Ace's point here is that only females share the responsibility for sexual mores. But rather that between girls and boys their getting the worst deal.

Girls have the commodity sex. Boys have the commodity relationship. Boys are getting their direct needs met, girls are not. To convince boys to change first requires relying on secondary arguments like, " ok yes you could have what you want now but if you wait you'll have a much more rewarding relationship, marriage, life etc. But the benefit for girls, better relationships, is direct and easier to argue.

Posted by: bananaDream at February 19, 2014 09:23 AM (D0kWg)

329 Tatum O'Neal: Paper Moon The ballet-school scene in Bad News Bears. That was teen boy fap heaven in 1976.

Posted by: Guy Who Doesn't Give a Shit at February 19, 2014 09:23 AM (7ObY1)

330 >>>Hell it's getting weird because you seem to want us to police our side to an extreme and I do get that--but that's not exactly a Libertarian value--is it? nope, probably not. A full-on libertarian would probably say that even attempting to get people to pressure each other into political acceptability would be an impingement on their unfettered rights of expression and belief. Society will regulate itself and there will always be peer pressure and normative valued, quite regardless of government involvement. Pressuring "each other into political acceptability" is exactly what the "free love" Left have done, and done successfully. They have used the normative power of law to implement their social values. It goes far beyond simply "letting people be" to the point of the favoring and even subsidizing these new values, while attacking those values that are now taboo. It is one reason why the Nolan chart is B.S. Liberals do not believe in "less government" when it comes to social issued. Quite the opposite, really. zombie had a a much better one, though I'd substitute "individual vs. collective" in lieu of reach of government.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 09:23 AM (XvHmy)

331 128 Apparently many agree with Hillary Clinton's aphorism that it takes a village to raise a child, and that "child" can include 30 year olds. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH) Must have you rattled, cause you are throwing out fallacies like candy now. Hillary Clinton meant a very different thing than merely recognizing that there is a larger social system out there which encourages or discourages socially appropriate behavior. Again, we live in a system. We are connected to it, and the things we do can have adverse consequences to others. It allows for flexibility, but it can only function if the level of irresponsible behavior does not exceed the threshold of the societies ability to weather it. "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, Â— in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, Â— in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, Â— in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. "

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (bb5+k)

332 Now I'm a Clinton Hater from way back, ver since he said, "I didn't inhale", which lie accused me of being an idiot by its very utterance.
Saying that......

This is the logical progression from Clinton's "It's only a BJ, not sex."

I recall in the late 90s early 00s being upset I wasn't a teenager as girls were treating blowjobs as a good night kiss.
I even read/heard stories about girls who were more likely to give a blow job than a kiss good night.

Blow jobs weren't sex after all, everybody from POTUS down to their Clinton-defending parents said so, why shouldn't they accept that?

Alas, I was born in an age when it took diamonds or at least a lot of alcohol to get a blowjob from your girlfriend and forget about getting one from your wife.

The coarsening of our culture took a huge leap forward as leftist aholes defended sexual predators because of the (D) after their name.

Then we had Britney Spears and the slut dolls Bratz for young girls and now we're at the point where we are now.

Boned. And not in the good way, but up the butt with no lube.

Posted by: Veeshir at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (dKqLR)

333
I don't think women are being influenced by culture as much as we think they are, for instance, the woman tied up in my car trunk still refuses my advances.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (n0DEs)

334 The Left wants the govt to hand out abortion pills to middle school girls. In secret, without telling their parents. But it's the icky socon Right that is trying to use govt to impose their sexual morality on people. Got it.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (ZPrif)

335 Leave British teeth aloooooone.......... Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 01:21 PM (KXm42) ----- Oh.... we do.

Posted by: Toothbrush Union at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (nELVU)

336 The keys to the candy store as it were.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (6bMeY)

337 "What's interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of "freeing" people's sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is.

This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person's own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery....The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person's development..."

Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (POpqt)

338 Abortion = tax savings.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 01:16 PM (0LHZx)

Never mind all that icky blood and death stuff.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:24 AM (3kDQa)

339 Will no one rid me of this wearisome Kardashian?

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:25 AM (KXm42)

340 "I just saw a story where a 19-yr-old guy is having to live with a bunch of hardcore sex offenders in Pahokee because he is on the list for having sex with his 15-yr-old girlfriend."
And your problem with this is what?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:25 AM (zfY+H)

341 Abortion = tax savings.

I'm old enough to remember Pelosi saying the exact opposite a few years ago.

Posted by: EC at February 19, 2014 09:26 AM (GQ8sn)

342 Living in the real world as I do though, I don't think that's possible. The welfare state is here. It will not be modified or restructured. It will simply collapse. When that happens, God help us all. Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 01:20 PM (fwARV) I was about to say oh Math will restructure it but then you brought it up so um hi? *waves* I cannot comprehend how any of you are parents. Honestly, it is beyond the scope of my ability to imagine attempting to raise a child in today's world.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 09:26 AM (VtjlW)

343 Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 12:52 PM (+cx5n) You are doing the work of a Saint.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:27 AM (bb5+k)

344 I guess it's fair game to project all sorts of ridiculous concepts on seemingly blank libertarian blackboards.

This is the problem with allowing full-throttle open-society libertarians to drive all policy debate.

Next thing we know, cats and dogs are DFT

Posted by: 13times at February 19, 2014 09:27 AM (fGPLK)

345 These lyrics you all are posting are absolutely tame. Here's an excerpt from an essay I posted last year, containing real lyrics of actual popular rap songs: http://tinyurl.com/k5o9f6t These are the actual lyrics of a rap song that's considered an "old school classic": "When I met you last night baby Before you opened up your gap I had respect for ya lady But now I take it all back Cause you gave me all your pussy And ya even licked my balls Leave your number on the cabinet And I promise baby, IÂ’ll give ya a call Next time IÂ’m feelin kinda horny You can come on over, and IÂ’ll break you off And if you canÂ’t fuck that day, baby Just lay back, and open your mouth Cause I have never met a girl That I love in the whole wide world [Verse Two: Kurupt] Well, if Kurupt gave a fuck about a bitch IÂ’d always be broke IÂ’d never have no motherfuckin indo to smoke I gets loced and looney, bitch you canÂ’t do me Do we like BBD, you hoochie groupie? I have no love for hoes ThatÂ’s somethin I learned in the pound So how the fuck am I supposed to pay this hoe, just to lay this hoe I know the pussyÂ’s mine, IÂ’ma fuck a couple more times And then IÂ’m through with it, thereÂ’s nothing else to do with it Pass it to the homie, now you hit it Cause she ainÂ’t nuthin but a bitch to me And yÂ’all know, that bitches ainÂ’t shit to me I gives a fuck, why donÂ’t yÂ’all pay attention Approach it with a different proposition, IÂ’m Kurupt Hoe youÂ’ll never be my only one, trick ass beeeitch! [Chorus: (repeat 4X)] It ainÂ’t no fun, if the homies canÂ’t have none. [Verse Three: Snoop Doggy Dogg] Guess who back in the motherfuckinÂ’ house With a fat dick for your motherfuckinÂ’ mouth Hoes recognize, ni&&az do too Cuz when bitches get skanless and pull a voodoo What you gon do? You really donÂ’t know So IÂ’d advise you not to trust that hoe Silly of me to fall in love with a bitch KnowinÂ’ damn well, IÂ’m too caught up with my grip Now as the sun rotates and my game grows bigger How many bitches wanna fuck this ni&&er named Snoop Doggy, IÂ’m all the above IÂ’m too swift on my toes to get caught up with you hoes But see, it ainÂ’t no fun, if my homies canÂ’t get a taste of it Cause you know I donÂ’t love Â‘em. [Verse Four: Warren G] Whoa! Hey, now ya know, inhale, exhale with my flow One for the money, two for the bitches Three to get ready, and four to hit the switches In my Chevy, six-foÂ’ Rad to be exact With bitches on my side, and bitches on back So back up bitch cuz iÂ’m strugglin, so get off your knees and then start jugglinÂ’ these motherfuckin nuts in your mouth ItÂ’s me, Warren G the ni&&a with the clout Whoo!"

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 09:27 AM (+cx5n)

346 Life was simpler in the 50's. We didn't have Porn or Sex or that damned Rock and Roll.

Posted by: Ken at February 19, 2014 09:27 AM (OOhXw)

347 >>But yeah, if he then goes on to say "And I intend to make it the law that not even a raped woman can seek an abortion, even in the first 36 hours post-rape, via the morning after pill," you're not completely losing the issue, and not just the issue, but the election. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 01:07 PM (/FnUH) Was that stripper who got naked with the Duke Lacrosse team, a rape victim 36 hours after the "attack", or was she never a rape victim, or was she a rape victim and then she wasn't a rape victim? Reagan tried to be "reasonable" about abortion and the mentally ill. And when he opened that loophole in California, he saw 30,000 people suddenly become temporarily mentally ill to qualify. If you don't care how often abortion happens or why, then go ahead and say so.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (5xmd7)

348 Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 01:14 PM (3kDQa) amen. my husband often says how lucky we are... we watch all of the ugliness out there (and the good!), and we know how lucky we are

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (IXrOn)

349 I would like to subscribe to your newsletter and weekly ginger babe pics.

Posted by: EC at February 19, 2014 01:22 PM (GQ8sn)

It's more of a weekly commentary and daily ginger babe pics. I hope you are amenable to this...

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (fwARV)

350 347 They don't have Rock and Roll now.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (6bMeY)

351 I cannot comprehend how any of you are parents. Honestly, it is beyond the scope of my ability to imagine attempting to raise a child in today's world. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 01:26 PM (VtjlW) Hi. *waves* Two daughters. *blows brains out*

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (da5Wo)

352 It's more of a weekly commentary and daily ginger babe pics. I hope you are amenable to this...

Here's my credit card.

Posted by: EC at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (GQ8sn)

353 Now if we don't see boobs and butts, we think the movie is shortchanging us.

Ahh, the disappointment of finding out an actress isn't as hawt naked as you'd imagined.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (B/VB5)

354 My neck, my back lick my pussy and my crack.

Posted by: Some Rapper 10 Years Ago at February 19, 2014 09:28 AM (Aif/5)

355 >>Abortion = tax savings.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 01:16 PM (0LHZx)

Hey, did you see that article about the former Planned Parenthood employee?
Seems abortion = big $$$ for them, and they're willing to overlook all kinds of stuff just to get it.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/kpo6esn

Posted by: Lizzy at February 19, 2014 09:29 AM (POpqt)

356 jimgeraghty ‏@jimgeraghty The stimulus at work: $2.4 million for five new buses for a system that averages 2 to 3 riders per hour. http://natl.re/1cpQnlm

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 09:29 AM (ZPrif)

357 Its amazing to me that anyone sane or with a grasp of history could even attempt to argue that culturally things are not more sexualized today. Or that before the internet it was tougher to be exposed to sexual activity for young people and adults alike.
I guess if you have zero context except the last ten years of memory or so you could be that ignorant but take it from someone who grew up in the 70s: its not the same. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:29 AM (zfY+H)

358 Mine appears to be a good deal for my husband. He gets offspring, clean laundry, a clean house, all errands run, regular sex, etc for considerably less than he would pay on the open market. And then there's the intangibles. Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 01:14 PM (3kDQa) And that's good. But the fact is that this happy state remains in place SOLELY at your discretion. If you choose to modify the deal he has no recourse and no defense. A kindly master is better than a cruel one, but no master at all is better still. You never know when the human heart will change, and most women are as changeable as the breeze.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 19, 2014 09:29 AM (D20iS)

359 >>>OK, fine, but what's your solution? I'm willing to let you do whatever the hell if it doesn't affect my kids. But I won't accept that my kids welfare and well-being is secondary to you getting your rocks off. Let's be frank. A country made up of Aces is doomed. No kids, no future. Indeed, s'true. >>>So why should you getting what you want trump me getting what I want? Because you will not get what you want. You will continue making outsized demands on the public that they consider completely unreasonable and they will not only tune you out, but outright reject you as "extreme." By making outsized demands you are poisoning the well for achievable goals. This is part and parcel of this madness that has taken over the party that "We get more of what we want by having a starting position that is not only maximalist, but, according to public opinion polls, extremist, and outside the overton window." This theory makes no sense. I have been in negotiations in contracts where the opposite party demanded what I thought were unreasonable things. This did not result in my "giving them more." What it resulted in was my walking away from the contract entirely. You know why? because they had telegraphed their desire to make unreasonable demands on me. I saw into the future, and I saw a future in which my counter-party would routinely invoke contractual clauses to control me, despite the fact I was specifically rejecting the specific controls sought. And yet every day I sit here and read that the way to "win" is to make Big Huge Demands on the public. And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," and every single day I hear people reject this and just insist, again and again, despite all available evidence and personal experience and logic, that we "win" by making the demands we actually seek ten or 20 years down the road, upfront, as our *starting offer,* our opening bid. >>>If that's your bottom line, all that happens is that you are building up an interest group of parents who are gonna hate libertarianism. As the pornification of the very young becomes more and more apparent, the pressure to do something about it will also grow. So if your bottom line is that in practice sexual libertarianism is opposed to children's welfare, you are making it inevitable that sexual libertarianism will be deeply curtailed. Yeah well it's not happened yet, has it? Your entire argument is that this gets worse and worse by the day. Ergo, there is no evidence for this Uprising you speak of, and quite a bit of evidence against it. >>>But most parents are OK with adults doing their thing, so long as the experience of growing up isn't cheapened and sexualized by it. So you should try to appeal to them by trying to find a way to make that work. That is what I am trying to do. And I am trying to tell you that while most adults will find it quite reasonable to agitate agaisnt the sexualization of children, they will vote against you, with hostility, for extending that reasonable impulse into an unreasonable one -- patrolling their own sexual choices.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:29 AM (/FnUH)

360 175 Yes, well... when you abandon all ethical foundations and replace them with nothing, this is what you get. We are reduced more and more to animals and brutes, grunting barbarians losing their humanity and everything that makes us better. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 12:55 PM (zfY+H) But we have advanced technology and FAR BETTER WEAPONS!!!!

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:30 AM (bb5+k)

361 335 The Left wants the govt to hand out abortion pills to middle school girls. In secret, without telling their parents. But it's the icky socon Right that is trying to use govt to impose their sexual morality on people. Got it. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 01:24 PM (ZPrif) Funny how the left will then claim that girls are totally helpless to the charms of advertisements that promote a certain 'body image', and thus should be banned because they are predatory and hurt the feelings of teh poor lil' womyn.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 09:30 AM (LIQGY)

362 I've got no problem with slut shaming, provided it goes both ways. I don't care if you've got a penis; if you have no willpower to keep it in your pants, you're a slut as bad as any fucking Kardashian.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 19, 2014 01:22 PM (4df7R)

Friend of mine has a son who has two sons outside of marriage, by two different women. He is a recovering heroin addict, unable to support either woman or child, and certainly not exercising any positive manly influence over the kids. The government paid for his detox, his job training (such as it is) and his time in jail (after crashing his car into a temple when high), as well as food stamps and housing stipend. A little shame and a zipper lock or a box of condoms would have helped this fool a long time ago. Instead, we pay for him to get his jiggy on.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (3kDQa)

363 You have it 100% backwards. I am pro-choice precisely so the 28 year old (or 18 year old or 38 year old) can get an abortion and NOT cost the tax payers any money.

Abortion = tax savings.

There's also the argument (seen recently on Insty) that because of abortion, the millenial generation is missing 1/3rd of its potential taxpayers.

Now, since they voted for Obama and jobs don't exist, it's less of an obvious problem, but it *is* a thing, macroeconomically.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (B/VB5)

364 I don't get no respect, I tell ya.

Posted by: Nobel Prize Winner and Enron Advisor Paul Krugman at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (BAS5M)

365 Yeah... I knew some wise-mouth was going to go there. You knew what I meant. Posted by: AllenG (DedicatedTenther) Ah, F It. at February 19, 2014 01:23 PM (PYAXX) You knew it'd be me too probably! Damned internet delayed it. Hi. *waves* Two daughters. *blows brains out* Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 19, 2014 01:28 PM (da5Wo) I'll say it again as a question to you 4 years my elder. Should I want kids? Because it seems like a recipe for failure right now...

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (GaqMa)

366 alex, uh hmm, being a parent while rewarding at times can also be a terrorizing experience. Depends on what environment they allow themselves to become in contact with and how much influence we as parents have. and every child is different , and our basket of tools aren't always effective .

Posted by: willow at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (nqBYe)

367 "But yeah, if he then goes on to say "And I intend to make it the law that not even a raped woman can seek an abortion, even in the first 36 hours post-rape, via the morning after pill," you're not completely losing the issue, and not just the issue, but the election. "
I guess it comes down to what you think is more important: being elected for political power or murdering babies.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (zfY+H)

368 I am kinda confused how this piece started with how the Left's attitudes and policies on sexual morality have debased and ruined so many lives, and therefore the socons have to shut up about sexual morality because Tyranny.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe - who's not a socon at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (ZPrif)

369 Brooke Sheilds: Pretty Baby Tatum O'Neal: Paper Moon Jodie Foster: Taxi Driver Posted by: Buzzsaw at February 19, 2014 01:20 PM (tf9Ne) Didn't Brooke then go out later and advocate for abstinence?

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:31 AM (IXrOn)

370 End of the 2nd. 4-1 good guys!

Posted by: Minnfidel at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (/o+xv)

371 The second quarter or half is over.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (6bMeY)

372 Funny how the left will then claim that girls are totally helpless to the charms of advertisements that promote a certain 'body image', and thus should be banned because they are predatory and hurt the feelings of teh poor lil' womyn.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 01:30 PM (LIQGY)

Yeah, sorta like how the government should shell out for birth control because no woman could ever keep her knees together. These are the "empowered" women, right?

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (3kDQa)

373

Really good essay, Ace.

Feminism, etc. are all part of the leftist drive to collapse the Civil Society to enable the ultimate expansion of the Total State. Destroy traditional womanhood and you have gone a long way toward destroying society and making us all into good little robots of the State. And that is the point.

By the way, I think the word you are looking for is "worrywart" (not worryword). But maybe your word has an interesting meaning too.

Posted by: Steve in Greensboro at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (bbivj)

374 Is that 28 year old woman a celebrity selling that morality? Is "she" a dominant social presence in society? Is she bouncing ass "out and proud"? Here's the problem - there are 4 levels of "wrong" - 1) legally (bad because legislature says so) 2) morally (mala in se, a true evil/wrong, recognized by religion, philosophy, etc.) 3) socially (herd regulates itself, cultural norm) and 4) under mom dad's roof (parents' rules). What's happened is that No. 2 has been tommy gun-assaulted by moral relativism for decades, so no one even agrees on what's mala in se anymore (see post-birth abortion, etc.). And that leads to No. 3 not being enforced (because I can't be seen "practice my own morality" by "patrolling" a 28 year old's immorality, and ergo, I'm forced to fund it, so here's $$ for your rubbers, Sandra). That leaves No. 1 and No. 4 - so if's it legal, then it's A-OK and perfectly acceptable. In other words, if it's legal for a 12 year old to bang another 12 year old, then its A-OK, and why oh why does Mommy and Daddums have an "problem" with it? "Why have some "out-dated" morality contra to that enforced via the herd, and certainly not via the law! Prudes!" I'm not saying that I want a Bible-banger law that bans "sluts" - I'm saying that I want the protected First Amendment right to call a spade a spade, to call a slut a slut, at any age, because a SLUT is a SLUT. And I know that I may have someone do the same to me for something. And THAT'S OK. And if my 12 year old daughter sees how society regards sluts, not by locking them up but by saying "freak ho, bounce dat ass and make ya knees touch ya elbows", then they may be inclined toward better behavior and not idolize or follow the lead of a 28 (or 19) year old whore who sells that image for money. See South Park's Paris Hilton episode for more, where even Mr. Slave tells Wendy that he's knows he a whore, and that she SHOULDN'T want to be like him. Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 19, 2014 01:21 PM (i6shs) The problem is that #2 and #3 haven't been done away with, just changed to the point where holding more traditional values is considered morally and socially unacceptable. The Left forces their morality in the guise of "protecting" you from those evil Bible thumpers. They push tolerance in the name of tolerance. It is the Left who have merged #2, #3, and #4 under the aegis and control of #1.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (XvHmy)

375 They have two half times?

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (6bMeY)

376 @341 I tend to distinguish consensual conduct between hormonal teens and violent sex offenders. But I am weird like that.

Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 09:32 AM (YHegH)

377

Or furthering her own career. Before the clip seen above, Underwood forged her former employeeÂ’s signature on documents that enabled her to find out sensitive medical information. The former employee was covered under a severance package after a rather dramatic falling out. The employee followed up with a lawsuit that could do serious damage to Underwood. Underwood then pretended she wanted to get pregnant so she could talk to a doctor about medication used by the former employee. Then she cut off the former employeeÂ’s insurance Â— and medicine Â— to gain leverage, even though she knew that it could kill the baby. Keeping babies out of wombs or getting them out of there by force seems to be the major theme.

ItÂ’s sort of like House of Cards is running the Democratic playbookÂ’s Â“War on WomenÂ” as a major storyline. Except, with no thanks to the Washington media that ruthlessly helps advance this campaign, we get to see how calculated and manipulative it really is.

Posted by: Tiger Woods at February 19, 2014 09:33 AM (e8kgV)

378 I have popped this exchange with Emperor of Icecream into a main post.

Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 09:33 AM (/FnUH)

379 I think that what you mean, ace, is that culture matters. Our culture is coarser than it was. Children are exposed to the culture more than ever. For example - kids watch Big Bang Theory which is funny. It is on during what we used to call the Family Hour. But quite a few episodes are mostly about sex. Culture matters, and it is impossible to deny. One sees the story of a twelve year old girl who feels pressured to be sexually available and is mortified. But the price of sex is not merely because of our laws about children - the law is actually pretty protective. The price of sex is going down because of grownups. Definitely a desirable place for single men. But for married men, with daughters - it scares the shit out of us. Because the wages of that price are being taken out on our daughters. I am not a prude or a moral scold, but I am a Christian and a father with 2 girls. So there is the rub when people like you going on a jihad against Cuccinelli. You claim - along with the Left - that he was trying to ban blowjobs. But what he had done was to fight - as the AG - the overturning of the State law that had been used to jail a pedophile. So, feel bad for Winnifred? Think about why.

Posted by: blaster at February 19, 2014 09:33 AM (4+AaH)

380 Hey Ace did you see the recent article about you at The Other McCain???

Posted by: MAx at February 19, 2014 09:33 AM (b7yum)

381 376 They have two half times? Well, when do you expect them to re-inflate the Calvinball?

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:33 AM (7ObY1)

382 Self-discipline comes from self-respect.

Self-respect comes from wanting the best for yourself and being willing to work and/or wait for it.

To get the self-discipline necessary to have girls say "no" until they are an adult and have boys respect and even admire this decision, the family must act as an example and a source of support.

The state cannot take on this role; it does not have the psychological relationship that a parent or parental figure has.

When a father respects a mother, the children see this. When parents insist on self-discipline firmly and provide a good example of their own discipline, hard work, respect for one another, and disdain for the baser elements of society, the children see. They may not assimilate this lesson at once, and parents might need to show their firmness by forbidding their children to do certain things, but once the lessons have sunk in the children will tend to act accordingly.

It's not the state's job to teach children to be self-respecting human beings: it is the family's. That's why the Left loathes the family so and wants it destroyed.

Posted by: joncelli at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (RD7QR)

383 That is what I am trying to do. And I am trying to tell you that while most adults will find it quite reasonable to agitate agaisnt the sexualization of children, they will vote against you, with hostility, for extending that reasonable impulse into an unreasonable one -- patrolling their own sexual choices.

Aaand we're back to Cucinelli of VA.

Show of hands, who here would use the law to ban beejers or anal sex?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (IoTdl)

384 The normalization of destructive behavior of a 28 year old is what leads to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl via those new sexual norms. Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 01:02 PM (XvHmy) I admire your ability to sum up a point so succinctly.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (bb5+k)

385 The unnatural abeyance of adverse consequences has contributed more to the deterioration of Western culture than Marx.

Posted by: Also Sprach Bennie Schuster at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (2oU2+)

386 Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Posted by: George Washington - Socon A-hole [/i] [/b] at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (5ikDv)

387 "Because you will not get what you want. You will continue making outsized demands on the public that they consider completely unreasonable and they will not only tune you out, but outright reject you as 'extreme.'"
It wasn't that long ago that what is culturally acceptable now was "extreme" in the past. What got us to where we are now? The extremists being uncompromising, tireless, and beating everyone else down. And you figure we'll get away from that by going along?
I figure we're never going to get away from this, its only going to get worse, and we can't fix this nation. Let it burn. We can rebuild after.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:34 AM (zfY+H)

388

Two and a half men is the filthiest show I've ever seen on network tv.

I know kids that LOVE it

Posted by: MAx at February 19, 2014 09:35 AM (b7yum)

389 I'll say it again as a question to you 4 years my elder. Should I want kids? Because it seems like a recipe for failure right now...

I would only say don't base your decision on what some people on the internet said.

This place can get maybe a tad too negative at times. Well.....maybe for good reason.

Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 09:35 AM (KXm42)

390 The unnatural abeyance of adverse consequences has contributed more to the deterioration of Western culture than Marx.

Posted by: Also Sprach Bennie Schuster at February 19, 2014 01:34 PM (2oU2+)

I would argue they're one and the same, but that's just me.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/i][/b][/u] at February 19, 2014 09:35 AM (4df7R)

391 And that's good. But the fact is that this happy state remains in place SOLELY at your discretion. If you choose to modify the deal he has no recourse and no defense. A kindly master is better than a cruel one, but no master at all is better still. You never know when the human heart will change, and most women are as changeable as the breeze.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 19, 2014 01:29 PM (D20iS)

Not quite. I'm sure you all find this humorous, but we are married Catholic. So, in the case of a divorce, neither of us could remarry, certainly not in the Church. That alone provides enough incentive for many couples to stick it out.

And I beg to differ on your statement about "most women." I don't think you remotely know most women, and that is a Hollywood stereotype.

Posted by: tcn at February 19, 2014 09:35 AM (3kDQa)

392 I don't know what you're talking about regarding the right being against incrementalism, ace. We're 40 years post Roe and the entirety of the pro-life movement during those past 40 years has been about passing incremental legislation. Waiting periods here, ultrasound law there, making sure the doctor is actually a doctor and not an LVN here...ect. 40 years later and we're having to fight about banning killing perfectly healthy viable babies...IN TEXAS. That's not exactly an all in loony bin position against Women's Freedom tm.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 09:35 AM (CNua6)

393 Girls will yell at your face.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 19, 2014 12:37 PM (T0NGe)

I wouldn't have dared yelled at my mother's face. She would have slapped my teeth right out of my gums, and rightly so.

Posted by: kathysaysso at February 19, 2014 09:36 AM (6H6o8)

394 I'll say it again as a question to you 4 years my elder. Should I want kids? Because it seems like a recipe for failure right now... Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 01:31 PM (GaqMa) It depends. Do you have hope for the future or have you given up? If you have hope, if you believe that the idea of freedom and democracy and liberty and self determination is viable and, at some future point, sustainable....then yes, you want kids. If no, if those ideas are irretrievably dead and gone. If there is, literally, no hope for the future, then FUCK NO don't have kids.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 19, 2014 09:36 AM (da5Wo)

395 I was recently dating an intelligent, middle-aged divorced mother of 3 and we began a conversation about the "hook-up culture" that our both 20+ year old children currently are experiencing. Our kids reported that sex has become commonplace, almost like a handshake, and expected by both parties. I lamented that a woman giving up her "virtue" to virtually any guy she met and was interested in was a poor choice for her, demeaned her and would have negative LT implications for developing intimacy with an eventual life partner. She scoffed and said that 'guys get to have sex with as many partners as they like, and woman should have that right too'. I tried to explain my position that men are biologically different and that the imperative to "spread our seed" is programmed into us as a matter of species propagation and that woman were perhaps programmed differently. She then accused me of having a double standard whereby men can scratch their itch but women can't. As you might guess, I'm not dating her anymore. But the lesson I took away us that promiscuity is considered an equal opportunity issue for feminists, and any consideration of the longer term damage to a woman's self esteem is simply not a consideration to them. I believe that the TV show Sex and the City did alot to promulgate the idea that promiscuity was empowering to women and promoted a lifestyle that will damage the importance of intimacy for the younger generation of women who watch it and viewed it as some kind of training manual.

Posted by: proudvastrightwingconspirator at February 19, 2014 09:36 AM (8iy5P)

396 nood up

Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 09:36 AM (7ObY1)

397 "I tend to distinguish consensual conduct between hormonal teens and violent sex offenders. But I am weird like that."
So preying on children and teen agers is not a violent sexual predatory act, in your opinion, then.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (zfY+H)

398 Sounds like Japanese Anime Music.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (6bMeY)

399 149 I am close friends with a famous feminist who actually does influence the culture. (She has no idea of my political leanings, btw.) She is obsessed with this "sexualization of girls" thing as sees it as a terrible development, but cant figure out a way to stop it or even criticize it. I have been secretly feeding her conservatarian ideas, without labeling them as such, as she's very intrigued by them -- blown away, actually. "Wow, I never thought of it like that," is her typical response. I can get through her barrier because she thinks I am a fellow radical feminist. Anyway, she thinks that the sexualization of girls is a terrible thing, and "lowering the price of sex" just enables the patriarchal exploitation of girls, and wants to stop it. More than that -- she wants to drag feminist thought in the direction of stopping it. She's one of those "thought leaders" you hear about. Through her, I am trying to influence feminism back in the sane direction. Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 12:52 PM (+cx5n) ********** Camille Paglia?

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (RJMhd)

400 Women have the ultimate say. The power of the P is the most powerful force in the world . How they choose to use it will determine what direction society will go.

Posted by: Not the Deaf Frat Guy at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (RM1gx)

401 It's more of a weekly commentary and daily ginger babe pics. I hope you are amenable to this... Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 01:28 PM (fwARV) *big eyes* Please, sir, may I have some more?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (VtjlW)

402 "395 I'll say it again as a question to you 4 years my elder. Should I want kids? Because it seems like a recipe for failure right now... " Have kids. They're worth it. And it pisses off liberals.

Posted by: Lauren at February 19, 2014 09:37 AM (CNua6)

403 "She scoffed and said that 'guys get to have sex with as many partners as they like, and woman should have that right too'."
She has a point; it should be true for both. Neither should be running about hooking up. Both should show restraint and control their emotions.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (zfY+H)

404 I was about to say oh Math will restructure it but then you brought it up so um hi? *waves*

I cannot comprehend how any of you are parents. Honestly, it is beyond the scope of my ability to imagine attempting to raise a child in today's world.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 01:26 PM (VtjlW)

Agreed. And yet, I want kids. It is mathematically irrational and, judging from the world we live in, generally irrational as well, but hey... Your children are your legacy. The lessons you teach them, the values you help shape - they last forever.

Even my batshit liberal parents instilled extremely valuable lessons in me. Most of those lessons conflict directly with their voting patterns, so it seems they understand at some base level that their ideas are bad enough to not teach to their children.

I believe I can bring some good to a world that tends to suck a lot. One of the best ways I can do that is by passing on solid values, helping to develop a kind and productive person and letting that same person pass on more good.

Maybe one kid at a time can truly change the world.   Probably not, but I'm a helpless romantic, so I like to think so.

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (fwARV)

405 Not that Ace was not "bringing it" before-- he clearly did in fact "bring it" on a consistent and thorough basis-- but I have noticed that since the short quasi-hiatus, he has begun "bringing it" even more thoroughly than he had previously done.

Congratulations on having "broughtened" a really good piece, as usual.

Posted by: Head Football Coach Howard Schnellenberger at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (T+Zre)

406

Remember: Winnifred is 12.

The mainstreaming of pedophilia. It is purposeful and it is deliberate. You don't need a tinfoil hat to know this.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (zF6Iw)

407 o sure.

Posted by: willow at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (nqBYe)

408 Camille Paglia? Posted by: tasker Not that famous.

Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 09:38 AM (+cx5n)

409 I believe that too, pretty much, except here's the thing: I would also like to stop a descent into tyranny, and at some point that means winning an election, and so that means, at some point, that the most unpopular parts of conservatism are going to have to be abandoned or muted. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 01:07 PM (/FnUH) Is there a point at which you are willing to tell the voters "Fuck Off!" What you people demand is just wrong!" ? Yes, I can verify that for many years, your main concern is winning elections. At some point, we might win the helm of a wrecked ship.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:39 AM (bb5+k)

410 382 376 They have two half times? Well, when do you expect them to re-inflate the Calvinball? Posted by: BlueStateRebel at February 19, 2014 01:33 PM (7ObY1) This is hockey; think of it as the resting period between rounds in a fight.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 09:39 AM (LIQGY)

411 "Two and a half men is the filthiest show I've ever seen on network tv. I know kids that LOVE it"
Well its at their intellectual and maturity level so...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:39 AM (zfY+H)

412 I am kinda confused how this piece started with how the Left's attitudes and policies on sexual morality have debased and ruined so many lives, and therefore the socons have to shut up about sexual morality because Tyranny.

Ace seems to believe socons are somehow responsible for his inability to make pancakes for the redhead at the Starbucks with the 38DDs. At least, that's what I get out of his many screeds on the subject.

Posted by: Ian S. at February 19, 2014 09:40 AM (B/VB5)

413

I had FIVE teenage daughters at the same time.

You may bow to your sensei

Posted by: MAx at February 19, 2014 09:41 AM (b7yum)

414 That Olympic village thing is nice looking. Maybe someday they can install indoor plumbing.

Posted by: Boss Moss at February 19, 2014 09:41 AM (6bMeY)

415 Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 01:29 PM (/FnUH) A few points. 1) I think MacIntyre is generally right. It gets worse and worse by the day, but expect collapse, not uprising. Then those that come after rebuild. We could end the cycle, but it would require rolling back liberalism quite extensively. Which brings me to point 2. 2) Why is it because this country is too stupid to understand the difference between me saying "this is how I think people should behave" and "we should pass laws to ensure that people behave this way." I have to keep my mouth shut. I am fairly socially conservative. HOWEVER, having said that I'm also somewhat libertarian. How is that possible you ask? Easy, I recognize that if I use the leviathan to impose my vision of morality it only opens the door for my enemy to do the same when I'm on bottom. And so from a legal standpoint I want as little government as possible and have communities (defined in the MacIntyrian sense, not the common term) handle the bulk of the moral enforcement. (And I want relative freedom for people to choose not to belong to any given community. That doesn't really work in reverse, because I want the community to be able to decide who it allows to be members.) Hey you know what this looks a lot like, federalism

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 09:42 AM (GaqMa)

416 240 Laws can't, literally can't, legislate morality. Morality is a moral choice voluntarily made, not avoiding punishment. Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 01:07 PM (YHegH) The two things are interrelated. As the Political Hat noted, the Law has a normalizing effect. 55 million abortions later, you cannot discount the effect of the law on morality, or the dominant morality on the law. Just witness all the Judges\Legislatures decreeing "Gay" Marriage is the law. They are like Ions and Electrons in a plasma. Where one goes, the other follows.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (bb5+k)

417 That Olympic village thing is nice looking. Maybe someday they can install indoor plumbing.

Bathroom doors that don't get jammed closed, please.

Posted by: US Olympic Bobsled Team Member[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (IoTdl)

418 I would argue they're one and the same, but that's just me. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 19, 2014 01:35 PM (4df7R) I would argue that you are correct, sir, but then, would we really be arguing? In any case, I think "abeyance" is the incorrect word. I should have said "temporary postponement".

Posted by: Also Sprach Bennie Schuster at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (2oU2+)

419 Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. " Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 01:24 PM (bb5+k) Exactly. Whether it is fiscal or social, the point is the same. If you don't want the government creating a welfare state, then you need norms that lead to positive fiscal outcomes, thus negating the need for the expansive welfare state. If you don't want the government creating a new moral order, then you need norms that lead to positive moral outcomes, thus negating the need for a governmental moral order.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 09:44 AM (XvHmy)

420 Two and a half men is the filthiest show I've ever seen on network tv.
I know kids that LOVE it

Posted by: MAx at February 19, 2014 01:35 PM (b7yum)

I continue to watch it by rote wondering if it will ever be funny and not a complete embarrassment to all involved; and it keeps getting worse. I don't think guilty pleasure even comes close to describing it; more like gawking at car accidents where you know there are horrible disfigurements.

Posted by: Captain Hate at February 19, 2014 09:45 AM (2RiXU)

421 309 Right now I am participating in a trial for two adults who are being declared mentally incompetent. You will be surprised what a nightmare that is. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 01:15 PM (RJMhd) I would like it to be difficult to be declared mentally incompetent against my will. With all seriousness, think what power the state would wield (vice now) if they could have their attorney declare me mentally unfit at a whim? My principals (Leave People Alone) demand that I not impose my morals or values onto other people The next sentence is important though, and it's the one most-often ignored by those who are anti-libertarianism: My principals ALSO demand that other people not impose my money onto themselves to pursue their morals or values. Living in the real world as I do though, I don't think that's possible. The welfare state is here. It will not be modified or restructured. It will simply collapse. When that happens, God help us all. Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 01:20 PM (fwARV) ******************* Sorry missed your response--the thread loads weird for me sometimes. Plus I know there is now a new thread. I agree with you completely--it ought to be hard for an individual to be declared mentally incompetent--I'm kind of shocked by how easy it is to do that--so far. My principals ALSO demand that other people not impose my money onto themselves to pursue their morals or values. Living in the real world as I do though, I don't think that's possible. The welfare state is here. It will not be modified or restructured. It will simply collapse. When that happens, God help us all. Completely agree with your comment and sentiment here. And, back to the original problem--the State has to interfere and declare people mentally incompetent because other individuals will rob them blind--(as that idiom goes.)

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:45 AM (RJMhd)

422 Posted by: eleven at February 19, 2014 01:35 PM (KXm42) I've seen the world as deeply troublesome long before I came here. Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at February 19, 2014 01:36 PM (da5Wo) Heh, I waffle. I'm not ready to give up on this world yet. In either case I think if we can't stave off the burning times, there's a chance we can rebuild (as is always done.) I suppose I should relish the chance to provide for those who come after...

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 09:45 AM (GaqMa)

423 Thank God that my wife never made us any girls. I would be insane by now.

Posted by: Max Entropy at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (cgtTL)

424 "Laws can't, literally can't, legislate morality. Morality is a moral choice voluntarily made, not avoiding punishment. "
This is a definitional problem. Laws can in fact enforce morality, if you understand morality to mean "what a society collectively agrees in terms of right and wrong."
You can't make people good or evil from the inside, but you can make them behave and act like they believe things by pressure both political and social.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (zfY+H)

425

Women don't have the ultimate say. Money still has the ultimate say in most situations like this. That's unfortunate, but it's mostly true.

With enough money even an ugly guy can get whatever he wants.

With enough money even an ugly woman can get whatever she wants.

First you get the money, then you get the power...

there are different rules for those who don't have money, for sure. And there's no denying that extremely good looking people also play by different rules. But you don't have to be a millionaire to buy your way into a good looking partner, either.

A 30 year old man in decent shape and mediocre looks, with even an $80,000/year suburban job is going to have little problem in finding a lot of women to choose from. Make $80 into $180 and life is good indeed...

Posted by: RobM1981 at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (V1z4W)

426 Do you have any links to actual libertarians agitating for lowering the age of consent to 12? Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at February 19, 2014 01:11 PM (YPCWp) I do, but i'm too far behind in reading the thread to look them up right now. In Mexico and much of the Arab world, the age of consent is 12.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (bb5+k)

427 And yet every day I sit here and read that the way to "win" is to make Big Huge Demands on the public. And every day I say "that's not how the left does it, the left engages in incrementalism and slowly raising the temperature of the water so the frog does not realize it's boiling," and every single day I hear people reject this and just insist, again and again, despite all available evidence and personal experience and logic, that we "win" by making the demands we actually seek ten or 20 years down the road, upfront, as our *starting offer,* our opening bid. Part of the reason for this is that many Americans did not want to see America "changed" the way the left did/does. There were no incremental changes to be made over decades as the left, in parallel time did. Now, we are in this pickle, because we weren't paying attention. The incrementalism of the left has made an impact, and some, out of fear, believe they have to do something big, now. The thought of baby steps, once we were hit slap in the face with a 2x4 (because, again, we weren't paying attention and living our lives), is frightening because it would take so long to reverse the damage made. Patience is needed. And, a long term plan. The Aiken thing, I cannot explain. The guy is so f**ked up imo. For anyone to support him is crazy.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at February 19, 2014 09:46 AM (IXrOn)

428 409 Camille Paglia? Posted by: tasker Not that famous. Posted by: zombie at February 19, 2014 01:38 PM (+cx5n) ******** Ha! Damn it. Although--you never know--sounds like your gal might be influencing her.

Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (RJMhd)

429

This thread is conflating two issues: (i) the sexualization of our culture and its effect on the sexualization of very young people, and (ii) the economics of sex as an exchange between partners.*

*(Libertarian aside: all exchanges should be based on consent; children do not have the capacity to grant informed consent, they are children. Rules, legal and moral, are rightly different for children).

As to children, if you're a parent raise them. It's easier for me to say since I have boys. I do have firearms and if I'd raised girls I might be in trouble.

The exchange among adults is a very complicated transaction. It is certainly not the case that men want it and women give it up in exchange for getting other needs met (intimacy, laundry, picking up my fucking socks). When performed correctly the act is thoroughly satisfying for male and female. People of each gender attach varying degrees of importance to sexual satisfaction. (My ex-wife, low. My girlfriend, high).

But since any skilled practitioner of the old in-out-in-out can make it a pleasureable experience, the transaction becomes 'do I want this long term or as a fling"?', 'can we stand watching movies together?', 'should I take the fact that he cuddles me afterwards to mean I can depend on him to meet my emotional needs?', etc.

So, you do your internal calculus. If sex were less important to me I would never pick up my dirty sox unless they were covering the pizza box.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (A0sHn)

430 From where I stand, traditional values are not just contentious issues, they are literally under legal attack. Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 19, 2014 01:13 PM (AskuI) Yup.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:47 AM (bb5+k)

431 I'm sort of waiting for ace to propose a solution (or the beginning of one) to the "price of sex" problem he poses.

Is it insoluble?

Is waiting for feminists to reverse course going to be fruitful?

Is a nation of twelve year old Winnifreds just the price we pay for porn on tap and DTF sluts? Is Winnifred just in training until she turns eighteen and then it's "game on?"

Can progress be made, but only by partnering with fuddy-duddy moral busybodies (who, I might add, have been remarkably prescient about what the future would look like if we didn't heed their warnings - we didn't)?

Is the culture making it more or less likely that people will want to form stable families with children?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 19, 2014 09:48 AM (nnkXw)

432 I'll say it again as a question to you 4 years my elder. Should I want kids? Because it seems like a recipe for failure right now... Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (No Really!) at February 19, 2014 01:31 PM (GaqMa) Nearly all children born in the US from now forward will be slaves to this vile new order. Either as a member of the dependent class, or a slave to that underclass, working to support it in exchange for a somewhat larger ration of material goods. To make babies, without a plan to either join the ruling class or expatriate, is to feed this beast your children. And the state will do all it can to turn them against you and your values.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 19, 2014 09:49 AM (D20iS)

433 Well, that got pretty thoroughly derailed. I don't really have anything to add because this is all so far outside my experience y'all might as well be talking about social mores on Kepler 48E. Seriously, I'm *on* social media, hell, I was even on what passed for social media when I was young. Is there actually a vast, coordinated, decades-long conspiracy here? Or is this actually a 1% problem masquerading as a 50% problem?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (qyfb5)

434 *big eyes* Please, sir, may I have some more?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 01:37 PM (VtjlW)

For you, my liege? Anything.
http://tinyurl.com/oz8ro52

Posted by: Washington Nearsider at February 19, 2014 09:50 AM (fwARV)

435 "The mainstreaming of pedophilia. It is purposeful and it is deliberate. You don't need a tinfoil hat to know this."

Why, Mary, haven't you been told? You can't legislate love.

Posted by: Head Football Coach Howard Schnellenberger at February 19, 2014 09:51 AM (T+Zre)

436 libertarians are opposed to the welfare state. are you ignorant of that? Posted by: X at February 19, 2014 01:14 PM (KHo8t) That you think I might be unaware of it demonstrates all to well just how LOUDLY libertarians have been making their opposition known. They spend 99% of their time trying to get drugs legalized and sex destigmatized, and if they spend any time complaining about the cost of bad morality as demonstrated in the welfare budget, it is hardly even noticed. Libertarians are people who can't seem to contemplate society past their own lifetime.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:52 AM (bb5+k)

437 I'm showing my age and my rural background but it was explained to me that sex for young girls was bad for them physically just like it is for a heifer or a filly. Then add in the mental immaturity and you have real problems. This was my grandfather talking who was born in 1892 and had more common sense than most anyone. It really is pretty simple and why people think that sex for too young girls is in any way beneficial for them is a selfish POS.

Posted by: Lester at February 19, 2014 09:52 AM (2UPXV)

438 You have it 100% backwards. I am pro-choice precisely so the 28 year old (or 18 year old or 38 year old) can get an abortion and NOT cost the tax payers any money. Abortion = tax savings. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 01:16 PM (0LHZx) Would you be Pro-Slavery if it netted a positive cash flow? If the question of humanity is to be taken off the table, then why stop with just killing the unborn? Also, by your logic, a parent ought to be able to kill their own children if it saves taxpayer money. Indeed, at least the Roman Pater Familias has more logic than does your current position.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:55 AM (bb5+k)

439 I've got no problem with slut shaming, provided it goes both ways. I don't care if you've got a penis; if you have no willpower to keep it in your pants, you're a slut as bad as any fucking Kardashian. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at February 19, 2014 01:22 PM (4df7R) Well, good luck on that new reality you want to create. "That's awesome that you didn't have sex with a willing, disease-free, pretty girl!" - Said no one ever. You might have luck with: "You got her pregnant. What kind of dumbass are you? Now you have to support the kid!" The other...not so much.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 19, 2014 09:56 AM (0cMkb)

440 Posted by: The Committe for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice at February 19, 2014 01:19 PM (A0sHn) We are all monkeys at heart, who would rather resort to mockery than reason.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 09:57 AM (bb5+k)

441 We are all monkeys at heart, who would rather resort to mockery than reason. Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 01:57 PM (bb5+k) And fling poo.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 19, 2014 09:58 AM (LIQGY)

442 161 Teen pregnancy rates have steadily declined, I believe. Especially for non-immigrant children. The pornifcation of America and young girls has not led to increasing teen pregnancy. Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 19, 2014 12:53 PM (ZPrif) Shenanigans. It defies belief that every indicator of sexual promiscuity would be on the rise but that the number one predictable result of that behavior is legitimately on the decline. Perhaps they are not counting aborted pregnancies, but only babies carried to term? We moved from Oregon to Texas when I was a sophomore, from a high school of about 1200 kids to one with about 400 (in the entire school). I remember about three or four pregnancies existing at any given time in either place, and have always reasoned that there were likely a lot more abortions being done in progressive OR, than in conservative TX. I doubt very seriously that the kids were less active in OR.

Posted by: Sambo at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (TvIko)

443 Nearly all children born in the US from now forward will be slaves to this vile new order. Either as a member of the dependent class, or a slave to that underclass, working to support it in exchange for a somewhat larger ration of material goods. To make babies, without a plan to either join the ruling class or expatriate, is to feed this beast your children. And the state will do all it can to turn them against you and your values.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 19, 2014 01:49 PM (D20iS)

This x1000. America is dead and she ain't coming back.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at February 19, 2014 09:59 AM (zF6Iw)

444 "the number one predictable result of that behavior is legitimately on the decline. " they're all on birth control.

Posted by: DCPensFan at February 19, 2014 10:00 AM (ma/2m)

445

I cannot comprehend how any of you are parents. Honestly, it is beyond the scope of my ability to imagine attempting to raise a child in today's world.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at February 19, 2014 01:26 PM (VtjlW)

Today's world is better than yesterday's world in lots of ways, at least statistically in terms of food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and overall security. But to the point: there is no perfect time to bring children into the world. From an economic point of view, they're an expensive proposition; emotionally, they're the source of countless hours of stress and constant worry; raising them consumes most of the best adult years of one's life; and so on.

I love mine anyway. Couldn't envision a life without them in it. Never lie awake at night all angsty and restless and wonder what my purpose is.

Posted by: troyriser at February 19, 2014 10:02 AM (V9ol4)

446 369 I am kinda confused how this piece started with how the Left's attitudes and policies on sexual morality have debased and ruined so many lives, and therefore the socons have to shut up about sexual morality because Tyranny. Posted by: Flatbush Joe - who's not a socon at February 19, 2014 01:31 PM (ZPrif) "Tyranny" is the Libertarian answer to any sort of constraint on Drugs or Sex. They are not rational in this area.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:04 AM (bb5+k)

447 right, someone might be a parent, so it's your responsibility to nanny them throughout their adult lives. Posted by: ace at February 19, 2014 12:48 PM (/FnUH)
-------------

Don't confuse a legal regulation on conduct with a social one. Libs use legal ones, conservatives use social ones. And I'm all for social ones, they may legal ones unnecessary.

The next morning "walk of shame" is still the "walk of shame", whether I point it out or not, whether it's legal or not. And if I do point it out, to show my kid what not to do, don't try to spin it as a "ho' proud strut" - it isn't.

It may be your right, for example, to be drunk at 12:00 noon, but that doesn't make it "good" - it's not to be celebrated or encouraged. And others' recognition of your sloppy afternoon drunkenness shouldn't be silenced.

If I use an actual law to "shame" you, it's line-stepping in most cases.

But I better be able to say the same to your face when you drop your 8 year old kid off to play with my kid and she looks like a prostitute. As a parent, you be f**kin' up, and no ball-gag of "political correctness" is gonna silence me. Don't like that? Don't like being called out on your bad behavior? Then I guess our kids won't be playing together, which limits my kid's exposure to it and sets an example to my kid of what's acceptable. And I don't mind being called out on my f**k ups, because sometimes, just sometimes, I might be able to improve myself.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 19, 2014 10:05 AM (i6shs)

448 386 The unnatural abeyance of adverse consequences has contributed more to the deterioration of Western culture than Marx. Posted by: Also Sprach Bennie Schuster at February 19, 2014 01:34 PM (2oU2+) This.

Posted by: D-Lamp at February 19, 2014 10:07 AM (bb5+k)

449 Unfortunately that's where things get tricky--the 28 year old adult can be a-- parent. So that's the gray area. Posted by: tasker at February 19, 2014 12:44 PM (RJMhd) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Uh, no. Adults, be they parents or not, are presumed capable of carrying out their responsibilities as adults, including parenthood, until proven otherwise. You will go no more traction pretending that you need to regulate the lives of PARENTS than of any other category of adults. You sound like a liberal anytime you open your mouth and the words "for the children" come out.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (aT8Zk)

450 Gaah, glad I don't have kids and makes me think that the olden days where kids just did not go out w/o chaperones were not so bad. IMO Kids shouldn't be worrying about getting dates of any kind so young but then what do I know; I failed to get married at all.

Posted by: PaleRider at February 19, 2014 10:08 AM (ql12X)

451 I love mine anyway. Couldn't envision alife without them in it. Never lie awake at night all angsty and restless and wonder what my purpose is. Posted by: troyriser at February 19, 2014 02:02 PM (V9ol4) Marx was so very wrong. It is sex/love/child-rearing that are the true opiates of the masses. They are the distractions that help us ignore the big questions. And too often lead us to ruin.

Posted by: Reactionary at February 19, 2014 10:09 AM (D20iS)

452 @398 What crap. Violence is violence. Teens having sex is not optimal but ordinary human behavior.

Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 10:12 AM (YHegH)

453 Does anyone really believe that we'll be able to live in a large-scale imitation of a troop of half-dressed, "DTF" bonobos, pumping and licking half the day away, while at the same time maintaining a socially stable, materially prosperous, otherwise free and moral order?

Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 19, 2014 10:12 AM (nnkXw)

454 445 "the number one predictable result of that behavior is legitimately on the decline. " they're all on birth control. Posted by: DCPensFan at February 19, 2014 02:00 PM (ma/2m) I am sure many of them are, but these are extremely immature and irresponsible kids. Do you think they will choose abstinence if they have no condom on hand? Do you think the girls actually remember to take their birth control pills with regularity? Below is a clip of Carol Everett talking about the abortion industry's game: the sexualization of our kids for profit. 35 minutes, but worth it. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf6aBvEm9wA

Posted by: Sambo at February 19, 2014 10:17 AM (TvIko)

455 "What crap. Violence is violence. Teens having sex is not optimal but ordinary human behavior."
So you believe there should be no restrictions on when and who has sex, as long as they fit a category you call "teens" then. Its all good to you, and not in any way harmful to the child. Because you consider it "ordinary" and "human."
Got it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (zfY+H)

456 The normalization of destructive behavior of a 28 year old is what leads to the sexualization of a 12 year old girl via those new sexual norms. Even if the government shouldn't be banning behavior by adults, it doesn't mean that anything less than a lassaiz faire attitude towards that should be the only sexual taboo. Just because someone can legally do something, does not mean that they shouldn't be criticized for it. Culture matters. That is why the Left have been so keen on changing it, and aggressively so, since at least the Frankfurt school. Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 01:02 PM (XvHmy) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And.... what ? I'm really tiring of this as a "philosophical" discussion. Does anyone here, frankly, dispute what you're stipulating ? I don't. Strong families with strong moral values make for a stronger nation where more people can easily be trusted with greater liberties, and the dependency on gov't is minimized. Great. When both sides agree, there is no conflict, no discussion. Isn't the ACTUAL discussion point here HOW to achieve that ? Whether or not a particular thing is virtuous alone does not cause it to occur. So how do the people who want to argue so vociferously that the loose sexual mores of 28 year olds has a negative effect on 12 year olds propose that we DO that ? Especially without gov't action, which is only hinted, but officially denied when asked.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 10:18 AM (aT8Zk)

457 "the number one predictable result of that behavior is legitimately on the decline."
Abortion + Birth Control works wonders. Besides, sexual activity can rise without pregnancies as a result. Jacking it to a naked girl in her bedroom on a cam is sexual activity for both.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:19 AM (zfY+H)

458 "So how do the people who want to argue so vociferously that the loose sexual mores of 28 year olds has a negative effect on 12 year olds propose that we DO that ? Especially without gov't action, which is only hinted, but officially denied when asked. "
There's really only so many times people can say "I don't mean a law, I mean social pressure" and "not government action, but cultural change" before you give up and presume the person is just not interested in what you have to say.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 10:20 AM (zfY+H)

459 The problem is that #2 and #3 haven't been done away with, just changed to the point where holding more traditional values is considered morally and socially unacceptable.

The Left forces their morality in the guise of "protecting" you from those evil Bible thumpers. They push tolerance in the name of tolerance.

It is the Left who have merged #2, #3, and #4 under the aegis and control of #1.

Posted by: The Political Hat at February 19, 2014 01:32 PM (XvHmy)
----------------------

I gotta agree with that - Nos. 2 and 3 haven't been wiped from reality, but they have been so thoroughly perverted that the "norm" of centuries past is no longer the norm. And what replaced it is so grey, watered down or morally inverted that No. 1 took ascendency. Example - the social "herd regulates itself" idea was perverted in "political correctness" where fact/truth are silenced in order to save peoples' feelings. And that all greatly impacts No. 4, making raising "good" kids these days a Herculean task.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 19, 2014 10:25 AM (i6shs)

460 I keep saying this. ALL LAWS ARE LEGISLATED MORALITY. The only question is "who's?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ They're not. Not the way this nation was founded. Murder is not illegal because murder is "immoral" but because it deprives another person of their god given right to life. Stealing is not illegal because it is "immoral" but because you are depriving another person of their right to their own property. The law is not about legislating morality. It is about protecting the inherent freedom of every individual. Which is congruent with Adam's quote that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". The point in this thread is that adults, even those that are parents have an inherent freedom to live their lives as they see fit AND to raise healthy, well adjusted children. It is incumbent upon the state to prove the adult unfit as a parent, and otherwise, the gov't has no business telling parents how to live. Imagine if, instead of sex, you substitute homeschooling as a non-mainstream way of raising children. Many would argue that home schooling is preferable to public school, but that is hardly a uniform opinion. Your moral ideal is no more or less valid as gov't policy than anyone else's.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 10:26 AM (aT8Zk)

461 237 The situation you suggest---the parent of one child allowing or encouraging him/her to have sex---is child abuse. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's solved by involved parenting. Your kid doesn't just show up one day at someone else's home where their parents suddenly encourage the kids to get it on. A ridiculous premise on its face, since few kids are asking their parents for permission to have sex, and even less are asking AND getting permission. If you're involved as a parent, you know who their friends are and you should have some idea who their parents are. And if you haven't raised your child to the point that one simple encouragement by another adult changes their moral compass in an instant, that's YOUR problem.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 10:29 AM (aT8Zk)

462 93 When my daughter was a teen, interested boys were told that I have .45, a shovel, and endless time dig holes. Seems to have worked.
*
*
I'd have lifted my brows, smiled, and said, "What model of .45? Colt or Llama? Did you customize the grips?"

Posted by: Wolfus Aurelius at February 19, 2014 10:32 AM (BDU/a)

463 "Murder is not illegal because murder is 'immoral' but because it deprives another person of their god given right to life."
__________________________

Not to be a dick, but this is kind of silly if you re-read it. Depriving another person of their right to life is immoral in most people's view, hence it is illegal. This has not always been the case, and is not the case in all circumstances (e.g., executing murderers).

Posted by: Alec Leamas at February 19, 2014 10:33 AM (nnkXw)

464 I'm not saying that I want a Bible-banger law that bans "sluts" - I'm saying that I want the protected First Amendment right to call a spade a spade, to call a slut a slut, at any age, because a SLUT is a SLUT. And I know that I may have someone do the same to me for something. And THAT'S OK. And if my 12 year old daughter sees how society regards sluts, not by locking them up but by saying "freak ho, bounce dat ass and make ya knees touch ya elbows", then they may be inclined toward better behavior and not idolize or follow the lead of a 28 (or 19) year old whore who sells that image for money. See South Park's Paris Hilton episode for more, where even Mr. Slave tells Wendy that he's knows he a whore, and that she SHOULDN'T want to be like him. Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 19, 2014 01:21 PM (i6shs) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Right. And what does THAT look like ? Does nobody understand that banging your head against the wall wishing for what you just posted is pointless ? Explain to me how that happens ? Honestly. You come up with a straightforward way to get from here to there and I'll sign up to help in a second. The problem is, there is no way from here to there. Much the same as global warming. Assume its real. The trick is to ADAPT to that change, not to tilt at windmills trying to prevent it, because you can't. That's what the social conservatives are effectively doing. Tilting at windmills trying to change human nature all the while half the people, most of the professional gov't bureaucracy, the vast majority of popular culture and nearly all of the mainstream media are working against you. You aren't changing the culture. Fact. How are you and the Republican party going to ADAPT to the culture we live in to save this country from fiscal ruin ? The answer is not to push back on sluts. I'm sorry, its just not.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 10:36 AM (aT8Zk)

465 @456 Nice strawman. Put it in a cornfield. Now you have tried to sodomize me with your words twice. I think forcing barely age of majority boys to live with convicted violent sex offenders because they had consensual sex with a girl in their peer group will lead to much greater harms than the original status offense.

Posted by: Beagle at February 19, 2014 10:43 AM (YHegH)

466 "I went out of my way to say I don't think girls are to blame here.

But on the other hand, girls are the primary parties injured by this regime.

So while I agree with you about *boys* needing to hear this, I think girls, who are the primary injured parties, need to hear it more.

People take care of their own problems better than other people take care of those problems, after all.

If one is counting on *others* to solve one's problem, one should expect the problem to continue, because it will"

THIS x 1000

Posted by: John Lennon at February 19, 2014 10:46 AM (bjND7)

467 When I was twelve I was beating up boys, climbing trees, playing Barbie, and driving a go-cart at record speeds when not riding my horse. I had no idea about sex, as my Barbie's Ken was sort of built like Chaz Bono, and, uh, had brothers but gross. Farm animals and pets seemed to do their bidness in private. Pure thoughts. Simple life. Slept well at night.

It is complete bs that San Fran or the vicinity wants to teach sex ed at the kindergarten level. In fourth grade, when my Mama and the school had "the talk" it still went over my head, as, uh, I had hygiene and what was the point (saw gigantic Kotex box, knew where secret books for information were in parent's bedroom...but my main concern was it was a Tuesday night and I was missing Art Linkletter).

I have already advised my kids to put my future unborn grandchildren in private Christian school or homeschool them if they can. Between not knowing what is taught and/or Common Core math, well, pfft.

I also seriously advise those of you with college-age kids to not let them join the Greek frat or soroity life. The drinking on college campus' is unreal and dangerous...and, for girls, potential rape when unconscious. Not that it is just Greek life, but to join these fine institutions you have to go through a lot, and a lot consists of drinking until you are passed out and photos are taken (there is a website that they all think is hilarious). It is amazing more don't die. It is amazing I also did not die in my youth, but that is another story. I did not ever drink until I passed out and had body dragged around and displayed on a couch and photos taken. I laugh about the morn life, but most of you are adults and not in frat houses, or I don't think so, anyway.

I knew my sons well. I told them, from birth, that I could tell when they were lying and I had a nose like a bloodhound (to detect booze or smoke when they were in HS and I still had control). We owned their first cars and paid for their college tuition and held those strings as well over their heads, and they knew we meant business. My one son, wracked by guilt, told us, at 20, that "he had started drinking' like he had committed armed burglary or had joined the Taliban. We were up for a football game and he, in all seriousness, said he had to tell us something and sat us down to announce this rite of passage, six months shy of legal age. Frankly I was relieved, as I imagined a) pregnancy with gf now wife, or b) flunking out, or c) DUI. It turned out drinking before a game the weekend prior resulting in a hangover. Anyway, it does not hurt to be the "strictest parent on earth or in neighborhood." I wear that badge with pride and have two lovely sons who are alive and successful as the result of angst and frustration on their part.

Sex is used as a weapon by progressives, for shock factor. To be cool. To teach youth how cool it is. It is nothing really new, there is just more social media to help spread it like the antibiotic-resistant STD's that go along with the ride. Peer pressure is alive and well in all generations.

I am currently reading C.K. Chesterton's "The Apostle of Common Sense." He was quite prophetic in the 1930's about many things today, and said this on the subject of the shock factor of sex in each generation: "The nerve is being killed; and it is being killed by being overstimulated and therefore stunted and stunned." Fulton Street. Mylie the Tongue flapper. Nothing surprises anymore. It is more surprising to read of Tebow.

Chesterton also says this:"If individuals have any hope of protecting their freedom, they must protect their family life," as "The real habitation of Liberty is in the home."

So far, from this book, however, the best quote I have seen in a long time is this one: "Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it." I feel the same in a roomful of liberals where I cannot discuss my political views with them, as they are so "open-minded." right

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, Duchess of Something at February 19, 2014 10:55 AM (baL2B)

468 The answer is not to push back on sluts. I'm sorry, its just not.

Posted by: deadrody at February 19, 2014 02:36 PM (aT8Zk)

---------------------

Spoken like a true loser, a 100% pure go-along-to-get-along RINO - "don't stand up for your principles, they aren't popular, you'll never win, etc., etc.".

You act like what I described is some fantasy that I whipped up after a few tokes.

I GREW UP IN THAT. I WITNESSED IT. WE WERE RAISED IN IT.

AND I AM 36 YEARS OLD!

What happened was that people STOPPED doing what I described. They "looked the other way", then they said 'whatta gonna do about it" then they tacitly funded it then they approved exposing their kids to it via media, then they approved teaching it an now they applaud it, they made it the norm.

And we let it happen. We left juveniles in adult form "run the house", and we came back from our extended weekend on the Cape to a complete wall-to-wall social clusterf*ck of 12 year olds advertising their ass on the internet such that we have to stop and check the address on the front door since we don't even recognize the place.

Then I suppose the answer is to fund "sluts", to accept them, advance them, to provide our own sluts who aren't quite as slutty, a "smarter" slut, as it were. "Pretend" it isn't a bad thing.

Apply it to your own daughter, then get back to me with how well that works.

Posted by: Saltydonnie at February 19, 2014 11:14 AM (i6shs)

469 "You have it 100% backwards. I am pro-choice precisely so the 28 year old (or 18 year old or 38 year old) can get an abortion and NOT cost the tax payers any money.

Abortion = tax savings.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 01:16 PM (0LHZx)"

As attractive as that sounds, those of us who are constrained by Christian beliefs tend to put it in the same moral category as Action T-4 which made similar arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg

I don't expect to persuade you since we don't seem to share a common frame of reference. I will admit that if we had a national program to euthanize useless eaters, our cost of government would probably be significantly less and we would also have much less chance of people like Barack Obama being elected to responsible positions.

I know that "It's wrong" doesn't cut any ice with you but that is my position.

Posted by: Obnoxious A-hole at February 19, 2014 11:15 AM (BcCwi)

470 Thanks, Christy; Good post.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 19, 2014 11:18 AM (XyM/Y)

471 That video is, sadly, right on the money. Controlling the supply was the whole point of the "Virgins Union" and 'sluts' were shamed because they were scabs.

Posted by: vivi at February 19, 2014 11:20 AM (+/8mE)

472 http://jezebel.com/sex-is-not-an-economy-and-you-are-not-merchandise-1524954631

Posted by: vivi at February 19, 2014 11:27 AM (+/8mE)

473 I've deliberately avoided watching 'Sexy Baby' because I knew it would make me feel like shit and not be able to do anything to change the situation. Now that is confirmed.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at February 19, 2014 11:29 AM (DmNpO)

474

Planned Parenthood must be pleased to hear of Winnifred's conformity to the 'New Morality Reality'. They'll be waiting for her to walk through their doors.

Posted by: Hymens Are An Endangered Tissue-Type at February 19, 2014 11:58 AM (nbGZj)

475

An excellent post, IMO, Ace. Well said.

Posted by: GWB at February 19, 2014 12:09 PM (Yv2t4)

476 True Detective watchers will recall an interesting exchange on the issue of sexualized youngsters a couple of episodes back when Marty and Cohle visited a prostitution trailer park. Marty (dense, Christian, hypocrite, cop, the very embodiment of The Patriarchy) is angered by the presence of an obviously underage girl. The head Madam admonishes Marty by noting that if she wasn't getting paid she'd be giving it away and Marty's real objection is that he as a vile Patriarch is less able to control the sexual price market. The possiblity that an alternative to Marty's perceived Patriarchal control and a young girl selling herself for money isn't addressed.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at February 19, 2014 12:58 PM (dvRYt)

477 I am pro-choice precisely so the 28 year old (or 18 year old or 38 year old) can get an abortion and NOT cost the tax payers any money. Abortion = tax savings. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at February 19, 2014 01:16 PM (0LHZx) Yea, so does murder, but then again, I'm just echoing you.

Posted by: Weirddave at February 19, 2014 01:41 PM (N/cFh)

478 Give it away now?

Posted by: Red Not-So-Hot-Anymore Chili Peppers at February 19, 2014 01:47 PM (UZFA9)

479 "I think forcing barely age of majority boys to live with convicted violent sex offenders because they had consensual sex with a girl in their peer group will lead to much greater harms than the original status offense."
To the boy? Yeah, that's the reason we have jails. Because they are punishing.
But a 19 year old boy is not in the a "peer group" with a 14 year old girl. Even pretending that is simply shocking to me.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 19, 2014 02:20 PM (zfY+H)

480 This is why a "no sex before marriage" rule is good for society. Gee, maybe the Bible knew what it was talking about?! Those silly moral people.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl at February 19, 2014 02:39 PM (KL49F)

481 Girls are not solely responsible. But if feminism is about women's empowerment, then feminists would do well to equip young women with knowledge about the always present potential for human relationships to degenerate into transactional ones. Instead, they traffic in the idea that any sort of personal control and the social pressure that validates and reinforces self control is "slut shaming". The double whammy, of course, is that schools teach kids about "good touch/bad touch" at a very young age and responsible parents reinforce this. By the time you reach college, and wish to explore your sex life, you have a lifetime of memories that are based around stranger danger, protecting your privates, etc. So, you have ambiguous feelings about your body. When you get to college, then it just takes one huckster to convince you to transfer that entire life of education into a kind of persecution narrative about "slut shame." You liberator transfers all the blame for your feelings onto the parents who you are also trying to distance yourself from at the precise moment that you experience freedom by moving away from home. The huckster becomes your new mentor and role model.... The old bad people who shamed you into guarding your privates are isolated, ridiculed, and vilified. I actually agree with much of feminism in principle... But the "pro-sex" contingent is hell bent on turning everyone into stupid animals and calling it progress. It's a spitting image of Huxley's dystopia...

Posted by: bleck at February 19, 2014 03:48 PM (b6Qog)

482 The other thing to remember is that most of these people don't care about kids because they think pregnancy is a disease, that children are worthless apes, and that parents are a problem. You can't afford to discount what they say... But you can easily afford to play the experience card and talk about the dangers of shaming moms for passing on practical survival skills for dealing with patriarchy and how to seek a partner who respects your rights and dignity.

Posted by: bleck at February 19, 2014 03:56 PM (b6Qog)

483 Near the end of the article you linked, Naomi Schaefer Riley quotes the video, "Because many more women than men are in the market for a serious relationship, the video explains, 'men can be picky and can insist on extensive sexual experience before committing.'" She then adds, "WomenÂ’s competition for those men has increased, and so the Â“priceÂ” of sex Â— what the man has to Â“deliver,Â” emotionally and commitment-wise Â— has gone down."
By "those men", she -- and the video -- are not referring to all men, she is referring to a small subset of all men, those who women perceive as being able to provide not only emotionally, but materially for a serious relationship. It is the concentration of women's attention on these men that has caused sex to be devalued. Where there are few goods the price goes up. There are few men women want to have long term relationships with, and the other things women can bring to a relationship (skills, personality, a good nature) are not valued as much when there are many to chose from.

It's all patriarchy, but it's a patriarchy created by feminism, which has resulted in one double standard being replaced by another.

More later.

Posted by: Windy Wilson at February 22, 2014 10:43 AM (qQnEQ)

484 This isn't new. It's been going on a long time. Steinbeck laments briefly in The Grapes of Wrath (inspired by actual events) 13 year old "girls" heading into the woods to have sex with their 15 year old boyfriends. This was 80 years ago in the migrant workers' camps in CA during the dust bowl. In the mountains in either WV or VA (I can't recall) a book written by the area's first female doctor at about the same time had some details about a 13 year old woman marrying a man whose wife had died. She needed a husband (her parents couldn't afford to continue to support her), and was happy to find one with a job who was of a kind disposition (she was around 5 years older than her oldest step-child). At the time of the revolution, it wasn't unusual for "girls" to be married at 14 (I say "girls" because if she's able to get pregnant, she's not a girl anymore, she's a woman). Paul Revere's second wife was a war widow aged 21 with a 5 year old son when she married him. That means she had the kid at 16. So it's likely she got pregnant at 15. And if it really does take on average 1 year of sex twice a week for a woman to get pregnant, she was probably married at 14 (Paul Revere and the World He Lived In, a pulitzer prize winning book in the history category, didn't get into that much detail about her, so I'm guessing based on general trends). Whatever her actual story, it was doubtless not considered unusual in puritanical Boston (the setting for The Scarlet Letter), otherwise a respected silversmith wouldn't have risked his reputation (and business) by marrying someone with a "scandalous" past. It wasn't all that long ago that an 18 year old unmarried woman was considered an "old maid" (they presumed she was still a "maiden", or virgin), and was usually considered unfit for marriage (there had to be something wrong with her or she'd have been married already). An unmarried 16 year old woman was getting close to her "use by" date, and at risk of becoming an old maid. What has changed is the technology used to "advertise" that the girls are ready for adulthood. It used to be called a "coming out" party; which was the signal that she was able to breed (menstruating regularly) and ready for marriage. This allowed suiters to get a look at her in a supervised social setting. Today, the problem seems to be that they're "coming out" unsupervised and on line, and coming out too far (e.g sexting) as they don't always realize that digital source media is forever. And of course, if the girl is convinced that some guy is "the one" for her, she may be willing to acquiesce to his request for scandalous photos or video (or sex). We need to teach both genders personal responsibility, the consequences inherent in sex, and how to mitigate them. This particularly goes for young women, because, like it or not, they're the ones who bear the most risk. Beyond pregnancy and the risks it entails, it is generally easier to spread STDs from male to female than the reverse. This MUST go beyond "just say No", because eventually, she WILL say yes, and she should have the information she needs to mitigate the risks (anything else is just trusting to luck, which is stupid with the knowledge and technology we have at our disposal). This requires good parental role models and both genders need to be involved in this parenting. Girls learn what a desirable male is like based on the relationships the female parental figures in their life have with men. Kids learn what is "normal" by watching the parental figures around them. It's the rare young woman who can watch mom having sex with guys that change as fast as she changes her socks and come to the conclusion that such behavior can be bad for her well being. The traditional nuclear family returns the best results with this, but it runs counter to the feminazi's views of how women don't need men.

Posted by: MPH at February 23, 2014 03:22 PM (fLS8T)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

415kb generated in CPU 0.2214, elapsed 0.4247 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3506 seconds, 612 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.