Sex and the Democrats

[brendala.livejournal.com]

Considering the fact that the Democratic party now expects us girls to vote with our vaginas instead of our brains, I think this ad is timelier now than it was 4 years ago (the video can't be embedded. So you have to go to YouTube to see it)




Believe it or not, that "sexy" commercial was a legitimate Democrat campaign ad (some republican smart-ass just added the color commentary). I just....don't see who they thought they were appealing to. Do they really think that so many right wingers are just dying to screw them? And that we'll change our vote to get in their pants (instead of just, y'know lying or not having sex with them at all). Seriously, what the hell?

Comments

[neverfading.livejournal.com]

While the "gays and women" issues may indeed be red herrings designed to distract us from more pressing concerns right now, I believe that social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.

That's a much longer conversation for another day, but as I've said before, I find it very, very curious when people claim the social and economic realms are entirely independent of one another, as if these two things each exist in a vacuum and never interact, and never affect each other.

The breakdown of the family has a direct impact on people's financial lives. Personal behavior has a direct impact on our monetary concerns. I would really, really like to hear someone explain how being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" works, because that, to me, sounds like they're really just a left-libertarian, or they're a conservative who doesn't want to think about the social issues.

There's no fiscal behavior versus social behavior, there's just human behavior.

The perfect example of how personal behavior affects us in terms of money and the economy, is when people become dependent on welfare and other government programs and subsidies, through their own irresponsible or at least questionable behavior. That's a direct correlation between personal behavior and a monetary effect on our society.

EDIT: When Sandra Fluke and Co. demand that we pay for her birth control, that's another example of how personal behavior can directly impact us financially.

I suppose that a true libertarian would say "you have a perfect right to be promiscuous if you want, but you can't ask anyone else to deal with the consequences or help you when things go awry."

I, on the other hand, would say "you have a perfect right to have sex however and whenever and with whomever you want, but some types of sexual/personal behavior are destructive and unhealthy, and while they will certainly not be *outlawed* or formally punished, they will be strongly discouraged through social/cultural pressure."

[brendala.livejournal.com]

While the "gays and women" issues may indeed be red herrings designed to distract us from more pressing concerns right now, I believe that social and fiscal issues are inextricably linked.....

You make a good point. We wouldn't be in the mess we are today if "old fashioned" social mores like shame were still commonplace. And our generation of 20-somethings has a sense of entitlement that boggles the mind. In fact, I think the entitlement mentality is the biggest social issue we have to fight. That's the thing that fuels activists like Sandra Fluke to CHOOSE a Catholic school (ie one that would clearly have issues with paying for BC) and then demand that the school change the way it operates to suit her personal, non-Catholic beliefs. A rational person would simply choose a more compatible school. But Gerogetown is a top notch University. And Fluke believes that she's ENTITLED to not only have the best school; but to dictate how said school operates.

Sadly, I don't how we can go about making this generation grow the f**k up. Maybe being forced to struggle in Obama's lousy economy will make them learn.



I, on the other hand, would say "you have a perfect right to have sex however and whenever and with whomever you want, but some types of sexual/personal behavior are destructive and unhealthy, and while they will certainly not be *outlawed* or formally punished, they will be strongly discouraged through social/cultural pressure."

I hate it when people act of if that statement is just the slut-shaming ramblings of religious nuts. There is a middle ground between "anything goes" and "brand every unwed mother with a scarlet A".

[neverfading.livejournal.com]

I hate it when people act of if that statement is just the slut-shaming ramblings of religious nuts. There is a middle ground between "anything goes" and "brand every unwed mother with a scarlet A".

Exactly. See, this is why I consider myself a true libertarian and a social conservative at the same time, which somebody might consider contradictory or impossible.

Like I said, I'm starting to believe that virtually nothing should be formally regulated, but lots of things should be strongly *discouraged* through social/cultural pressure, on an informal, local, personal level.

If kids hear from parents, teachers, media, authority figures, and everyone in their community that XYZ behavior is negative and destructive, then maybe they'll be less likely to indulge in that behavior.

While we're on the topic, I think that any laws *against* homosexual behavior that are still on the books should be eliminated, too. I think there shouldn't be any formal prohibitions or sanctions *against* personal behavior, but there should be *cultural* sanctions against some types of personal behavior.

[jacobs-muse.livejournal.com]

Hell, just divorce has a big financial impact - either the single mother struggles a lot more to meet her kid(s)' basic needs, or the father is shafted and completely drained of his resources just because "he's a man and therefore wrong". Or both, if they didn't have much as a couple to begin with. As a unit, their chances are greater of fighting through hard times than alone.

[neverfading.livejournal.com]

Yeah. And you know, the whole "marriage" issue has got me thinking:

If someone who's been divorced six times can get "married", if Kim Kardashian can be married for one month or whatever, and if Britney Spears can be married for twenty-four hours or whatever to some guy, then how meaningful is marriage, anymore?

Expanding the definition of marriage does NOT strengthen the institution of marriage. If you want to strengthen the institution of marriage, then it needs to be *harder* to get married and *harder* to get divorced, not easier.

If we really wanted to protect and bolster the value of marriage, we'd make it harder to get divorced, and maybe that would make people think twice before entering into a more binding contract.

TBH, if I were in a serious relationship right now and contemplating getting married, I think I'd just have a personal, non-legal, purely symbolic ceremony.

If the law has decided that two men are a "marriage" or two women are a "marriage" or somebody's fifth wedding is a "marriage", why would I want to participate in that institution?

Why would I want to place myself in the same category with Elizabeth Taylor or Kim Kardashian or a homosexual relationship?

Marriage is becoming meaningless.

EDIT: *harder to get divorced except in cases where there's something clearly unacceptable like physical abuse or infidelity, obviously...

[jacobs-muse.livejournal.com]

It's meaningless in pop culture.

It's not meaningless to all the people that enter into it with the best of intentions and love. The actual divorce rate isn't the 50-60% of the population people like to cite....the statistic is wrong as someone finally did a study on finding out if it was true vs. one poll saying it's true. It's more like 25%.

Pastors have made it 'harder' to get married for a while, requiring weeks or months of counseling sessions before they will marry a couple to make sure they're prepared. It's the civil/legal contract that's so easy to enter into. Divorces used to be harder to get at the same time women couldn't legally vote or own property, and then in more recent history when a woman had legal rights but no financial options she stayed. In a world where men and women are equal, the most common thing couples fight about is money, so when times are prosperous for the majority, less couples will split. Fix the economy, and then the rest will sort out.