Screwing America’s Young
Well, I know how to fix this. Let’s focus on the how-to of “safe sex,” destigmatize lascivious behavior, increase access to the abortive undo, remove pressure toward (indeed undermine the culture of) marriage, and attack anybody who voices opinions fitting the 1960s radical’s definition of repressive:
About 1 in 4 teenage girls in the United States — and nearly half of black girls — has at least one sexually transmitted disease, according to a study released Tuesday, providing the first national snapshot of infection rates among this age group.
Those numbers translate into an estimated 3.2 million adolescent females infected with one of the four most common STDs — many of whom may not even know they have a disease or that they are passing it to their sex partners.
“What we found is alarming,” said Dr. Sara Forhan, a researcher with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the study’s lead author. “This means that far too many young women are at risk for the serious health effects of untreated STDs, including infertility and cervical cancer.”
Sadly, the progressives may have just discovered another government program in need of funding and another victim group to pander to.
I doubt any lefties will be out front on condemning the behaviors that resulted in these findings.
Another liberal social experiment proves toxic to the young . . .
If the cause of these diseases were skateboards, or trans-fats, there would be a massive liberal movement to ban skateboards or trans-fats.
Because it’s about sex . . . well, we really can’t impose our morality on others, can we?
Remarkably, I read somewhere that a Planned Parenthood spokesperson interpreted these findings as “proof” that abstinence does not solve this problem!
And, by the way, if one in four teen girls have STDs . . . what about the teen boys?
In a related story, the progressives turned oer 4 young boys to a sodomite “couple” and are now shocked-shocked I tell you- that the kids have been getting rectally romanced for the last 3 years. Neighbors saw warning signs in foster parents charged with molestation Bristol police released these mugshots of Raymond Grenier (left) and Sedonio Rodriques (right). BRISTOL — Neighbors of two Bristol foster parents arrested late last month on multiple molestation and attempted molestation charges claim they saw warning signs at the couple’s 26 Sampson St. home for at least three years. The men, Sedonio Rodriques, 57, and Raymond Grenier, 53, were arrested Friday, Feb. 22, and charged with 11 counts of child molestation and attempted molestation over a three-year span. The men, who before their arrest were foster parents licensed by the state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), had four children: two adopted teenage siblings and two young boys they were fostering. Following their parents’ arrest, the children were taken away and placed in new homes, and both men are scheduled to appear in Sixth District Court in Providence on Monday, March 10. Until then, they are being held without bail at the Adult Correctional Institution (ACI) in Cranston; both declined the Phoenix’s interview requests this week. Long history The men, who ran an Internet-based massage business out of their home, previously worked as bus drivers for the Bristol Warren Regional School District before being fired for undisclosed reasons last year. Police records show a long list of complaints centered around their modest mustard-colored home off Mt. Hope Avenue, from wayward children to family disputes and problems with neighbors (see below Timeline). Neighbors who spoke this week said they were surprised to learn of the molestation charges, but said they long suspected something was wrong.… Read more »
I gotta say, this one sticks in my craw.
Justin wants to blame everything on “1960s radicals”. Brassband wants to blame it on “liberals”
Mike tells a long story about homosexual pedophiles, totally ignoring that the vast majority of sexual child abuse is by men against girls.
The hyper-sexualization of teens is not a consequence of liberalism. It’s a consequence of capitalism. Corporate America. That’s right. Not liberals, not radicals, but the mainstream busineses that profit from it.
The mainstream media, who I know some would like to portray as liberal, are really (as all corporations are) profit-making machines. I’m not making a judgement; I’m just saying what is the case. Sex sells. Young sex sells even better. Abercrombie and Fitch is not a liberal outfit. Porn distributors are not liberals. They are all capitalist entrepreneurs, like it or not.
Marx, who I know everyone here hates, said that one of the consequences of capitalism is that “all that is solid melts into air”. Authority, tradition, culture, morals, and so on, cannot stand in the face of the profit motive.
If you want to know why America’s daughters dress, talk and act like prostitutes, and why America’s sons act like pimps and thugs, I think you’re better off thinking about the profit motive than about ideology.
There is nothing “conservative” about capitalism.
Very true, Chalkdust. Look no further than Rupert Murdoch, who likes to think of himself and his cable news channel as the guardians of morality. Yet he has no problem making money off some of the sleaziest TV shows ever to reach our screens.
But then again, blaming liberals and gays is much more conveeeeeeeeeen-yent.
Yeah, that’s why Larry Flynt’s such a hero of the right and Hollywood promotes hard-right conservatives.
Look, Chalkdust, I wouldn’t deny that consumerism plays a role in amplifying cultural trends, but what people want to buy will be affected by culture. If it’s all the greedy capitalists, why wasn’t the produce of an historically less regulated marketplace a downright pornmill? There are, of course, technological and other differences apart from culture, but in the give and take between the forces of marketing and the culture, a more conservative culture would have a different lowest common denominator, as it were.
As with the detrimental blend of free-market principles and selective government regulation (which helps to insulate incumbents), a cut-and-paste collage of left and right preferences creates a morass in which leeches can profit. A fully conservative strategy would allow for broad economic freedom but promote a culture that would act as a control, up to and including local standards for what is appropriate in the public square.
In aggregate, liberals exploded those controls, and their solutions for regulating the mess — e.g., giving explicit how-to instructions to children and allowing the murder of unborn babies unfortunate enough to be conceived by irresponsible parents — exacerbate the problem.
In actuality, “authority, tradition, culture, morals, and so on” cannot stand in an environment in which the only authority is the state and, like capitalists, politicians and other political creatures of the society realize that they can lure the ignorant and befuddle the bookish with appeals to their basest instincts.
I gotta agree more with Chalkdust on this one. Not because I’m a liberal because I am not. It is unfair to blame liberalism for ‘hyper-sexualization’ as it was put. The reason is capitalism. Capitalism – as it drives business to supply the demand and, in my view more importantly, capitalism because the technology can amplify these practices so quickly. If it’s all the greedy capitalists, why wasn’t the produce of an historically less regulated marketplace a downright pornmill? —- Because back then, sexuality was more private. Today, it’s public and can be seen transmitted instantly via the internet. If you are saying that the reason less regulated markets didn’t produce more porn is because the culture was more ‘socially conservative’ than it is now, I don’t agree with 1) that is accurate and 2) even if it were to some degree, it would have an affect – not in a capitalistic environment. A fully conservative strategy would allow for broad economic freedom but promote a culture that would act as a control, up to and including local standards for what is appropriate in the public square. —– You want capitalism with more regulation on content to protect the innocent. Sounds good. Just as good as wanting complete governmental support to meet the needs of everyone to eliminate economic disparities. Capitalism relies on more individual freedom (less government) with more individual responsibility. Socialism relies on more governmental regulation (less individual freedom) and therefore, less individual responsibility. Both forms have benefits and associated costs. Clearly, free markets allow more for negative consequences than full government regulation. But I believe the consequences are worth it because, in the end, socialism does not fit with human nature which pursues maximum freedom (albeit with minimum responsibility). It’s not amazing why governing is such a… Read more »
MSteven,
Neither of your explanations — that capitalism “drives business to supply the demand” and facilitates “technology [that] can amplify these practices so quickly” — justifies the view that capitalism is the cause of moral decay, merely a medium and an expedient.
Who or, more accurately, what made sexuality a public, even political, affair? Who brought it out into the air for all to see? Made it “free”? Of course, profit-seekers saw the potential of sex to sell (just as leftist political actors saw the potential of sex for their own marketing purposes), but they didn’t open the floodgates of demand.
At any rate, you’re focusing on a narrow range of my complaint. Are capitalists to blame for the ease of abortion? I suppose they are if you include the profit-seeking folks at Planned Parenthood, but that organization is certainly on a line between profit and ideology. Did capitalists push for no fault divorce?
Justin,
I think it is you who is changing the range of your complaint. Your original post mentioned neither abortion nor divorce.
I did not say that capitalism is the cause of moral decay. I am saying that liberalism is not the cause of moral decay. Yes, there are prominent people and groups involved in the production, marketing and distribution of morally disgusting things (i.e.: Planned Parenthood) that are “liberal”. But painting the cause of moral decay with liberalism using your examples is akin to painting conservatism based on the actions and views of NARTH. There are prominent people and groups known as conservatives who are part of ‘immoral’ activities and I am sure you would defend accusations that painted conservatism with those activities.
The blame for ease of abortion goes to the Roe vs. Wade decision. The publicizing of abortion activities (both pro & con) is due to increased media which, in my view, is a result of capitalism. I thought that the number of abortions has decreased in the recent decade. I don’t see any relationship between no-fault divorce and liberal/conservative agenda.
Overall, I think your use of the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ (or leftist) are misplaced in the context of your post. I think that the names ‘evangelical’ and ‘heathens’ would be more appropriate.
What do you suppose I meant by “increase access to the abortive undo, remove pressure toward (indeed undermine the culture of) marriage”? It would seem that you’re a bit too keen to fall with the hipper side of the debate.
Actually, what you said was, “I gotta agree more with Chalkdust on this one.” And what he said was, “The hyper-sexualization of teens is not a consequence of liberalism. It’s a consequence of capitalism.” He even emphasized the culpability of capitalism. So, which is it?
Although I think we may have different definitions of “conservative” and “liberal,” I’m sure that you miss a key causative relationship in my position: I’m not saying so much that liberalism causes moral decay as that moral decay causes liberalism and libertinism, with the latter increasing the individual’s investment in the former.
What do you suppose I meant by “increase access to the abortive undo, remove pressure toward (indeed undermine the culture of) marriage”? It would seem that you’re a bit too keen to fall with the hipper side of the debate.
—– No, I’m not too keen to fall on hip. What I am is apparently a poor reader. I missed that part.
Actually, what you said was, “I gotta agree more with Chalkdust on this one.” And what he said was, “The hyper-sexualization of teens is not a consequence of liberalism. It’s a consequence of capitalism.” He even emphasized the culpability of capitalism. So, which is it?
—— Fair enough. I’ll go with b) liberalism is not the cause of moral decay, which in my view is the defensive position of your original post. But I’ll use some of your words to say that I’m not saying SO MUCH that capitalism causes moral decay as that the moral decay you describe is not an actual decay but more of a brighter (public) light shown on it due to the effects of capitalism.
Yes, if your definitions of conservative/liberal are anything near to the analogy of evangelical/heathen, then yes, ours differ greatly.