Liberals and Sex Just Go Together

Kevin McCollough’s piece "Why Liberals Lie About Sex" is only news in that we’re still wondering why they lie about it.

As a rule, liberals operate under the assumption that a fulfilled life is a sexually active life, be they married or (for many the preferred state) not.  It’s been that way as long as I can remember.  It was certainly that way growing up with them and under their tutelage, which prompted much of The Ten Weeks.  It’s been a leitmotif of Western liberalism and radicalism for a long time, although it’s interesting that, when real radicals like Marxists-Leninists got around to taking over societies, they imposed some very bourgeois morality.  That notwithstanding, why they still feel enough shame to try to hide their idea simply buffaloes me.  Perhaps it is the fact that, when liberalism is explained openly, it becomes unpopular very quickly, which is one reason why liberal talk radio is a general bust.

But there’s one more thing: if a person has enough willpower (either internally or with help from on high) to discipline themselves sexually, they can repeat the feat in other areas, such as financially and politically.  Then they will not be so easily led by elites or become debt slaves, which in turn makes them led by elites (who usually hold the note.)  That dilutes the potential for control, and, with liberals, control is as much the name of the game as sex.  If you can break a society’s discipline sexually, the rest will more easily fall into place.

There is method to their madness…

8 thoughts on “Liberals and Sex Just Go Together”

  1. Good points, all. So, what did you think of Kevin McCollough’s piece? You seem to be representing it here in a positive light. Am I mistaken?

  2. My posting speaks for itself.

    There was a time when liberals prided themselves for their ability to analyse and deconstruct, but perhaps that’s a thing of the past.

  3. You’re right. And, in honor of that great LIBERAL tradition, I actually read Kevin McCollough’s article, rather than take your word for it. And, because I’m a liberal, I didn’t stop there; I actually went to the CDC’s website and checked out the study for myself, rather than take Kevin’s word for it. It’s here.

    http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/pdf/trends/2005_YRBS_Sexual_Behaviors.pdf

    The National Youth Risk Behavior Survey collected data from 1991 to 2005. McCollough made a big deal of the fact that the study was very thorough, to which I’ll stipulate. Sure enough, the study shows that the percentage of teens who have had sex dropped between 1991 and 2005. So that’s that, right? Abstinence-Only has been vindicated!

    But wait. I’m a liberal. I pride myself on my ability to analyze and deconstruct. So let’s play a fun liberal game.

    McCollough said “The Bush Abstinence programs weren’t implemented until the fall of 2001.” Hmm. Okay. I think it makes sense then to divide the data into two sections: (1991-2001) and (2001-2005). Let’s call these the “Liberal Want Loads of Teen Sex” (LWLOTS) period, and the “Conservative ResponsibLe Abstinence Program” (CRAP) period, respectively.

    Here’s what I get on this one. Check my math, Don.

    ****************************************************
    Change in Percentage of Teens Who have Ever Had Sex:

    LWLOTS : -8.5%
    CRAP : +1.2%

    ****************************************************

    I’ll give the Bush abstinence programs the benefit of the doubt (and the margin of error) and say that it was pretty much flat between 2001 and 2005.

    I know you’re a conservative. And since conservatives pride themselves on working hard and not buying into the media hype, I know you did your homework on this thing and crunched these numbers yourself. I mean, you’re article is about discipline, right?

    And that’s where my liberal nature hamstrings me. To my pot-addled brain, these numbers seem to actually hurt your argument. What am I missing? Is it too subtle for me? Please dumb it down for me (since I’m a liberal) and explain how this in any way vindicates Bush’s abstinence programs.

  4. Perhaps we have some “reverse psychology” going on, i.e., the public educational system’s advocacy for abstinence is undermining its credibility. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened.

    My comments about liberals and sex weren’t based on the success or failure of Bush’s abstinence programs. The sexual revolution has helped to fuel the advance of the left’s agenda for much of my lifetime. That is why many on the left consider abstinence before marriage as an existential threat.

    As far as the Clinton Administration is concerned, the left has a lot of “unfinished business” remaining from that adventure. The completion of that business is an important element in the Democrats’ presidential nomination process.

  5. Oh, reverse psychology. I didn’t think about that. But now that you mention it, I’m pretty sure that’s it.

    So I guess you accidentally referenced — and provided a link to — McCollough’s colossally inaccurate article?

    I hate it when that happens.

    Cheers

  6. Liam’s point is not as strong as it looks. Consider the following:

    http://www.siecus.org/pubs/tsha_roadblocks.pdf

    This document (written in 2001, before the Bush abstinence programs kicked in) informs us that we have had federally supported abstinence programs in one form or another since 1981. These continued through the Clinton years.

    It is interesting to note that a major source of funding for abstinence programs was part of the welfare reform package that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 (after two vetoes.) It may be tempting to say that Clinton supported this, but then again he promulgated “don’t ask/don’t tell” and the Defence of Marriage Act. To the extent that anyone of his background can be one, Clinton is certainly a liberal, but he was also a shrewd politician who understood better than anyone (and that includes his wife) that ideology has its limits.

    Both Liam and McCollough also assume that abstinence programs (or lack thereof) directly translate into the level of teen sexual activity although, to put it mildly, they interpret the data differently. This may not be the case; it would depend both on the level of dissemination of the program and its impact on the students. The former is problematic; anyone familiar with public education funding “requirements” knows that, on a nationwide basis, US$50,000,000 doesn’t go very far.

  7. That’s funny. The only point I intended to make was that McCollough — whose article you linked in your post — may in fact be mildly retarded, based on his “interpretation” of the data presented in the National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Just because I point out that some data definitely doesn’t support someone else’s assertion doesn’t mean that I am assuming anything else about the data. Pointing out that my impaired opponent is wrong is enough for me.

    In any case, it is amusing to me to read this whole thing from the top — starting with you bloviating about the liberals’ sexual M.O., and linking to an article that begins with the line “Liberals want your child to have sex,” only to find you now suggesting that it’s conceivable that there are subtle, unseen factors at play that may render the CDC’s data less devastating to your premise than it appears on first reading.

    I’m so glad we found each other.

Leave a Reply