Go to I Don't Know Much
- Add a comment
- Go to The Past of the Conservative Movement
Re: with regard for nature and all that
Perhaps, but how many people want to deliberately limit sex like that? If they didn't want sex, they wouldn't go wandering. Oh, except that recent study (Saw it on yahoo) said men cheat for emotional reasons, and mostly with women they've known a long time.
As for me, I'm done procreating, but I'm not ready to give up sex. Don't think I ever will be, as long as I stay healthy.
posted by
mousehop
on October 31, 2008 at 8:42 AM
| link to this | reply
with regard for nature and all that
Monogamy is definitely un-natural. Multiple partners is definitely more exciting but the more you have sex for sport with that life partner the more you run the risk of burning it out.
Look at how many married people don't even sleep together anymore and how many go wandering.
Maybe if one chooses a life partner and just had sex for pro-creation they wouldn't burn it out or go wandering.
posted by
mordent
on October 30, 2008 at 10:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: I think conservatism is an unnatural, 19th century way of thinking.
True, and that fits with the anthropological idea that marriage was invented as a form of male ownership of women, and religion, in part, a system created to justify it. I don't see much of truth or benefit in Social Conservatism myself, though I am a fiscal conservative. So I agree with you about morality.
posted by
mousehop
on October 30, 2008 at 7:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Re:
Yes, all presidents pass along baggage. My point is that Reagan didn't represent the ideal of the Movement Conservatives, as they always claim. Until they acknowledge Reagan's failure, they don't stand much chance of finding something better.
posted by
mousehop
on October 30, 2008 at 7:49 AM
| link to this | reply
I think conservatism is an unnatural, 19th century way of thinking.
It's natural, survival-of-the-species instinct to reproduce, to hunt, defend yourself and your home. The conservative hypermoralists seem focused on controlling sexuality and imposing strict rules on who can have sex: - only after marriage, only with your legal spouse, only for procreation. This flies in the face of Ma Nature's powerful instincts to the contrary, another example of mankind's arrogant belief that he can preside over nature. Not one of these moralistic souls has ever been able to make it rain or stop the wind.
Morality, in this narrow conservative view, doesn't apply to slick thievery, political scams, power grabs, etc. -- it's blind hypocrisy at it's worst.
posted by
Pat_B
on October 30, 2008 at 6:36 AM
| link to this | reply
Maybe the two party system here is too black and white like the way Americans minds work. The mutli-party system in Europe gives more choices.
The three party system you propose sounds interesting but America won't change and the two party system will remain along with the black and white thinking.
Reagan passed along baggage huh? Doesn't every President? Don't you think if Obama gets elected (probably will) and things go sour the libs will still blame Bush baggage?
By the way I wrote "should Christians become Liberals " as a flip-flop. It's under my "are the rich superior" post. Perhaps thats more your cup of tea.
posted by
mordent
on October 29, 2008 at 5:02 PM
| link to this | reply