Does this Crisis echo the Glorious Revolutuon?

[nguyenivy]

(11-11-2021, 02:47 AM)galaxy Wrote:

(02-19-2019, 11:35 AM)David Horn Wrote:

Bill the Piper Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:I don't think you advocate culture-war religious-right efforts, but I agree with the Left of course on such issues as gay rights and government-sponsored religion in public places. Abortion is an issue that can be compromised, but that doesn't seem to be possible just now.

I could just say that I'd like to see the effects of sexual revolution reversed to some degree. The entertainment industry in particular needs to be purged. To some extent, reversing the sexual revolution requires the dominant ethos of individualism (which regards selfish pursuit of happiness as the goal of life) to die off, and new ethos of communitarianism to replace it. Parents staying together for their child's sake, even if they no longer get the thrills in bed. Like it was with the GIs and previous generations.

I have to agree with much of this.  The sexual revolution had far too many excesses to remain dominant in a less hyper-individualist society.  Communalism is returning and some degree of puritanical ethos will return with it.

I'm not sure what it looks like from your "age location in history" (or whatever S+H's exact term was), but I can tell you that to me (born 2001) it certainly looks like there is a "new sexual conservatism" emerging in recent years, especially since 2017. It is coming from younger people and from the political left, with the most enthusiastic supporters of it being the same age group as the "enforcers" of the new Millennial values consensus (those born 1988-1996). It is generally perceived, even by those who oppose it, as a further sexual liberalization, despite actually being the opposite.

One example I like to use is this:

In 1984, the federal government pressured states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by withholding highway funding from states with ages below 21.
Before then, there was wide variation of drinking ages, but all were 18, 19, 20, or 21.
Right now, a similar situation exists with the age of sexual consent. Depending on the state, it is either 16, 17, or 18 (plus some complications and technicalities).
It is conceivable that the federal government could, if there was a base of support for it, take a similar action with the age of consent, and use some kind of withheld funding to pressure states to raise their age to 18.

Now, you tell me:

Which party would have been more likely to do something like this in, say, 2002?
And which party would be more likely to do it now?

And that's the new left-wing sexual conservatism.


You also see the same "position-switch" happening with pornography right now, and you can really see the difference between turnings with that one. There is almost no religious rhetoric left in the anti-pornography movement. Today it's all about exploitation of the performers, and potential psychological harm, like addiction or distorted and unrealistic worldviews and expectations. No one is talking about how "it's morally wrong, separates people from [insert your higher power of choice here], goes against [his/her/its/their] creation, contributes to "depravity," turns the frogs gay" and so on. It's not moralistic anymore, it's pragmatic. If that's not a good example of a 2T/3T vs. 4T/1T opposition, then I don't know what is.

Raising age of consent? I would guess it would be more likely to be pushed by Republicans during the 1990s/2000s and Democrats nowadays in the 2020s, since last decade. However there could be a push for raising it from both parties but for different reasons due to different priorities & values (or different ways of enforcement of values if they're the same values).