Specifically, I believe that drug use and prostitution by themselves are victimless crimes and should be legalized and taxed; the legal drinking age should be removed; I don't like abortion but I don't believe it's nearly the moral absolute that both sides think it is; I support legal protections for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered; I believe that birth control is moral and should be legal. Yes, I am a proud ROMAN Catholic and, yes, I think the Church is flat-out wrong on birth control; their position is not, I believe, rooted in Scripture so much as it is rooted in a leadership consisting of only celibate men who seem to believe there is no reason for sex outside procreation. I don't believe that just because a type of conduct is "immoral,"
based on a typicaly subjective definition, that it follows such conduct should be illegal. The only objective interest of government is to make sure such conduct does not hurt others. Beyond that, shut up.
The theme I have been hitting is the town in the movie Footloose, Bomont (though who really remembers the name?), where dancing and music were banned because of some warped morality. It's fictional and extreme, to be sure, but it's an analogy that is readily understandable. The town in Footloose sucked. It was a boring, suffocating place where one preacher's definition of "morality" was imposed on the whole town. Moviegoers would not have wanted to live there.
And yet that seems to be where social conservatives are determined to take us, or, more likely, what they want to impose on us, by legal or other means. They want a nanny state every bit as much as "big government" progressives do.
I hesitate to judge a lady’s morals merely because she feels obliged to follow contemporary fashion.
For example, I think tattoos and pierced bellybuttons are two of the tackiest things in the world, but I’m pretty sure not every woman with tattoos and a pierced bellybutton is a whore.
Most of them? Sure, but not all of them.
Similarly, short skirts and exposed cleavage do not necessarily signal that a woman is up for some action with any dude who’ll give her the price of another hit of methamphetamine. It is true that many hookers dress that way, but not every woman who dresses that way is a hooker.
Tina, you are a Catholic, try actually dressing like one and not like some office “MILF” looking for a place up the corporate ladder. I did not even watch the video; I was that sickened by what I saw and I am sure that Rick Santorum just loved being next to a chick that was essentially him a peep show of her hoo haa. (if you know what I mean….)
So, in other words, you don’t want women to dress scantily because you can’t handle it. Doesn't get more subjective than that. Talk about imposing your view on others.
By the way, unless you can point to me the Bible chapter and verse where the miniskirt is prohibited, you might want to shut up about how wearing a miniskirt is "un-Christian." Last time I checked, the prostitutes in Christ's time, as well as the Renaissance and Victorian England, wore long skirts. There is nothing un-Christian about wearing a miniskirt. And there never has been a dress code for church. People used to dress up for church not for religious reasons, but to show off for their friends. The term “Sunday-best” came about because most people worked blue-collar jobs for which they could never dress up. Church on Sunday was the only chance they had to do so, and they took it. Simple as that.
Do either of you even know why women like to wear short skirts? I have a theory, that I will express below, but I won't pretend to actually know why, and I certainly won't arbitrarily assign to them the negative reasons that you are. You assume they either want to look like hos and sluts, or that they don’t know that they do. Did it ever occur to you that they don’t believe that their miniskirts and cleavage qualify them to look like hookers? Or even that it should qualify them to look like hookers? Maybe, you know, they just like they way it looks? Or like the way it feels? More on that later.
The worst is Melissa Clouthier:
I am more than a bit shocked by the young men at CPAC this year who just seemingly refuse to grow up or act their age. More troubling, while in 2005 it seemed to be just college kids, as the years have passed it is not just the 18 to 21 year old set, but the twenty and thirty somethings who just can’t seem to grow up. It’s like they started out at CPAC this way in college and each year at their CPAC reunion descend back to their freshman year rush week.
This is more and more common in society and none of us should expect that a behavior increasingly common in society should not spill over into any event including CPAC, but just because something is common does not mean it is responsible or acceptable.
We can be thankful that CPAC is not like the communications war room at Media Matters. But it should be much more than that. The young men and women who go to CPAC are often present or future leaders on their college campuses and within the conservative movement. They go to CPAC and are often on near equal terms at CPAC with people much older than themselves. Unfortunately, too many treat CPAC like spring break.
More than a few of the twenty and thirty somethings who go to CPAC seem to treat it like an extension of their college days doing their best to hook up before passing out. It’s not the majority to be sure, but it is a noticeable minority.
I am not even sure that there is a solution to the problem. But we should not think it is anything but a problem. It is not every young man, but there are many. They risk dragging the whole affair down to some bawdy, rowdy distraction. They risk embarrassing themselves and the conservative movement. They risk the perception premised on their own actions that conservative men of a certain age think that good manners and decorum around women of the same age is unneeded or unwanted.
This is not to say CPAC cannot and should not be fun. This is not to say that CPAC cannot and should not be a party. But it is to say that I hope the college groups bussing in students next year, the out of college set there to network, and CPAC itself encourage behavior we all too often don’t talk about anymore in our society — the behavior of gentlemen. Eat, drink, smoke, be merry, but be chivalrous too. There really is, regardless of your age, no need to play the cad at CPAC to score points with conservative ladies.
Pretty, pretty is dying.
People will define pretty differently. For the purposes of this piece, I define pretty as a mutually enriching balanced combination of beauty and projected innocence.
Once upon a time, women wanted to project an innocence. I am not idealizing another age and I have no illusions about the virtues of our grandparents, concupiscence being what it is. But some things were different in the back then. First and foremost, many beautiful women, whatever the state of their souls, still wished to project a public innocence and virtue. And that combination of beauty and innocence is what I define as pretty.
By nature, generally when men see this combination in women it brings out their better qualities, their best in fact. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.
Young women today do not seem to aspire to pretty, they prefer to be regarded as hot. Hotness is something altogether different. When women want to be hot instead of pretty, they must view themselves in a certain way and consequently men view them differently as well.
As I said, pretty inspires men’s nobler instincts to protect and defend. Pretty is cherished. Hotness, on the other hand, is a commodity. Its value is temporary and must be used. It is a consumable.
Nowhere is this pretty deficit more obvious than in our “stars,” the people we elevate as the “ideal.” The stars of the fifties surely suffered from the same sin as do stars of today. Stars of the fifties weren’t ideal but they pursued a public ideal different from today.
The merits of hotness over pretty is easy enough to understand, they made an entire musical about it. Who can forget how pretty Olivia Newton John was at the beginning of Grease. Beautiful and innocent. But her desire to be desired leads her to throw away all that is valuable in herself in the vain hopes of getting the attention of a boy. In the process, she destroys her innocence and thus destroys the pretty. What we are left with is hotness.
Hotness is a consumable. A consumable that consumes as it is consumed but brings no warmth.
Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.
While I do not agree with the feminist criticism of marriage as a male-dominated institution created for the oppression of women, I can understand it. For eons, marriage was between one man and one woman –– with the man in control. Whether it was in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or the Modern Period, the men (with a relatively few exceptions like Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, Zenobia, Jeanne d’Arc, Elizabeth I, etc.) ran things –– the men worked, the men earned the money, the men ran the money, the men went to war, the men decided when to go to war. The only power women consistently had was sexual –– and marriage limited that power. In fact, marriage, as it used to be interpreted, effectively surrendered that power to the husband, whether the wife wanted to or not.
This is why, as much as conservatives don’t like it, the sexual revolution was indeed about power. Women taking charge over their own bodies. Many conservatives don’t like the “sexualization” of popular culture. They don’t like promiscuity, They don’t like women in miniskirts with plunging necklines. I don’t care for promiscuity myself, but when for thousands of years the only power women had was restricted, that when they finally have the freedom they want to show that they have that power is completely understandable.
Again, I must reiterate: the sexual revolution was about power. The only power women had for centuries was sexual, and that power was restricted by marriage. Now the sexual revolution has had some drawbacks, but I believe the good has far outweighed the bad. Women are now aware of that power, and, further, that while actually usintg that power creates complicated moral issues, there is nothing wrong with showing that power.With the husband in control financially and socially, the wife was left with very few options if the marriage went bad. If it was abusive (physically, mentally or emotionally) or if it was just plain loveless. She was trapped.
To be sure, men typicaly had sexual power as well, though they were along diffetent dimensions. First, if a man wanted sex, he could force a woman into it, physically and otherwise. Hardly something to be proud of. Second, men were able to brag about their sexual "conquests" as indiocative of their "power." You still see that today. Men who sleep with a lot of women are often celebrated; women who sleep with a lot of men are ridiculed.
Nevertheless, Sex was often the only advantage women had, and even though they weren't supposed to show it, even though it could rarely be used, on occasion it was indeed used – remember Cleopatra outmaneuvering the murderous regency council in charge of her rival for the Ptolemaic Egyptian throne by sleeping with Julius Caesar. To the extent there is anything philosophical about wearing a miniskirt – and if there is it is likely subconscious – it is about that power. Not using it by actually sleeping with someone, but showing it. Showing that they have it, and they know they have it. Just like men had showed off their power for centurier. And still do.
That, I think, is why women tend to be more confident in miniskirts than in longer skirts. The longer skirts keep them “modest” but subservient, keeping that power muted.
So the anger of Clouthier, et al at the dress of women at CPAC is really about conservative boxes – wanting to keep women in the box they occupied for centuries. Oh, they want women to have equal pay, equal rights, et al. I’m not arguing that they don’t. But they are holding women to a much different standard than men. And that is wrong.
People like Tina Korbe, a good blogger, should be celebrated. The upcoming, young, smart, attractive women at CPAC should be celebrated.
Instead, conservatives choose to complain about their clothing. No miniskirts. They want the town in Footloose. The conservative nanny state.
And they wonder why they consistently lose the youth vote. And the women’s vote as well.