What if government treated eating the way it treats sex?

posted at 7:15 pm on March 4, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

It’s a useful distinction to consider.  A particular moral idea governs left-wing views on social and health matters, and the left’s purpose with political advocacy is to put the power of government behind that view.  By examining the left’s very different policy approaches to eating and sex, we can discern the features of the morality at work.

The left’s governmental approach to sex today involves, among other things, the following:

1.  Advertising it to children through the public schools and encouraging them to explore and participate in it.

2.  Basing policy on the assumption that no solution to any problem lies in individuals restraining or channeling their sexual urges, and therefore even the intractable facts of nature should not be left, with their powerful incentives, to encourage that posture.  It is important, instead, to create an environment conducive to sex unfettered by its natural consequences.

3.  Providing, at public expense, the means to have sex on one’s own terms, but avoid procreation and sexually transmitted diseases.

4.  Providing, at public expense, the means to support children who are born nevertheless.

5.  To adjust the balance between 3 and 4, encouraging and advocating the use of contraception and the resort to abortion.

The suite of policies advocated by the left is designed to encourage sex but limit procreation and STDs.  The social “good,” therefore, is deemed to be unfettered sex, while the social “ills” are the birth of children and the suffering (and infectiousness) incident to STDs.

Let’s compare this moral view and its program construct to the left’s policy attitude toward eating.  In this latter realm, the social “ills” are thought to be obesity and the medical problems that come with it.  But what is the social “good”?  Is there one?  It’s hard to say, because eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex – is not, in the left’s moral view, considered a “good” to be promoted on whatever terms the individual prefers.

The left’s governmental treatment of eating is very different from its treatment of sex.  It runs on these lines:

1.  Advertising to children (as well as adults) the evils of certain kinds of food.

2.  Basing policy on the assumption that the people must be nudged or even coerced to eat according to whatever principle is suggested by the most recent studies.  It is important to create an environment in which eaters have to go well out of their way to avoid the choices made for them by government authorities.  The ideal, in fact, is an environment in which eaters can’t avoid the dictates of the government.

3.  Ensuring that the expenses of obesity are, increasingly, born by the public, while fanning political resentment of those expenses, and of the condition of the obese.

4.  Proclaiming that the solution in every case is controlling what people eat, rather than providing for the obese the same publicly-funded relief offered to the sexually promiscuous.

It is hard to make the case that eating a lot is worse than having a lot of sex outside of commitment and marriage.  At the very most, the two practices are a moral wash, one no worse than the other.  Both involve doing discretionary things with one’s body.  Both involve courting well-known consequences.  Both involve the strong potential for inconvenience to oneself and the larger community.  It is making an arbitrary moral judgment, to insist that what causes obesity should be dealt with through coercion and the limiting of options, while what causes unwanted pregnancies and STDs should be the object of solicitude, and public programs based not on denial but on mitigation.

We know that eating in moderation and limiting certain foods generally results in better health than eating, indiscriminately, lots and lots of things we enjoy for only a brief moment.

But we also know that not having sex prevents pregnancy and STDs with unparalleled effectiveness.  We know, moreover, that disciplining our sex drives, keeping sex within marriage, welcoming the children that come from it, and raising them with a father and mother are substantially more effective in preventing STDs, “unwanted” children, poverty, delinquency, addiction, and hopelessness than are government programs to distribute condoms and subsidize abortion providers.

If government treated obesity the way it treats sex, it would encourage schoolchildren to explore their enjoyment of Twinkies, Oreos, and moon pies; it would employ professionals to devise ways of suiting government policies to the principle that our bodies belong to us and we can put whatever we want in our stomachs; it would hold legislative hearings on the overriding importance of the freedom to eat what we want; it would resist the very idea of remedies that involve the individual eating less, or eating different things; it would pay for liposuction, cholesterol drugs, heart surgery, and diabetes-mitigation measures but not for programs of diet and exercise; it would encourage the development of drugs that could prevent fat formation regardless of what one eats; and it would make it a basic human right to be able to eat whatever one wants and have the consequences mitigated by the public.

There really is no case to be made that government should not do this.  If, that is, we accept that government’s current approach to sex and its consequences is appropriate and warranted.

Ultimately, no discussion of these issues would be complete without the observation that if government – and the federal government in particular – wasn’t involved in them in the first place, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much when the people’s opinions and our moral perspectives on them differed.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

JED: Perfect argument, skillfully stated.

VastRightWingConspirator on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Stupid argument since Moochelle is attempting to treat food the same way as sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Forget about eating… what about tooth decay and oral health?

Tooth decay leads to increased dental costs and other oral hygiene issues can lead to infection and heart problems. Tooth paste, floss, and Listerine, as well as Sonicare “instruments” are all a financial hardship.

So should the gubmint mandate that insurance companies provide these things for free?

Reading in the dark can cause eye problems; should lightbulbs be provided as well as a subsidy for the electric bill?

Where does it end?

singlemalt 18 on March 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Hear Hear, I want free stomach by-pass or lap-band surgery.

skatz51 on March 4, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Yes. Just think the government could outlaw unsafe sexual practices just like they outlawed the turkey sandwich in that little girl’s lunch box. We could only have “approved” partners like the L.A. school’s lunch program (where they are down to 13% eating in the cafeteria because the kids started bringing their own lunches, which somehow they can afford now). Twinkies for everyone! And if you don’t get enough Twinkies, well, your employer should have to pay for them. You DESERVE Twinkies! And no one has ANY right to tell you differently!

Man, I’d personally like a middle ground on both of these issues, but it is illuminating to see them side-by-side.

UnderstandingisPower on March 4, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Oh, and I love the bit about diet and exercise. Hilarious! And an AMEN on that one!

UnderstandingisPower on March 4, 2012 at 7:23 PM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

More grist for the abortion mill.

fossten on March 4, 2012 at 7:23 PM

This weekend when I got the oil changed and fluids checked etc. the automotive guy had lowered my tire pressure to 35 pounds.……..why?

Because it is apparently a FEDERAL requirement that they now have to reduce the air in your tires down from the 44 psi to what the Feds say you MUST have no more than 35 psi.

Regardless of what the customer wants. the retailer can be held liable if they don’t lower your tire pressure when you come in. I promptly went somewhere and aired them back up so they don’t squeal.

If the Fed Gov can tell me how much psi I can have in my tires……AND THEN FORCE a shop to do it for them…..then we are ALREADY SLAVES to the Ruling class.

They can order us to do ANYTHING.

PappyD61 on March 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Stupid argument since Moochelle is attempting to treat food the same way as sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM

You didn’t read it … did you?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Great read.

However, the sooner we get off this dem-fish-bait issue the better. Women have had full and free access to contraception for more than 40 years. The GOP (the party of Stupid) twisted themselves into pretzles and became nothing more than a clown show for the MSM to bloviate about.

We need Newt. Admit it.

Key West Reader on March 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Yeah, I figure these gals that want us to pay for their birth control can just keep their yaps shut when we tell them they have to pay for our cholesterol medicines and hip replacements:

http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/pay-to-play-or-no-i-dont-want-to-subsidize-your-sex-life/

I had better not hear ONE WORD from them about “Keep your hands off of my uterus” if they’re not willing to keep their hands off of my Quarter Pounder with Fries (super-sized, of course)….

TeresainFortWorth on March 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM

eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex

Ha! Just wait until you have 3 weeks to fit into that Size 6 dress for your neice’s wed–wha? You’re a man?
Oh.
Never mind.
~Emily Litella

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I would like free pastrami and corned beef.

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Related topic (if Sandra has not been exhausted as a point of Dem outrage: Doug from Upland has produced a zinger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aehfgtpe0w

onlineanalyst on March 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM

We need Newt. Admit it.

Key West Reader on March 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Newt!

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Stupid argument since Moochelle is attempting to treat food the same way as sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Well, except that Moochelle is attempting to do to food what the libs stridently accuse the right of wanting to do to sex. She is attempting to force her dogma, by force of government fiat, upon the individual. She wants to see certain kinds of food banned from public schools (and, one might infer, in the future, banned from public consumption). She berates the American people for their poor lifestyle choices vis a vis food and lectures us on how we must be ever-vigilant to maintain our food intake purity.

Now, contrast that with the way the left goes high order when those on the right encourage people to behave morally vis a vis sexual relations. The right is not even proposing legislation or other government interference, in fact they are trying to remove that government intervention that wants to make taxpayers and employers pay for contraception and abortifacents.

The analogy is not too far off.

AZfederalist on March 4, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Newt!

Because I want a fighter on behalf of the Constitution and the American economy.

onlineanalyst on March 4, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Forgot to include this from that post:

You want to be able to have consequence-free sex, and you want ME to pay for it with higher insurance rates? OK, fine – I’ll make you a deal:

I’ll pay for your drunken weekends with whichever guy straps on the beer goggles at last call, but in return I expect you to keep your piehole shut when you have to pay higher insurance rates for MY lifestyle choices.

And boy, howdy, am I going to stick it to you BUT GOOD.

You just THINK you’ve been screwed by all of those Frat Boys, but it is nothing compared to the rogering you are going to get from me.

I am going to start living a life of indulgent luxury – I’m going to plop my fat ass on my couch and watch television all day long – no exercise for me. I’m going to eat the fattiest, greasiest foods that I can find – there isn’t going to be a vegetable in sight. I don’t drink, smoke, or use drugs, but I am thinking about taking them up – just so I can run up your insurance premiums.

You see Ms. Fluke, you have as much as admitted that no one has to take personal responsibility for their actions. No, you sat in front of a national audience and said that each of us has to pay for whatever other people in the rest of the country decide they want to do.

And if you don’t want them telling you what you can or cannot do with YOUR body, then you sure as heck don’t get to tell them what they can or cannot do with theirs.

TeresainFortWorth on March 4, 2012 at 7:30 PM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

The youth vote, for what it’s worth.

Dee2008 on March 4, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Dadgum it JE, this is utterly stellar work. I commend you. Keep doing this type of stuff. Drawing this distinction has really illuminated this in an excellent way. Bravo!

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:31 PM

I guarantee you there more here at work than meets the eye:

1. Yasmin name brand costs 65 dollars a month.
2. Yasmin generic costs 10-15 dollars a month.
3. Patients paying out of pocket of course demand generic.
4. New law states INSURANCE COMPANIES PAY 100% of EITHER.

You work for Yasmin. Where does your money go. I talked with a drug rep about it. He seemed pulsed.

Marcus on March 4, 2012 at 7:32 PM

I’m having soooooooooooo much sex,er food,that I’m going
broke,yes,that means I am a

FoodSl*t,er,FoodTart…..oh wait…I’m a Male,
which would mean,technically,that I’m a Pig!:)
(snark)

canopfor on March 4, 2012 at 7:34 PM

If you don’t want to follow what the Catholic Church teaches about sex, then don’t be a member and don’t work for them.

If you don’t want to follow what the government is legislating with food… uh…

UnderstandingisPower on March 4, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Because it is apparently a FEDERAL requirement that they now have to reduce the air in your tires down from the 44 psi to what the Feds say you MUST have no more than 35 psi.

PappyD61 on March 4, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Pappy, I got two new tires last fall. I’ve been putting the news on the front for 40 years. If you lose a steer tire you don’t have good steering. I’ve been happy with this my entire driving life.

They told me they recommended putting the new tires on the rear. I noticed they had a continuous video playing that showed how dangerous it is for a rear tire blow out. I’m sure this was something from the NHTSA or DOT. I said put the new ones on the front.

I had to sign a waiver of liability before they’d out the new tires on the front. I could have just had them do it their way and rotate when I got home, but I’d already put the worn ones on front for the trip to the tire shop.

I don’t care how many “experts” say that the best way is more tread on the drive tires, I’m always going to have them on the steers.

TugboatPhil on March 4, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Stupid argument since Moochelle is attempting to treat food the same way as sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Yes, and little children will say:”I wanna eat what Barney Franks eats, cuz I want to look like him or Henry Waxman,,,when I grow up!”?

KOOLAID2 on March 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I’m slim and work out-and I think I’m entitled to a daily venti White chocolate mocha from Starbucks. Pay up, SUCKAS!
///

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

It is hard to make the case that eating a lot is worse than having a lot of sex outside of commitment and marriage.

My wife wouldn’t allow me to have banana cream pie until I proposed.
Now I weigh more and get less..

I need government to regulate the inequality in my life.
/

Electrongod on March 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

It’s your “Right” to eat whatever you want, as much as you want, whenever you want. It’s also your “Right” to get laid as often as you want, with whomever you want and for whatever purpose you want.
It is NOT your “Right” to stick your hand in my pocket to pay for it or any of it’s consequences….Period!
This is the dark underside of Miranda….recognizing a right now establishes an obligation on all of us to not only stand out of the way, but to actively facilitate and participate in its exercise. We’ve gone from the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, to the obligation to guaranty the realization of happiness.

Lew on March 4, 2012 at 7:38 PM

JE, I have to commend you, again. The title is framed as a question and there is inherent value in tightly and thoughtfully worded questions. You have shown that here. Again, nice work.

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Imagine a First Lady touring the nation telling us how unhealthy the homosexual lifestyle is. The liberals would be bouncing off the walls.

slickwillie2001 on March 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM

O/T,a heads up!
—————-

US AG Holder set to offer legal endorsement for ‘targeted killings’ in terror fight, source tells

Submitted 8 mins ago from http://www.reuters.com
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

U.S. to offer legal backing for “targeted killing”: source
WASHINGTON | Sun Mar 4, 2012 7:23pm EST
***************************************

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration on Monday plans to outline how U.S. laws empower the government to kill Americans overseas who engage in terrorism against their home country, a source familiar with the matter said, months after a drone strike killed a U.S.-born cleric who plotted attacks from Yemen.
(more…)
==========

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/05/us-usa-security-americans-idUSTRE82402420120305

canopfor on March 4, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Great job !!
Well stated and completely undeniable.

pambi on March 4, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Good analogy, wrong conclusion. This analogy supports the libertarian view.

What if social cons treated eating the way they treat sex?

Social cons like Santorum would be preaching that bulimia was the root cause of America’s decline and that the government’s moral duty is to intervene to shape America’s eating habits.

Just as the liberal statists want to shape our eating for the greater good, conservative statist want to shape our sexuality for the greater good. The thinking is the same. Liberals see eating as something they have a moral duty to influence. Social cons see sex, and everything sex-related, as something they have a moral duty to influence.

Liberal statist will say, no, influencing eating is really, truly justified and can not be compared to what the social cons want. Conservative statists will say, on the other hand, no, influencing sexual practices is really, really, really, justified and can not be compared to what the liberal statists want.

Once someone truly believes that there are moral imperatives in this world, then that is when they must become a statist of some sort.

keep the change on March 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM

slickwillie2001 on March 4, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Been thinking this for days, now; just too chicken to mention it.
;-) The COSTS under Ocare … oy.

pambi on March 4, 2012 at 7:51 PM

This is the influence of Ron Paul.

You may say he’s crazy be he’s the one who’s been talking about how we’ve begun chopping up liberty into chunks. We save this liberty, but not that one and not that one. I’ve commented on here before how leftists really frustrate me with their contradictions on liberty. They seem to love sexual freedom, if only because some conservatives don’t? Yet when it gets to gun rights or EATING RIGHTS they go completely in the opposite direction toward tyranny.

I’m glad to see us having these kinds of principles-first discussions because that’s the influence of Ron Paul and nobody else.

fatlibertarianinokc on March 4, 2012 at 7:51 PM

So, the message for McDonalds, french fries, milkshakes and pie is to ‘Abstain!’ but the message for homosexual sex, oral sex, anal sex and all other kinds to to go at it full speed ahead.

How is it that liberals square this??

Is it that liberals cannot feast their eyes upon fat people? Is it that they want all of the pleasure, yet no consequence of sexual activity? Thus, prevent and terminate pregnancy and disease–sex for the sake of sex is what they are after. As long as they can knock boots and look skinny, then all is well, is that right?

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:52 PM

keep the change on March 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM

good points!!

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM

You are what you eat. Peer wisdom I first heard in a high school football locker room many years ago.

a capella on March 4, 2012 at 7:55 PM

What if government treated driving the way that it treated sex?

We’d all be driving Ferraris, GSXRs and supercharged Chevelles.

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:59 PM

OT: FYI–word is going out at Ace’s to raise a glass in honor of Andrew Breitbart at 8pm Eastern/7 Central tonight. FYI

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Advertising it to children through the public schools and encouraging them to explore and participate in it.

Yes, that’s exactly how Sex Ed worked in my high school. The teacher set up a trailer in the back of the school where students were encouraged to have sex with each other.

It’s time to ban Sex Ed so that kids don’t find out about sex.

bayam on March 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Yes, and little children will say:”I wanna eat what Barney Franks eats, cuz I want to look like him or Henry Waxman,,,when I grow up!”?

KOOLAID2 on March 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Said in Munsen’s voice~!

/Simpsons

Key West Reader on March 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM

We’d all be driving Ferraris, GSXRs and supercharged Chevelles.

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:59 PM

ted c:Make mine a 572 c.i./1000HP 69′ SS Chevelle,haha!:)

canopfor on March 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

The is an intellectual, well-reasoned piece–the Left will never understand it..besides, they are too busy trading in intelligence for boob jobs…

hillsoftx on March 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

For all of your FLOTUS Food related A to Z!

Obama Foodorama
The Blog Of Record About White House Food Initiatives, From Policy To Pie
*********

The public portion of the digital archive of record about Obama Administration food and nutrition initiatives with reporting and photographs from the White House by founding editor Eddie Gehman Kohan. Policy analysis; events and speeches; recipes, menus, historic food ephemera.

http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/

canopfor on March 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM

bayam on March 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You’re absurd. To pretend experimentation is not encouraged is just plain dishonest. Hmmm you and dishonesty…I am not surprised.

CW on March 4, 2012 at 8:08 PM

HotAir’s best writer does it again! Very well-constructed logic.

itsnotaboutme on March 4, 2012 at 8:09 PM

I just want my money for nuthin’ and my chicks for free.

davidk on March 4, 2012 at 8:14 PM

they are too busy trading in intelligence for boob jobs…

hillsoftx on March 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2010/10/28/taxpayers-buy-teachers-9-million-of-cosmetic-surgery/67154/

davidk on March 4, 2012 at 8:15 PM

they are too busy trading in intelligence for boob jobs…

hillsoftx on March 4, 2012 at 8:02 PM

http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/197295/70/Free-plastic-surgery-for-teachers-in-Buffalo-NY

davidk on March 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM

OT: FYI–word is going out at Ace’s to raise a glass in honor of Andrew Breitbart at 8pm Eastern/7 Central tonight. FYI

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 8:00 PM

ted c:Thank-you for the heads up,I just went over,and posted!:)

canopfor on March 4, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Since MS Fluck seems to think it the publics obligation to pay for her sexual appetite I feel it only FAIR, since I am having trouble finding womens with Ms Flucks apparent, easiness, that the public pay for my Hookers and while they are at it pay me enough to buy off Mrs. Concealkedkerrys objections to my use of same.
Since its a right and all!

ConcealedKerry on March 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Stupid argument since Moochelle is attempting to treat food the same way as sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Stupid? Project much?

Next time you might want to actually look at the argument before you insult the brilliant arguer.

itsnotaboutme on March 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM

I just want my money for nuthin’ and my chicks for free.

davidk on March 4, 2012 at 8:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwDDswGsJ60&feature=related

ConcealedKerry on March 4, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Key West Reader on March 4, 2012 at 8:01 PM

You!……..have a good sense of humor!

KOOLAID2 on March 4, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Some cultures treat eating like others treat sex, so why shouldn’t the government provide food in the same way they provide contraceptives?
I want free blood sausage, Slovenian sausage, and free bacon! Its only fair!!!!!!!

angrymike on March 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM

If everyone thinks about Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, it makes sense why the left treats sex the way they do. Leftists read his book and thought they were reading a how-to manual, not a parody of utopia. Sex is like the drug soma in the book. Hook everyone on sex and use it to pacify the masses while controlling their lives in every other way imaginable.

NotCoach on March 4, 2012 at 8:33 PM

the message for homosexual sex, oral sex, anal sex and all other kinds to to go at it full speed ahead.

How is it that liberals square this??

Is it that liberals cannot feast their eyes upon fat people? Is it that they want all of the pleasure, yet no consequence of sexual activity? Thus, prevent and terminate pregnancy and disease–sex for the sake of sex is what they are after. As long as they can knock boots and look skinny, then all is well, is that right?

ted c on March 4, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Yeah oral sex is a terrible thing.

/

antisense on March 4, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Canopfor
I got me a gold 1967 chevelle SS 427, black buckets, four speed with 4:11 gears
I think everyone should experience that one in there life, sucks Obie wants me to pay 5.00 plus for a car that gets 5 mpg. That’s not fair!!!!!!!

angrymike on March 4, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Stupid argument since Moochelle is attempting to treat food the same way as sex.

bgibbs1000 on March 4, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Moochelle promoting sex might be the most effective means of reducing it.

bw222 on March 4, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Good analogy, wrong conclusion.

keep the change on March 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Only if you live in some sort of delusional world in which conservatives are trying to regulate sex. The issue here is not about whether or not we should ban sex or access to it. The issue here is the lefts insistence on all of us paying for others promiscuous choices. Just like fatty foods, it is not our responsibility to promote or fund other people’s poor choices in life. Or conversely, to regulate.

Arguing that promiscuous behavior is undesirable is not synonymous with demanding regulations on promiscuous behavior. Just as telling people to avoid fatty foods should not be synonymous with regulating our diets.

NotCoach on March 4, 2012 at 8:44 PM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

The moral breakdown of society.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6486

kakypat on March 4, 2012 at 8:46 PM

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. [Libertarians] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world…”

~Rick Santorum

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM

How is he wrong? I know you guys love posting this quote all the time as some sort of smoking gun, but how is he wrong? Based on the totality of his comments I am pretty sure he does mean he wishes to see private behavior regulated, but that he wishes for these issues to be part of our public discourse. Just like talking about the bad habits that lead to heart disease, we talk about the bad social habits that lead to bad social outcomes.

NotCoach on March 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I think this article shows the far left and the religious right as being two sides of the same coin. Both are anti liberty and seek to control the day to day decisions people make. No one who truly wants limited gov’t should believe any of these things.

aniptofar on March 4, 2012 at 8:57 PM

This poor Republic is very very sick and is about to collapse under its own weight.

rplat on March 4, 2012 at 9:12 PM

good argument. I will play the nanny state devil advocate.
1) the nanny state believe that both eating and sex are intrinsic human necessities.
2) the nanny state tries to mitigate the worse behaviors in both practices. eating fat foods and unprotected sex. both are demonized by the nanny state.
3) the nanny state believes that they should help citizens that fall in the excesses of those activities, as such, heart diseases stds are covered in the nanny state health insurances.

If government treated obesity the way it treats sex, it would encourage schoolchildren to explore their enjoyment of Twinkies, Oreos, and moon pies

there is the argument that the government encourages sex. I dont think so. their belief is that kids will do sex anyway, and at least they want them to do sex the right way, this is , protected.

But we also know that not having sex prevents pregnancy and STDs with unparalleled effectiveness. We know, moreover, that disciplining our sex drives, keeping sex within marriage, welcoming the children that come from it, and raising them with a father and mother are substantially more effective in preventing STDs, “unwanted” children, poverty, delinquency, addiction, and hopelessness than are government programs to distribute condoms and subsidize abortion providers.

the thing is, ” keeping sex within marriage” would be an act of epic self discipline if people had other life plans, such has, having an degree and career before marrying. I might agree that sexual education should have more emphasis on abstinence, but also, make sure that kids know what to do if eventually they have sex.

ok, that is as far as I go trying to understand the nannystaters.

nathor on March 4, 2012 at 9:13 PM

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
- Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
-Thomas Jefferson

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
-Thomas Jefferson

Speakup on March 4, 2012 at 9:13 PM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

The moral breakdown of society.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6486

kakypat on March 4, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Wow, that’s good stuff, kakypat. Thanks for the link.

itsnotaboutme on March 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I know you guys love posting this quote all the time as some sort of smoking gun, but how is he wrong?

NotCoach on March 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Merely a difference in worldview, Dear Coach. Fiscally-Focused or Libertarian voters don’t appreciate being lectured by right (sex) or left (food), in election cycle conversations that are already dangerously off the rails i.e. not dealing with our debt, jobs, and the reduction of America’s credit-worthiness. In short, we are too bogged down in social issues.

Peace.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I’m slim and work out-and I think I’m entitled to a daily venti White chocolate mocha from Starbucks. Pay up, SUCKAS!
///

annoyinglittletwerp on March 4, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Gov’t subsidized Starbucks ??? ACCCKKKK !!

Please don’t give ‘em any ideas twerp ! LOL

cableguy615 on March 4, 2012 at 9:29 PM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

I am going out on a limb and assume that is a rhetorical .

cableguy615 on March 4, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 9:28 PM

There is difference between lectures or discussions and law or regulation. I don’t care if leftists want to lecture me on what I should eat, I can tune them out. I care when they start to regulate my consumption.

NotCoach on March 4, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I care when they start to regulate my consumption.

NotCoach on March 4, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Me too. I also care about Mr. Santorum’s stated belief that Government should not stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults. But oh well, my husband will vote for him; I won’t; so we’ll cancel each other out anyway. Cheers!
;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Wow, that’s good stuff, kakypat. Thanks for the link.

itsnotaboutme on March 4, 2012 at 9:21 PM

You’re very welcome, and thank you for reading! ;o)

kakypat on March 4, 2012 at 10:14 PM

It’s nice to see I have influence. I’ve commented on this exact thing many times. :)

Hey.. why don’t we have government subsidies for donuts! Lots of people out there eating donuts and would probably be eating more donuts than they do if they could afford to buy more! Where are their rights?!
How many people have gone up to the supermarket counter with a box of donuts and been told the price and suddenly “Felt powerless and had to turn away because they couldn’t afford it!” It’s not fair!

Oh I know.. Michelle would tell them to stop eating donuts because too many donuts are bad for you! You’ll get fat and we’re waging war on obesity! Heck.. we’ll even go after the store for selling you the freakin donuts! But free sex? Heck no.. nothing ever ever wrong with that! We’ll subsidize it! We should even pay for the motel room! Nothing ever can be bad about free sex with anyone and everyone anywhere at anytime! And whatever problems might arise, we have medications, therapy, divorce and this other thing called abortion.. so we can always fix it, mostly sort of.
But donuts?! You got a donut addiction? The Obama government will come down on your fat lazy rear end in a heartbeat if they could!

JellyToast on March 2, 2012 at 4:29 PM

JellyToast on March 4, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Tell you what. I’ll pay for your contraceptives if you’ll pay for my ammo. Deal?

dominigan on March 4, 2012 at 10:26 PM

JED -

Once again, you are on target. Thanks for taking the time to construct this excellent post.

materialist on March 4, 2012 at 10:36 PM

keep the change on March 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM

It’s half of the same conclusion. Neither activity should be regulated or subsidized by government. If the excess of government on one issue gets you to see how stupid it is on the other, then problem solved. Either way, this is insane.

Esthier on March 4, 2012 at 10:47 PM

It’s been a long and interesting discussion, with a lot of important points being made, but the bottom line is this:

It is making an arbitrary moral judgment, to insist that what causes obesity should be dealt with through coercion and the limiting of options, while what causes unwanted pregnancies and STDs should be the object of solicitude, and public programs based not on denial but on mitigation.

[...]

Ultimately, no discussion of these issues would be complete without the observation that if government – and the federal government in particular – wasn’t involved in them in the first place, it wouldn’t matter nearly as much when the people’s opinions and our moral perspectives on them differed.

(emphasis added)

The Left continually insists, stridently, that “you can’t legislate morality” all the while they do exactly that. However, at the root, all law codifies someone’s moral perspective at a given moment in time, and politics boils down to the struggle over whose perspective that will be.

and it would make it a basic human right to be able to eat whatever one wants and have the consequences mitigated by the public.

According to the Obama / Democratic Party agenda, it is a basic human right:
to destroy public and private property, and have the damages paid for by the community (OWS);
to drive ecologically-green cars, and have the bulk of the cost picked up by the taxpayers (Volt);
to extort outrageous benefits for unions, and have the company go out of business;
to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, and have them taken out by Israel;
to be able to make whatever economically unsound laws and regulations they want, and have the consequences mitigated by future generations.

As to the reasons why the Left condones unhealthy sexual behavior and condemns unhealthy eating habits, it’s not because they care about your cholesterol.

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?
darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

The moral breakdown of society.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6486*
kakypat on March 4, 2012 at 8:46 PM

If you ruin your health and life through bad eating, sure, your family may suffer along with you, and it may cost your insurance company some money,** but you haven’t destroyed the foundations of viable society.

To borrow from an old law professor, “Being fat is not a crime of moral turpitude.” And as such, it is not worth supporting in the same way as public-funded promiscuity.

The agenda, instead, is to make “sinful” things desirable, and desirable things a “sin”.

The phenomenon would then be merely natural. All the same, I should break it up if I were you. No natural phenomenon is really in our favor. And anyway, why should the creature be happy?
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE

*This very long article by Steve Forbes, Republican presidential contender in 2000, was written in 1997 and you may not agree with all his points, but his major premise is every bit as applicable today as it was then, and even more urgent.
**But remember that the policy buyers voluntarily signed up to share risks, and they knew ahead of time what would be covered.

AesopFan on March 4, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Seems like an easier case to make is what if government treated spending like it treats sex…

If spending a little is good, more is better. Let’s explore that some more, by spending more. There’s nothing wrong with spending yourself (and country) into the poor house… etc, etc…

drfredc on March 5, 2012 at 1:49 AM

eating – which can be a most enjoyable activity, and far less avoidable than sex

Ha! Just wait until you have 3 weeks to fit into that Size 6 dress for your neice’s wed–wha? You’re a man?

Oh.

Never mind.

~Emily Litella

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on March 4, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Actually Emily, the author of this article is a woman. There is even a link to her blog at the bottom.

jbholli74 on March 5, 2012 at 2:42 AM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Welfare babies that grow up to be welfare voters.

Slowburn on March 5, 2012 at 3:10 AM

It is important, instead, to create an environment conducive to sex unfettered by its natural consequences.

Yup. Libs are utterly unconcerned that homosexuality is unhealthy…even dangerous:

- Homosexuals have significantly lower life expectancy.

- They are far more likely to injure themselves or each other during sex.

- They are far more likely to spread STDs during sex.

- Their rates of domestic violence are significantly higher.

- They are far more likely than heterosexuals to become child molesters. (Less than 3% of the US population is homosexual, but nearly half of all molestations are homosexual)

But homosexuality must be celebrated & encouraged!

itsnotaboutme on March 5, 2012 at 6:06 AM

great piece JED

cmsinaz on March 5, 2012 at 6:58 AM

Re. “homosexuality is unhealthy…even dangerous,” if govt wants to offer things for free, this program would do far more good than condoms or contraception:

http://exodusinternational.org/

itsnotaboutme on March 5, 2012 at 7:45 AM

I love this post!!

I particularly love the mention of “nudging”. Oh that wonderful Cass Sunstein and his elitist idea of government. We all need to be “nudged” into what is best for us.

Our commissioner of education based our Race to the Top application on this theory of nudging. The EPA also enters into the nudging contest in education.

I’m weary of being nudged toward social justice, sexual information for my children I find morally reprehensible, federal educational mandates that are unconstitutional, unproven, untested and underfunded, and food police in public schools. Meanwhile, we wonder why public educated students are failing?

http://www.missourieducationwatchdog.com/2010/10/epas-not-so-benign-nudging-in.html

manateespirit on March 5, 2012 at 8:27 AM

The question is no longer “what if?”

The question is “when will it start?”

farsighted on March 5, 2012 at 8:36 AM

We’d all look like a horny Michael Moore. hmmm Other than the visual, that’s not a bad idea. After this free contraception stuff is settled, will we have to beg for sex if the govt sets regulations and standards?

Kissmygrits on March 5, 2012 at 10:21 AM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

darwin on March 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

See “1984 by George Orwell” for a detailed description of how the government can use sex as a tool of repression.

landlines on March 5, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I had better not hear ONE WORD from them about “Keep your hands off of my uterus” if they’re not willing to keep their hands off of my Quarter Pounder with Fries (super-sized, of course)….

Heck, I’ll go one better. I want my blood pressure medication subsidized. I am slightly overweight, granted, but I also have a family history of high blood pressure no matter how much I weigh. If I have to pay for these women who can’t control themselves to get abortions and contraceptives, then they have to pay for my blood pressure medication.

All’s fair, right?

crazy_legs on March 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM

What does the left gain by encouraging promiscuity?

Bread and circuses. Keep people focused on their own selfish desires and that keeps the focus away from what the government is actually doing.

crazy_legs on March 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

This occurred to me some time–maybe years–ago. Health has become the new morality, while PC trends act to strip morality from anything sexual. Ain’t gonna work, Uncle Fluking Sam; you’re fatter than anyone else!

Olo_Burrows on March 6, 2012 at 5:07 AM