Foreskin Man Fights Circumcision and Jews' Blood Sacrifice of Non-Jew Children

[Perd Hapley]

What I mean is: haven't attitudes towards sexuality become more liberal (in the dictionary sense) in today's culture over the last 100 years or so? Was it not, in part, through the efforts of people opposed to the Victorian worldview?

I suppose, but are we going to judge a culture's joyness* on that alone?

Also, it's always amusing when the sexual antinomians of our day (or at least Lanius) mock the errors of Victorian prudishness, as if our current sexual ethics were somehow superior.

*Joyness is a real word, you know. It's on the internetses.

[MicroBalrog]

Also, it's always amusing when the sexual antinomians of our day (or at least Lanius) mock the errors of Victorian prudishness, as if our current sexual ethics were somehow superior.

Are you implying we are inferior to the Victorians? Or that all sexual ethics are equally valid?

[Perd Hapley]

Are you implying we are inferior to the Victorians? Or that all sexual ethics are equally valid?

Inferior, in terms of sexual ethics? I'm not sure, but probably. I would have to know more about the Victorian era.

I'm saying there is a tendency to throw out babies with their bathwater. That is, when redressing the sins of the past, we tend to over-correct. So while it is good that we are not as uptight as the Victorians, we have clearly gone much too far in the opposite direction.

[MicroBalrog]

Ah well. I guess we should just agree to disagree here.

[roo_ster]

Ah well. I guess we should just agree to disagree here.

Well, it is of particular interest to me, as my tax dollars pay for the results of contemporary sexual mores as expressed by illegitimate births, to name just one effect.

If we were to quantify the costs of illegitimacy (one result of contemporary sexual mores), I think that the stodgy ol' Victorians would come out on top, as it were.  (Costs could be sifted into tax dollars, crime rates due to bastardy, etc., so as to make them comparable.)

On the other side of the ledger we could look at, say, incarceration of sexual deviants and other metrics where an ethos of sexual continence may not have such positive outcomes.

[MicroBalrog]

If we were to quantify the costs of illegitimacy (one result of contemporary sexual mores), I think that the stodgy ol' Victorians would come out on top, as it were.  (Costs could be sifted into tax dollars, crime rates due to bastardy, etc., so as to make them comparable.)

Problems:

1. Account for the effects of the welfare state.

2. Account for the effects of American vs. European culture (European so-called 'illegitimacy' rates are lower).

Such an economic calculation would never hold water because of the myriads of items it needs to account for, forgetting even its immorality. (To how many dollars would you equate the cost of one man imprisoned for ten years? Twenty? What about the losses in freedom to those not imprisoned, do they have a cost?)

[Jamisjockey]

Well, it is of particular interest to me, as my tax dollars pay for the results of contemporary sexual mores as expressed by illegitimate births, to name just one effect.

If we were to quantify the costs of illegitimacy (one result of contemporary sexual mores), I think that the stodgy ol' Victorians would come out on top, as it were.  (Costs could be sifted into tax dollars, crime rates due to bastardy, etc., so as to make them comparable.)

On the other side of the ledger we could look at, say, incarceration of sexual deviants and other metrics where an ethos of sexual continence may not have such positive outcomes.

Red herring. Not intentionally, but still.
Uncared for bastard children has been encouraged by the welfare state.  In some circles, having children out of wedlock is nothing more than a means to an end, a way of recieving more benefits from the state.  In the Victorian era, if you had children, you had to find a way to feed them.
Without welfare, we'd have way fewer out of wedlock children. And most of those would be to single parents who had means to care for them on their own.

[Boomhauer]

Uncared for bastard children has been encouraged by the welfare state.  In some circles, having children out of wedlock is nothing more than a means to an end, a way of recieving more benefits from the state

It's also a point of pride in certain circles to be a "Baby Daddy" or a "Baby Momma". As in I've heard about high school girls trying to intentionally get pregnant for the "status". Totally *expletive deleted*ed up.

Without welfare, we'd have way fewer out of wedlock children

Quite possibly yes. We'd certainly see being a "parent" (I use the term very loosely for this type of trash) stop being a status symbol when it costs said parent their own money to care for the kid.