"he singles out one American community for successfully encouraging their children to delay sex, avoid pregnancy, and use protection: college-educated "liberal elites." Of course, their kids are having sex too. They're just being smarter about it. So maybe economic security and a quality education are the best ways to improve teenagers' sexual health? Hmmm, I wonder what we can do to foster those qualities..."

Sure, but let's be honest here. The reason this works with "college educated liberal elites" (and conservative ones as well) is that they have grasped the necessity of delayed gratification (or, "being smarter about it," as you like to call it) in order to perform in an economy that provides no real safety net and is competitive to the point of nastiness in extremis.

"Education" and etc *by itself* doesn't do that. What does that is *felt necessity,* whether it's real necessity or just the careerist variant.

Even when partially confessing about the sins of evangelicals, Gerson is still a complete hack, it should be noted. The following quotes are from his WaPo piece:

"The facts also support a basic conservative belief: that it is difficult for teens to be moral alone. Wilcox argues that teen sexual behavior can be influenced -- that teenagers can be more than the sum of their hormones."

This is what's called "nonsense". The belief that it is easier to form value judgments in a community setting is pretty much an obvious fact of sociology, embraced by liberals (It takes a Village) and conservatives (It takes an angry paternal figure, like God or maybe Fred Thompson?), alike.

"Wilcox notes that American liberal elites often 'talk left and walk right, living disciplined lives and expecting their children to do the same, even when they hold liberal social views.'"

Shockingly enough, I am an quasi-atheistic flaming liberal who actually believes in leading a disciplined life and expecting others to do the same. Let me strongly suggest we do not in any way "walk right" if "right" is taken to be conservative, rather than its proper meaning in the quote as "correctly". You would think at the end of this column that Gerson might realize that the Left is not entirely composed of hedonistic depraved individuals, based on all the evidence he himself brought forward in the column, but he's not there yet. That said, what a frightfully narrow view of acting "right". My own child is still about a month away, but I sincerely hope that I have the decency and judgment to imbue in him/her the notion that acting morally is a vastly broader concept than simply not diddling one's classmates during high school.

Gerson makes for an interesting read on the WaPo Op-ed page. He can turn a phrase exceptionally well, even adding eloquence to Geo Bush's oratory at times. However, one line from the piece quoting a UVA sociologist bothers me: "Wilcox notes that American liberal elites often 'talk left and walk right, living disciplined lives and expecting their children to do the same, even when they hold liberal social views.'"

Why exactly is living a disciplined life at variance with holding liberal social views? That's a ridiculous statement.

"Why exactly is living a disciplined life at variance with holding liberal social views? That's a ridiculous statement."

Well, I think a point I would make, anyway, is that people attempt to hold their own children to certain standards, but when they speak generally they somehow determine that other people's children couldn't possibly meet those same standards.

He's attempting to say that liberals harbor assumptions about down scale people that they would never concede to actually having.

I think that's true.

He's attempting to say that liberals harbor assumptions about down scale people that they would never concede to actually having.

BS. If you must invoke the liberal caricature, it's that we're more willing to explicitly deal with such inevitable failures beforehand, rather than assuming an ideal world and then invoking fire and brimstone upon those who fall short afterwards. If people are fallible, you build it into policy, rather than pretend that we live in some bizarre utopia. It has nothing to do with upscale or downscale, just foresight.

"It has nothing to do with upscale or downscale, just foresight."

Oh, you are *so* wrong. I consider myself a liberal and there is *no way* I would ever want to tolerate the kind of behaviour in and around my kid that I see "liberals" advocating is "just a part of human nature." And I know *damn well* a lot of other "liberals" wouldn't tolerate it either-- if it's their precious baby.

You also make it sound like all kids uniformly want to be engaging said behavior. It's not true.

But if evangelical girls in Mississippi have become "easy," well, that something to be gleeful about!

*You people* invoke the "liberal caricatures." You do it everyday.

I come here special just to giggle over it!

Oh, you are *so* wrong. I consider myself a liberal

Bzzzzt! Sorry, that is incorrect, but thanks for playing.

there is *no way* I would ever want to tolerate the kind of behaviour in and around my kid that I see "liberals" advocating is "just a part of human nature." And I know *damn well* a lot of other "liberals" wouldn't tolerate it either-- if it's their precious baby.

Yeah, we're going to need to hear some examples of this advocacy. I know you conservative idiots like imagining what "liberals" do behind closed doors, but since all our nice blue states have far lower rates of things like divorce and teen pregnancy I pretty sure you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

wait a minute. i'm still hung up on the quote from gershon that teens pledge not to masturbate. they do this? and, um, why? is it because onan was smoted? or is all sexual pleasure evil? why do masturbation bans help kids? just asking...

I assume that one measure sociologists employ to measure the "intensity" of teen evangelicals is the number of times per week they attend church. While Gerson and others may want to interpret this as participation in a community of values, I would see it as simply being so busy that the poor horny kids are never alone with another such horny kid. This is a big part of my plan for delaying sex in my future teens - remove the opportunity.

"I pretty sure you don't have a clue what you are talking about."

Posted by: Col Bat Guano | July 27, 2007 02:50 PM

*You* have no idea what you're talking about, Colonel Batshit.

I live in Bergen County, NJ and I work in Manhattan. Now, keep your filthy wings off my baby. It really is that simple.

I live in Bergen County, NJ and I work in Manhattan.

Well, I'm sorry for that, but you're still an idiot. Hope your kids didn't get too much of your genetic material. "Simple" is a good term for you though.

Sure these fundies are mighty puritanical about sex, but liberals are the more deeply puritanical folks these days--not about sex of course--but about anything and everything else. They somehow feel guilty for taking up space on the planet (now expressed as having a carbon footprint), being a heterosexual male or female (which a few liberals actually are), being American (since America’s crimes are far worse than everyone elses’), even using the word "American" (since it might offend Bolivians, Hondurans, Canadians, etc.), having an American culture and language, being white (since that is synonymous with being an oppressor), not being solicitous enough of the oppressed and marginalized "Other," appearing not to feel guilty enough for all the sins committed by their government, their culture, their species throughout all time. Given this all-pervasive guilt and (secularized) sense of sinfulness, it's no wonder that liberals need sex as a safety valve. Moreover, the worst sin in the eyes of liberals is for someone to be a white, male, gentile, heterosexual and not feel at all guilty about it.

Looks like Anonymous has a competitor in Dimsum for lamest post in this comments section. Good work now back to one of those MRA sites you normally lurk at.