Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Environment

Supermodels Take It Off for Climate Change--Huh??

I don't get this video where supermodels disrobe to protest global warming.  Seems to me the message is exactly backward: shouldn't we cheer global warming if it makes supermodels disrobe??

Then there's this: Miss Earth 2009 Contest.  Glenn Reynolds thinks their bikinis should be smaller.  Surely these efforts are both arguments for more global warming.  Say "No" to excessive packaging indeed! 
Categories > Environment

Discussions - 24 Comments

Only Noah While's recent add the the Wildlife Federation and the extinction of polar bears tops this. If it comes from the vast majority of HOLLYWOOD high probability that huge amount of ignorance is involved, exceeds their arrogance in trying to "factually" trying to tell us how we should live our lives. They are just a bunch of lemming following each other out to see.

Well in California where all the women are models and everyone is libertine(or so the myth goes) the idea is not as likely to work. In other states saying no to excessive packaging might get folks to do something... In fact Saudi Arabia might stop exporting oil just to repackage women! This is clearly a case where supermodels are thinking global...

I wonder if any of the regular "traditional family values" bloggers here at NLT cringe when Steven makes posts like this - it's not his first mention of such things - he was celebrating the anniversary of the bikini a while back, too.

It's like an MTV Spring Break party in the lobby of the Heritage Foundation - and it's very, very awkward.

I'm always surprised by how easily the self-proclaimed defenders of family values throw sexism into their mix. If getting the models lose their clothes is a right-wing goal to start with, why bother with the whole "family-first" rhetoric...?

Craig and George: I am shocked! Shocked and appalled! There . . . now you can settle back down into your willful misunderstanding of conservatives, the nature of men and women, and your general humorless posture and all will be right in your synthetic world.

Julie: Getting "shocked and appalled" over a brief statement of mild disgust doesn't deem your own "posture" anything but "humorless".

All I implied was a slight discrepancy I detect between praising family values and making cracks about how swell it would be to see less and less clothes on models.

Mind you: I'm not objecting either to the former (family values), or the latter (humor) -- I'm merely pointing out that mixed together they make a strange pair and are possibly indicating some internal ideological rupture no right-winger would like to admit.

Nevermind, George . . . the entire point was lost on you. You don't even seem to know what sarcasm is . . . nor do you seem to know where it was directed. Which is, I guess, rather the point.

But let me ask you . . . why do you think it is that conservatives argue for decency and morality (I never use the term "family values"--which is a stupid term and a concession to the left that all is relative)? Don't you think it might have something to do with a recognition that we have about the natural tendency people have toward the indecent? If you can't recognize that or, have an ironic sense of humor about it, you will (of course) miss the point. Too bad.

Julie, I didn't really think you'd be "shocked and appalled" by this sort of blog post, but I did wonder what some of you might think about a married man (with kids, IIRC), a self-proclaimed conservative, cheering for disrobing supermodels - even if only in jest (??). I'd love to hear a detailed elaboration of your thoughts on the matter.

In all honesty, I was wondering even more what Mr. Knippenberg and Mr. Lawler made of it. They somewhat regularly refer to the coarsening of our culture, and that includes bemoaning "immodest" swimwear and the oversexualization of everything, making contemporary society so very un-erotic, to paraphrase at least one blogger here... The fact is that I don't necessarily disagree with SOME of those critiques, but of course, many I do. Still, it's not my blog. It's a blog of conservatives. A place where one might read what conservatives think.

Okay, fine, dispense with the "family values" phrase. I'm not married to it (although I confess to the occasional casual encounter - haha). So, what sorts of thoughts run through your mind when one of your own (a fellow married conservative) makes a casual reference to cheering on the disrobing of supermodels?

Is it funny? Is it indecent? Should conservatives embrace such things, or make light of them, or avoid them? Just wondered. I don't pretend to really understand what's going on here; it's certainly not "willful" - here's your chance, help a non-conservative to understand. Or you can carry on with your sarcasm (which must be utilized carefully in informal online writing) and how I live in a "synthetic world" and suchlike.

The thought that occurs to me, Craig is that it is natural for men to enjoy seeing a scantily clad and attractive woman. Is that a revelation to you? Is it something to bemoan or deny? It is a fair enough point that it is something to be mindful and careful about, but you are likely to call that "blaming the victim." So, in order not to do that, your side of the argument too often cheers on such disrobing as empowering to women (wink, wink?) and, therefore, suggests that it is alright to be indiscriminate about it and about all talk of it, and--in essence--you reduce sexuality to a "natural" phenomenon that is equal in its level of dignity to an indelicate bodily function.

But, seriously, is your picture of conservatives really so cartoonish as to imagine that we are all sitting around purse-lipped and fretting over the natural order of things and that we are trying to suppress sexuality wherever we can find it lurking? Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible that conservatives actually enjoy human sexuality and can, in fact, enjoy it better than those who miss all of its mystery and nuance? When I am forced to explain this little bit of sexual humor to you, I cannot help but think it MUST be the case. You make my head hurt.

Steve's point is a solid one--even if he is slightly naughty to notice it. At least we know he isn't dead. How would the "activities" of these erstwhile enviros encourage men to hasten efforts they believe will stop global warming? This is just like its sister assumption that "living together" will encourage a man to propose . . . But perhaps these supermodels are keen to perpetuate negative stereotypes about their intellectual capacities.

Julie,

I'm far from denying anyone the pleasure of injecting a little humor into a political debate; be it even a crass sexual innuendo. But it so happens that one's sense of humor has the uncanny capacity of revealing one's hidden preconceptions about world in general. And so:

(1) I will not contend your notion that "it is natural for men to enjoy seeing a scantily clad and attractive woman" -- so far as you're referring to straight men. It is equally natural for lesbians to enjoy seeing a scantily clad and attractive women. Just like the sight of a scantily clad and attractive guy would be enjoyable for a straight woman or a gay man. Somehow I cannot see this variety of human sexuality entering your world of "alive men", "slight naughtiness", "decency" and "indecency". Or maybe I'm wrong, and that's exactly what you meant by mentioning sex's "mystery and nuance".

(2) Something tells me that you would react differently to an *identical* joke, had it been cracked by a lesbian writer. Call me crazy in my assumptions, but instead of praising her for not being "dead", you and other conservatives would probably accuse her of pushing the (ever-elusive) "homosexual agenda".

(3) I'm as ready to admit as anyone that the anti-Global Warming ad campaign Steve quoted was silly and crass (at least in its concept -- I never saw any actual photos). The only thing I object to is the all knowing, self-righteous wink that assumes that every reader has the same point of reference in his mind, and that no matter how dear are the family matters to anyone's heart, what' s life's real pleasure is a nice Playboy centerfold.

"The thought that occurs to me, Craig is that it is natural for men to enjoy seeing a scantily clad and attractive woman. Is that a revelation to you? Is it something to bemoan or deny?"

- No, and no - certainly not!

"It is a fair enough point that it is something to be mindful and careful about, but you are likely to call that "blaming the victim.""

I don't get that remark. I'm guessing that's a reference to our previous discussion here:

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2006/04/the-missing-pieces-of-the-duke-drama.php

where, interestingly, you also said "As for banning stripping, why not?" and seemed to endorse single-sex dorms (for college students - people who are old enough to go to war and die in battle!). In any case, I don't see how the issue of "blaming the victim" applies here, as we're not talking about anything like rape (either "forcible" or "date" rape - a distinction you tried to make).

"So, in order not to do that, your side of the argument too often cheers on such disrobing as empowering to women (wink, wink?)"

My side has at least as many feminist anti-porn crusaders as it does pro-nudity, pro-stripping, and pro-porn feminists - and many varieties in between. I'm highly skeptical of the empowerment arguments, but do think that free women (and men) ought to be free to disrobe, with appropriate protections available to them to make the potential for various exploitations as minimal as humanly possible (yes, I believe in trying, even if we are flawed humans and all that).

"But, seriously, is your picture of conservatives really so cartoonish as to imagine that we are all sitting around purse-lipped and fretting over the natural order of things and that we are trying to suppress sexuality wherever we can find it lurking? Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible that conservatives actually enjoy human sexuality and can, in fact, enjoy it better than those who miss all of its mystery and nuance?"

No, I don't think you're "all" as prudish as that. Probably not even most of you - at least in your actual BEHAVIOR. But your words and your deeds might diverge widely. One look at teen birth rates in conservative regions of the country (e.g. where abstinence-only "sex ed" programs were most popular in public schools) and at the long list of self-proclaimed conservative Republican pols involved in various sex scandals (and here I'm only referring to the consensual sex acts, not the crimes, which is still another long list), tells me that despite so much moral grandstanding (see the "preserving the sanctity of marriage" trope), conservatives are having at least as much sex as anyone else. And let's not forget the Quiverfull movement, the conservative Christians committed to outbreeding the enemy, and making/keeping America a "Christian nation."
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2007/01/megareligious-bizarre-hyperbreeding.php#comment-34852
Former Miss Cali. Carrie Prejean is also apparently a sexual creature, too. No, none of this surprises me.

"At least we know he [Steve] isn't dead" - um, why would I think so? Is a (straight) man required to note his appreciation for women in bikinis periodically to make it clear to others that he's alive? [Yes, Julie, I know you didn't mean literally dead, but what did that mean?] I didn't think all of the coverage that the "liberal media" has been giving him and his books and his "research" on climate was being given to a dead man, or even one who had no libido. Although to be honest, I'd never really cared what the state of his libido was.

You're against co-ed dorms at colleges, are fine with banning stripping for adults who can go to war, and Mr. Knippenberg obviously takes issue with "eroto-capitalism" (and make no mistake, even these cause-related bikini events promote exactly that, regardless of how one feels of either phenomenon)
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/06/the-sex-vote.php#comment-61952

so, I had to wonder, how does one feel as an opponent of the oversexualization of culture, as one who protects their daughters' innocence from this, and from immodest clothing, when fellow (married with children) conservative bloggers (Instapundit has a daughter too, but it's probably not fair to consider him a social conservative) cheer on disrobing supermodels and say that "their bikinis should be smaller"?

So, I wonder, what would Carrie Prejean think, what would Joe Knippenberg think? I'm still not entirely clear on what Julie Ponzi thinks.

Lastly, what makes these bikini-clad global warming protestors "erstwhile enviros"? Did they used to be legit (in your view) but are no longer?

George, you ignorant slut.

Heterosexuality is natural and has the pro-social tendency to 1) replicate the species, and 2) glue together society (via gender interdependency). Male homosexuality is also probably natural in the same way that bubonic plague is natural...it happens naturally, but you don't want to encourage it. I'm not convinced that lesbianism is "natural" -- I've found it so often overtly political that I think lesbians are making a "statement" more than expressing a natural tendency.

The conservative point of view on all of this is relatively simple -- sexuality is probably the most powerful human appetite and its potential to benefit us is equaled by its potential to devastate our personal lives and ultimately our societies. Any society that does not seek to channel it in pro-social ways is doomed.

Now, George, you may return to being benighted.

Redwald,

(1) A gay couple is incapable of reproducing (so is a sterile straight couple, btw). Whether that makes them inherently unable of parenting, I strongly doubt: but I don't even want to start off *this* discussion here, because I'd have been eaten alive.

(2) The part of your statement I find easier to contend here is the "pro-social" bit. Is "gender interdependency" the only means of "gluing together [a] society"...? According to you, a homosexual citizen is devoid of any means that could make him/her an active member of his/her society. What about joining groups, political associations, making friendships, taking part in community life, worship, and *so many other* forms of social activity...? Are homosexuals incapable of doing all that? Or would you rather see them *excluded* from all that...? Boy, that would be one piece of anti-social attitude...!

(3) I'm amused by your fine distinction between male and female homosexuality. It reminds me of guys who don't mind watching videos with two females kissing and go haywire the second they see a similar video of two guys doing the same thing. Obviously, your message is that the girls are just "pretending", while the guys are struck by a serious disease. Why don't we switch those up...? It would make for an equally deranged crank theory.

(4) I'd like to hear how one "encourages" homosexuality (probably the same way one encourages left-handedness, or color-blindness, or perfect pitch, or any other inborn inclination).

(5) I agree that one of society's tasks is channeling sexual impulses -- but I don't quite understand how that translates into branding homosexuality a "bubonic plague". Shouldn't we focus on recognizing the dangers of infidelity, promiscuity, VD...? These are the problems that stem from sexual excess: are you suggesting that being gay means being heterosexual, only "more so"; "dangerously so"...?

I submitted a comment several hours ago, but it still hasn't been posted (I suspect it needed "approval" because it contained 3 or 4 url links), but I'm going to post the same comment, sans links, just in case there's a problem, and before the thread gets any older.

I appreciate George's comments, as well, noting the presumptuously heteronormative qualities of the post and follow-up NLTer comments:

====

"The thought that occurs to me, Craig is that it is natural for men to enjoy seeing a scantily clad and attractive woman. Is that a revelation to you? Is it something to bemoan or deny?"

- No, and no - certainly not!

"It is a fair enough point that it is something to be mindful and careful about, but you are likely to call that "blaming the victim.""

I don't get that remark. I'm guessing that's a reference to our previous discussion here:

(link)

where, interestingly, you also said "As for banning stripping, why not?" and seemed to endorse single-sex dorms (for college students - people who are old enough to go to war and die in battle!). In any case, I don't see how the issue of "blaming the victim" applies here, as we're not talking about anything like rape (either "forcible" or "date" rape - a distinction you tried to make).

"So, in order not to do that, your side of the argument too often cheers on such disrobing as empowering to women (wink, wink?)"

My side has at least as many feminist anti-porn crusaders as it does pro-nudity, pro-stripping, and pro-porn feminists - and many varieties in between. I'm highly skeptical of the empowerment arguments, but do think that free women (and men) ought to be free to disrobe, with appropriate protections available to them to make the potential for various exploitations as minimal as humanly possible (yes, I believe in trying, even if we are flawed humans and all that).

"But, seriously, is your picture of conservatives really so cartoonish as to imagine that we are all sitting around purse-lipped and fretting over the natural order of things and that we are trying to suppress sexuality wherever we can find it lurking? Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible that conservatives actually enjoy human sexuality and can, in fact, enjoy it better than those who miss all of its mystery and nuance?"

No, I don't think you're "all" as prudish as that. Probably not even most of you - at least in your actual BEHAVIOR. But your words and your deeds might diverge widely. One look at teen birth rates in conservative regions of the country (e.g. where abstinence-only "sex ed" programs were most popular in public schools) and at the long list of self-proclaimed conservative Republican pols involved in various sex scandals (and here I'm only referring to the consensual sex acts, not the crimes, which is still another long list), tells me that despite so much moral grandstanding (see the "preserving the sanctity of marriage" trope), conservatives are having at least as much sex as anyone else. And let's not forget the Quiverfull movement, the conservative Christians committed to outbreeding the enemy, and making/keeping America a "Christian nation."
(link)
Former Miss Cali. Carrie Prejean is also apparently a sexual creature, too. No, none of this surprises me.

"At least we know he [Steve] isn't dead" - um, why would I think so? Is a (straight) man required to note his appreciation for women in bikinis periodically to make it clear to others that he's alive? [Yes, Julie, I know you didn't mean literally dead, but what did that mean?] I didn't think all of the coverage that the "liberal media" has been giving him and his books and his "research" on climate was being given to a dead man, or even one who had no libido. Although to be honest, I'd never really cared what the state of his libido was.

You're against co-ed dorms at colleges, are fine with banning stripping for adults who can go to war, and Mr. Knippenberg obviously takes issue with "eroto-capitalism" (and make no mistake, even these cause-related bikini events promote exactly that, regardless of how one feels of either phenomenon)
(link)

so, I had to wonder, how does one feel as an opponent of the oversexualization of culture, as one who protects their daughters' innocence from this, and from immodest clothing, when fellow (married with children) conservative bloggers (Instapundit has a daughter too, but it's probably not fair to consider him a social conservative) cheer on disrobing supermodels and say that "their bikinis should be smaller"?

So, I wonder, what would Carrie Prejean think, what would Joe Knippenberg think? I'm still not entirely clear on what Julie Ponzi thinks.

Lastly, what makes these bikini-clad global warming protestors "erstwhile enviros"? Did they used to be legit (in your view) but are no longer?

How can two members of the same species have contradictory traits that are both natural?

Great thread, laughs all around. I realize most of it was sarcasim, but I think you give the modern conservative to much credit for upholding some sort of puratanical value system. Morals are for the little people, or at least the ones smaller than I.


"presumptuously heteronormative" I think that phrase made my day.

Brutus:

"How can two members of the same species have contradictory traits that are both natural?"

Well, come to think of it, how can two members of the same species have two different skin colors that are both natural...?

Two words for you: NATURAL DIVERSITY (I bet this phrase will make your day, too).

Well, come to think of it, how can two members of the same species have two different skin colors that are both natural...? They have different DNA, is there DNA that determines sexual attraction? If there is, I have not heard of it and I would think it would be considered a grand find sort of thing. Your phrase just sounds like double think and did not make my day.

George, let's try to stay on-topic. First, all those other forms of pro-social behavior don't involve the social regulation of sexuality, now do they? There is nothing in the social proscription of homosexuality that precludes people from joining the Moose Lodge!

The divide between men and women is fundamental...more fundamental even that race, language, or age. It is essential for society to regulate it and ease the melding of the two genders into a common unit. That's what marriage does -- it makes two biologically-unrelated people a "family," thereby accomplishing the things I laid out above. Gay "marriage" is just a sham by comparison, achieving nothing social at all.

You encourage it by recognizing that it is "normal" and worthy of social support (e.g., economic benefits, marriage, inheritance, etc.). Even you should be able to understand this.

And of course people like you (who advocate gay rights) always respond with "what harm can it do?" Well, marriage is already a fragile institution, and this simply cheapens it (reducing it from a desirable social convention to a form of self-fulfillment). Moreover, it ultimately opens the door to a variety of other behaviors (e.g., polygamy, group marriage, contract marriage) that will undoubtedly prove anti-social.

"George, let's try to stay on-topic."

So, Redwald, the topics were supermodels and climate change, and you just spent 4 paragraphs arguing with George about gay marriage. How did you bring us back to the topics at hand again?

Oh Craig, you got me. What rapier wit...what fecund observation!

Blog threads evolve, sir. Perhaps if you spent more time making substantive comments and less time sniping you'd "get it." Indeed, the post is about global warming...'twas you who brought up "family values," which turned into the topic I was trying to stay on.

Now, go be benighted with your buddy George.

Redwald, it wasn't that hard to get you, as you contradicted yourself quite nicely within one single comment.

But I understand your approach to things now. When other change or adjust the direction of the thread topic, they're going "off-topic" but when you do that, the thread is "evolving." Pretty convenient. A small correction, though, the original post was about climate change AND supermodels in bikinis, and calls for them to wear even less, so the family values discussion was pertinent, given the histories of the bloggers here.

Also, what's with your fetish for the word "benighted"? Did you hear Limbaugh use it or what?

Redwald, it wasn't that hard to get you, as you contradicted yourself quite nicely within one single comment.

But I understand your approach to things now. When other change or adjust the direction of the thread topic, they're going "off-topic" but when you do that, the thread is "evolving." Pretty convenient. A small correction, though, the original post was about climate change AND supermodels in bikinis, and calls for them to wear even less, so the family values discussion was pertinent, given the histories of the bloggers here.

Also, what's with your fetish for the word "benighted"? Did you hear Limbaugh use it or what?

Hey, at least I don't stutter!

I like "benighted" because it describes what you are...in the dark, hopelessly lost, and aggressively, willfully ignorant.

Craig, why are you even on this blog? What perverse psychological needs are you satisfying by sniping at your betters? If you really want to do the polity a service, go over to some loony-left blog and "center" them a bit.

"loony-left blog"

I thought that was what this blog is.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14570