Is it though?
The article specifically talks about people's lives being ruined by sites like this.
Plenty of feminists are anti-porn, and are not right wing nor "puritan" in the least.
The article specifically talks about people's lives being ruined by sites like this.
Plenty of feminists are anti-porn, and are not right wing nor "puritan" in the least.
We put up sets of idealistic moral standards that some or most of a society generally agree protects vulnerable people. This is why we have age limits on alcohol, for example. This is why we have age limits on porn, too.
Everyone is forced to comply or pretend to comply with minimum drinking ages, which are pretty common throughout the world. I think all would agree.
It doesn't really seem to be puritanism that drives a society to protect its vulnerable populations. It's not out of a hatred of alcohol that drinking ages exist, it's because alcohol abuse has been proven to ruin lives. Just like porn.
So if you're left-wing, than in your terminology puritans will be by definition right-wingers. And the people enforcing morals you agree with cannot be called Puritan.
If you take a brief look at the history of the original Puritanism however, it was definitely a 'revolutionary' movement against tradition. Including the ones who came to America.
That "everyone" must be old. The new phenomena are already lampooned in plenty of memes. The boomers aged pretty badly.
> It's not out of a hatred of alcohol that drinking ages exist, it's because alcohol abuse has been proven to ruin lives
If that were the case, alcohol would just be banned outright. The limits are basically virtual anyway, anybody can attest that getting alcohol is trivial once you start to really want it. Just like porn.
A lot of law is effectively performative morality, and no more so than in the area of personal pleasures. Prohibitionism always fails, eventually, because people want to feel.
The fact that the right wing is puritan doesn't mean that puritanism entails being right-wing. This is, like, Logic 101, 'Socrates is a man'-level shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters#/media/File...
I'm a Quaker. Early Quakers were radical (rejecting the religious authority of priests and the fighting of wars), conservative (looking backwards to a partially-imagined better, more wholesome Christianity of the past), obnoxious (turning up to Anglican churches to heckle the sermon), and disciplined (strong structures in place for the support of families of those imprisoned for their faith, and a communal discernment process that rejected 'do as thou wilt').
Puritans rejected catholic influence on the church, yes, but their focus on individual piety, and their association with the rising merchant class, puts them a long way from freaky liberalism. One of their critiques was that others were insufficiently sober and God-fearing!
In either century, the right represents old moral values, and the left represents a fresh new source of moral values which seek to replace the old. Granted, in the 17th century those new moral sources were religious and in the 21st century they are secular - the substance of what is now left and what was then left has absolutely changed. But the overall structure is the same.
That's kind of the whole point of the original article, narrated by a guy who _ actually feels guilty_ about his role in enabling people like your hypothetical frat boy.