Well, if you don't have to worry about your children starving or being stoned for promiscuity; if bloodlines no longer matter and you don't have to worry about disease, gee. The only thing that would hold you back would be self-respect and THAT is something most Americans lost a long time ago thanks in big part to Hollywood. Say what they will they have helped to shape the morals of a nation. It's why the rest of world think of us as abominations. And the whole food is sexy thing? Yes, I suppose you can lust after food, starving people do. I suppose if something can be craved it can be described as sexy especially if the real word you're looking for is lust. I seriously doubt most people want to procreate with their food.

Reply

Very though-provoking, thanks for posting this article.

Reply

Interesting post. It seems likely that any kind of cultural revolution would eventually strike some kind of balance between indulgent and health-conscious. Just like the sexual revolution eventually embraced the responsibility that comes along with such freedom, so has the exploding food culture slowly incorporated such virtues as moderation and ethical farming practices- and hopefully passions tempered by greater awareness. Hopefully.

Reply

What rest of the world aside from ultra strict Islamic countries are you talking about?

Most of the people outside the US I speak to think of it as a place full of fat people, insane christians, and gun wielding cowboys.

Before you go yammering on about the sky that's falling, please look at the facts. Keep your misinformation to your bible study groups please.

Reply

B: What rest of the world are you talking about? Maybe you should read the article before commenting. Also, in addition to your incendiary remarks maybe you can offer some of the "facts" you speak of. Or you can just take your concern-trolling elsewhere.

Reply

I'm not sure that I agree with the article's thesis, that the morality of food is due to a lack of morality (or a shift into moral neutrality, to be specific) in sex. I think that's a bit of a leap; they've taken the concept that food and sex use similar descriptive terms, combined with some cultural shifts that seem to be happening at the same time, and use that happenstance as an indicator of causality. There are other possible explanations, none of which are explored by the author.

That being said, the article did make a fair point in contrasting views between generations, and showing their almost complete role reversal. The morality that surrounds food now does have some hints of some of the morality that has surrounded sex. That was thought-provoking, and made me reflect on my own attitudes - if I mapped my attitudes from one to another, would it seem ridiculous, and why?

I would also argue though that certain segments of society throughout history have had what the author talks about - access to all the food they could eat, and all the sex they could want. Aristocracies in Europe, various classes in the early Greek and Roman cultures all spring to mind. I'm surprised she didn't comment on that.

Reply

I agree with Brad, in that I don't agree with the statement "...it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the rules being drawn around food receive some force from the fact that people are uncomfortable with how far the sexual revolution has gone..."

Just because the changes in views are coincident in time doesn't mean that there is a causal link... doesn't mean that there isn't though, I just don't think the link was established.

I'd really think that we now moralise about food because we can afford to; it is relatively plentiful and cheap so we can be more to

Reply