For the Narcissist Lover in You…

Logical Conclusions…

OK, just following the logic to its inevitable conclusion:  If sex is such an essential ingredient to women’s health that contraceptives should be provided by law, how long before the government starts providing actual sexual partners to those who cannot find them on their own?

Seriously, if free sex is a right that must be provided by law, what about those poor, awkward, less-than-attractive people for whom free contraceptives would be merely a cruel joke, rather like providing ice cube trays to someone stranded in the Mojave desert.  I predict a time when young men and women will be pressed to join a sort of Federal Sex Corp, dutifully servicing those less fortunate on behalf of the government.  Volunteers?  Call it a physical tax– you must have government mandated sex with one ugly person for every three-to-four attractive people of your choosing.

After all, hookers cost even more than contraception.


11 responses

  1. Rick

    Bit of a Stretch Geo… contraceptive medicine is many things to different women. Not just about sex.
    Just saying.

    March 1, 2012 at 7:16 pm

  2. JZ

    This may actually be the shortest entry (rant?) you’ve ever posted. A brief summary on the logical processes used in modern-day legislative processes, I suppose.

    Also, hookers cost more than contraceptives in order to cover the medical bills after various…erm, conditions have developed.

    March 1, 2012 at 7:51 pm

  3. Thanks for commenting, Rick. I am being a bit absurd, you’re right, but I do want to be enlightened. I am (I admit with some shame) mystified about what contraception could possibly mean to a woman apart from preventing pregnancy. Besides allowing sex without pregnancy (not a necessity to life, despite how I felt when I myself was in college– although my experience does actually provide proof of the premise) what essential health benefit does a woman get from contraceptive medicine? I asked my wife and she doesn’t know either. Please, someone, what am I missing?

    March 1, 2012 at 8:00 pm

  4. Anthony

    For some very thankful women, it does help to regulate their menstrual cycle … but that shouldn’t be considered contraception; it just happens to be a condition that can be treated by contraception.

    That said, I don’t support this legislation. It’s stupid on it’s face … <—– that said, I'm not surprised the government is pushing it.

    March 1, 2012 at 9:36 pm

  5. Deborah

    First of all, if people are for the separation of church and state, then the state should not be mandating to the church what they MUST provide. Isn’t that what Planned Parenthood is for? Additionally, birth control is CHEAP. I have sisters and nieces who go to Planned Parenthood for free and/or cheap birth control. It’s odd to me that they can afford I phones and texting plans etc. Sex involves prioritization and decision making. I think if you have to work to provide your own birth control, you’ll be less likely to skip taking it. You’ll also be more prone to choosing your encounters carefully. The lie of modern day thought is that sex is free of consequences, emotional ties, and any inconvenience at all. If someone is old enough and mature enough to have sex, then they should be responsible enough to earn the money to pay for their birth control! If, for example, they can’t put their dishes in the dishwasher or get their dirty clothes from the floor, or make payment for birth control a priority and forgo the iphone payment or super size meal at McDonald’s then they shouldn’t be having sex. I’m just sayin….
    By the way, the Catholic church does sanction HRT for women with irregular or immoderate menstrual cycles. (and ODDLY they also pay for Viagra :)….
    Should Viagra be free?

    March 1, 2012 at 10:25 pm

  6. Hester

    In the end, mandating that oral contraceptives (or any drug) be covered by the drug plans of ALL insurance programs will mean higher premiums for us all.

    And I don’t wish to pay for someone’s recreational sex. They can do that (if they so choose), on their own nickel. Or get it free from Planned Parenthood.

    I am not sure why oral contraceptives were specifically chosen. Was it to challenge religious institutions in general and the Catholic Church in particular?

    I would think a mandate to cover medications for hypertension would be much more appropriate. People with high blood pressure actually REQUIRE that medication. Young women with menstrual irregularities are inconvenienced at best and their issues usually resolve in time so that argument, while valid, is somewhat weak.

    These Catholic institutions, like any other business, can choose what they cover in their insurance plans… but I believe that many of the Catholic entities are self-insured so they decide what they offer. If, in fact, they do cover Viagra (and I have no proof… but certainly no doubt…that they might) it is most likely because the result of it usage is necessary for procreation… which is the only reason for sex as far as the Church is concerned.

    March 1, 2012 at 11:05 pm

  7. Zixi

    I have no idea what contraception adds to a woman’s health. Indeed, I always assumed a woman was healthier without sex. However, I’m still struggling with the idea that it could cost $3,000/year. That would make oral contraceptives frighteningly close to $300 a month, which I’m sure they’re not; while $3,000 worth of condoms is a mind-boggling thought. When would a woman have time for law school–or anything else, for that matter? Call me hopelessly old-fashioned, but if I were a parent paying $35,000/year for college, I’d be seriously tempted to make a one-time investment in a chastity belt, ensuring that my daughter would have plenty of time and energy to devote to her studies.

    March 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm

  8. I am delighted and gratified that the voices speaking the most loudly about this (at least in this conversation) are women.

    No offense to Anthony. He’s as manly as manly gets. Rick, too. I wouldn’t arm-wrestle either of you.

    March 2, 2012 at 1:57 am

  9. I don’t think this is over the top at all, great insight!

    March 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm

  10. Reblogged this on Vibrant Bliss and commented:
    Witty little point about Obama’s plans.

    March 15, 2012 at 5:23 pm

  11. Dan

    Two questions, your friend who is gay, that now cant give her mum grand kids because she has had one ovary removed, at the age of 32, did she not realise 1, that some woman do have menopause at that age naturally? 2. If she is gay, how does she intend to have children? last time I checked two woman cant physically have a baby together.

    November 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s