Thanks to the sheer number of bills proposed by Republican elected officials across the country, their convoluted justifications for those bills, their “misstatements” about those bills, and their ignorance about existing laws and medical reality, I think we can all agree that the primary focus of all of this is that they don’t want women to have intercourse. They especially don’t want poor, non-white, non-Christian women to have intercourse. And while they’re OK with well-off, white, Christian women having intercourse, they want them to have it only with their husbands and only for making babies – even these women are not allowed to (ooh, fetch me my smelling salts!) enjoy it.
The whole problem with this is that they’re focusing on the girls and women. Last time I checked, humans don’t reproduce by parthenogenesis, so there has to be a male participant in there somewhere. And if you think about it, this is where the problem lies. The female of the species does not have to be an active or willing participant in this process in order for it to occur, so these legislators are simply taking the wrong approach.
In fact, no matter where you look, from ancient history to today, not a single attempt to eliminate non-procreative sex by restrictions on women has had more than a marginal effect. This is due to the flawed perception that somehow women, by their sheer presence, render men slaves to uncontrollable desire. No matter how much boys are taught that girls are wretched and unclean, they still want to see them and touch them. No matter how much modest, concealing clothing you put on girls, boys still think about what’s underneath. No matter how much you keep girls’ and women’s mobility restricted, they sometimes have to leave the house – and a boy or man can find them there. Or, having no restrictions themselves, get in to wherever the women are confined. If the boys want to have sex with girls, they have the ability to do so with a willing or unwilling partner, and always seem to find a way.
Clearly, hiding the womenfolk and making them fully responsible for and ashamed of causing male arousal is just not cutting it. Giving women yet another burden, that of forced childbearing, as a “consequence for their actions,” won’t be any more successful. Women have an incredible number of deterrents against sexual intercourse as it is. We’re really doing our best, guys, but we need some cooperation here.
So my feeling is that a completely different approach is needed. It is boys and men who need to be the focus of curtailing the immoral practice of recreational sex. If they do not experience arousal in the first place, then intercourse simply will not take place! No more sex ed classes, no more birth control controversy, no more unplanned pregnancies, no more need for moral outrage directed at women! Problem solved!
Perhaps some of the money being taken away from organizations that are involved in women’s health and family planning could be diverted to researching a treatment that would eliminate male sexual arousal. Certainly, some of the money being spent on all those unneeded ultrasound machines in abortion clinics would help, since they would no longer be used. No religious organizations would be forced to cover contraception in their employees’ insurance policies, so I’m sure they’d gladly lend financial as well as moral support towards this research.
Imagine it – a world in which men would be capable of sexual arousal only when they and their legally married spouse decided it was an appropriate time for procreation! Not only would it solve all the problems our lawmakers are trying to legislate away, but some of the problems they themselves cause by engaging in non-procreative intercourse outside of marriage! No more adultery, because it wouldn’t be possible, and absolutely, positively, none of that yucky boy-on-boy buttsecks. EWWW!
I can’t think of a single reason why the folks who want women to stop having sex, stop using birth control, and stop having babies, would object to a plan like this. It’s incredibly sensible, and bound to work. Don’t you agree?