When I read this story in USA Today, I thought I’d lost five months out of my life. Surely this is better suited to April Fools’ Day:
The federal government’s “no sex without marriage” message isn’t just for kids anymore.
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
Wow. Now that’s what I call a brilliant way to spend $50 million of taxpayer money… and my goodness, look at this startling information:
The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.
Only 90%???? I’m stunned.
So — these folks think the best solution to unmarried adults having children is to provide federal funding to encourage abstinence. For some bizarre reason, information on contraception is just too… what? Slow? Secular? Intelligent?
Since I just don’t think abstinence is likely in adults, Polimom thought perhaps the government might consider a couple of alternatives:
For instance — we could just raise the age of consent to 30. I realize there might be a bit of confusion about things like voting, drinking, or driving, but hey… if they’re fooling around without a spouse, they deserve to go to jail!
Or as an alternative (since eventually the GOP will surely catch on to American irritation with this government-in-your-bedroom tendency of late) — perhaps we could just re-institute that time-honored tradition of blood-stained bridal sheets on the morning after. Gotta be sure to have the neighbors standing by ready to stone the sinners if the sheats aren’t stained, though. (Yes, it’ll have to be both of them. Sorry… )
And then there’s the arranged marriage approach — my personal favorite. Since marriage is the Holy Grail, and all problems are solved thereby, I think we should make it a law that everybody must be married as soon as they finish high school. Simultaneously (since the root of so many of our problems is the breakdown of the family), let’s make divorce illegal.
Ahem.
Then again, the government could just go ahead and admit that contraception might not be the worst possibility. Or no…. wait… that’s a bad thing.
* * * * *
Attywood, The Carpetbagger Report, and Your Right Hand Thief have some thoughts on this, too.
Myself, I can’t imagine how anybody can make sense of this, regardless of political affiliation.
With a 12% margin of error, of course 😉
Seriously, I think the reason for this can be found in the reluctance of the government (or at least some folks in it) to implement policies that tend to be seen as ‘encouraging’ bad behavior. If you hand out info on contraception to teenagers and unmarried adults, it is seen as an official approval for unmarital sex. Likewise, the needle-exchange programs are seen in some circles as ‘endorsing’ entravenous drug abuse – which is a felony offense in pretty much every state in the Union. Again, on one hand the gummint is prosecuting drug abusers – while on the other hand the gummint is giving them the tools needed for drug abuse. Sure seems wrong, does it not? Maybe some judge & jury would see it as hypocricy, and toss a bunch of drug cases… I don’t know.
I suspect, though, that ultimately it is a case of “back & white” without shades of gray. Sure, telling kids how to have sex without getting preggers or STDs isn’t as ‘good’ a solution as telling them to keep their pants on until they are married… but it is a heckuva lot better than a bunch of preggo teenagers w/ STDs! This is the dilemna some pols who are inflexibly “values-based” don’t (or can’t) comprehend – sometimes it is a matter of “the lesser of the evils”. This is why slavery wasn’t outlawed with the founding of the country – the Founding Fathers (and I suspect the mothers, as well) realized that if they didn’t budge from that hill, they would damn sure die on it – and take the whole country with them, as “the people” of the USofA simply weren’t ready to give up slavery at that time.
~EdT.
It’s funny; for adults, not having sex leads to negative medical consequences. In men, for example, infrequent ejaculation increases the risk of infection. Promoting abstinence to adults, apart from being a ridiculous intrusion of government into one’s private life, is downright perverse.
John – can you quote medical sources for that statement? Sounds like something I would have expected to hear from a teenager – and in fact it reminds me of the story of the “machaca” I heard when in Venezuela (where if a man were bitten by this bug, he had to have sex within 24 hours or he would die. Some men actually advanced this as a defense in their rape trial.)
~EdT.
~EdT.
I wonder how many of the 10% who hadn’t had sex were married?
:::::::::::sputtering::::::::::::::::50 million dollars::::::::::::::::this is just too bizarre