Government-Sponsored Sex

by Angelo Mike 

Exclusive to STR

December 26, 2006

If you’ve looked at the news on TV or the Internet lately, you’ve probably seen a crisis in sexual conduct. A recent study alleges that 9 out of 10 Americans age 44 have had premarital sex. The story’s been on political talk shows and responded to by conservative and liberal groups.  

But why? Planned Parenthood has alleged that this survey just reaffirms the need to disavow abstinence-only education, and conservative groups have cast doubt on the accuracy of the numbers, in which case, perhaps abstinence-only education would be justifiably provided by the government.  

In a just world, the story would have just stopped with the numbers and sex would not be politicized.  

(Also, in such a world, the story wouldn’t be published about the survey with a headline that reads, “Even grandma had premarital sex.” Thanks for the mental image, MSNBC!)  

Sex is a deeply personal issue, decisions about which are life-changing and even a matter of life and death. So we know it’s an important issue--but why does that serve as a pretense for government to regulate it?  Is there anything inherent in sexual matters which makes it a subject of national controversy, any more than how we use our own bodies and consciences to act in general?  Has anyone ever read Brave New World?  

There is a twisted logic at play which makes it perfectly sensible for the federal government and politically active think tanks and lobbyist groups to try to employ such a study as a means to their own ends, in fact. These groups such as Planned Parenthood and Concerned Women for America aren’t merely showing a preference for how to form the consciences and conduct of their own children, families, and friends, but for an entire generation of Americans who stand to be unified by the government.  

There’s much more at stake for these groups and for the federal government itself, when one compulsory monopolist must choose one among an infinite variety of ways to unify public education in favor of particular views on sexual conduct and morality, rendering the possibility of actually getting it right infinitesimal. By the same measure, any parent stands to face an education system which teaches sexual education to their children contrary to what their own consciences approve of, and everyone else will be forced to subsidize it.  

What otherwise would be a personal and familial matter is a job which is outsourced to the state, and the policy debates only serve to reinforce the idea of how dominant and vital the police power over sex must be in our lives. Besides, how else will sex be regulated in society? By individuals, contracts, and families? That would be anarchy!  

The results of such studies as the one referred to here are almost incidental and more reflective of the intentions of the politically active rather than of the people studied.  

In lieu of my own conclusions as to proper sexual conduct, I will proffer a libertarian “Any way is better than the government’s way,” and an affirmation of the simple fact that while people are more often than not stupid and prone to make errors, it is only a system in which each person is sovereign over his own body and conscience that the decisions of bad people can be minimized. Under such a system, people need not be any more moral or intelligent than they are now; we just wouldn’t have to obey their commands.