Yet another argument was, "Why do I have to pay for other people's sex?" Look, by joining a health plan -- privately managed or otherwise -- you're already paying for other people's smoking, sex or lack thereof, alcohol overconsumption, poor food choices and so on. What does it matter if you're paying for the schmuck down the street to shove that extra donut into his face, or for a college student to have safe sex? If any religious entities object to birth control for women they don't know or support, perhaps they could first decline tax exemptions on the basis of benefiting from the same public pool into which these same women pay taxes?
Speaking of which, it's the 21st century. Can we not accept that both men and women are driven by sex as much as by food, and that any differentiation between the genders in this area has long been socially mandated through shaming and derogatory labeling of women who enjoy this very basic human and survivalist drive as much as men do? It's difficult enough for society to collectively accept sex as being just as normal as eating -- but it is. Both are basic, innate pleasures of being human. Yet we're bombarded with food shows, food magazines, food discussion forums, food classes, endless food banter at house parties. Just try doing any that with sex in polite company. Food and sex are on exactly the same level for us as human beings in our basic drive for survival.
There's still an overall taboo around sex that promotes rampant ignorance and prohibits rational consideration of its rightful place in our lives. Hopefully moves like this that destigmatize non-reproductive sex will take us one step closer to breaking that taboo so we can enjoy, among other things, a better quality of political candidates who aren't automatically disqualified for admitting they enjoy sex just for the fun of it.
NYT Journalist Wonders: "Free Speech Aside" Why Would Anyone Hold A Contest to Draw Muhammed? | Katie Pavlich