Washington cheesesuckers demand bigger, fancier free rubbers

OK, I know that 3% of DC has HIV (regrettably, the wrong 3%). I know the little bastards (predominantly literally) are going to do it anyway, and that they won’t pony up for condoms when there is crack to be bought. I know the public health arguments for this program. I don’t care. The government should not be subsidizing promiscuity. I have a major problem with the demand of the Church that secular authorities enforce “morality” (that generally being sexual, as opposed to “thou shalt not steal”, which some bishops think is a perfectly valid means of applying “charity”.). But I think we can agree that government shouldn’t be in the business of spending Other People’s Money to promote IMmorality, yes?

Worse, they’ve bought the marketing, and they have to have Trojans. And big ones too. So they’re getting them.

The number of free condoms that the District dispenses has been steadily increasing. The health department distributed 3.2 million last year, including about 15,000 in schools. The city, which has 600,000 residents, is on pace to hand out more than 4 million condoms this year, having distributed about 2.5 million so far. The program cost about $165,000 last year. The Durex condoms cost the city 5.7 cents each, but the Trojans will cost 6 cents to 9 cents each (depending on size).

It’s not like they’re distributing Brand X White Label from the far reaches of China. They’ve passed the tests. Back when I was using them, I was certainly sensitive to price. People who can’t afford condoms can’t afford the consequences when they leak, which is possible with any condom.

When the guy who handles AoSHQ’s queer beat gets his mind boggled, you know it’s mindboggling.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Washington cheesesuckers demand bigger, fancier free rubbers

  1. kishnevi says:

    Look on the bright side. Think of all the potential cheesesuckers who will not be born and all the potential abortions not needed….

    More seriously, if the government doesn’t do something because it encourages sexual immorality, isn’t that the same thing as enforcing sexual morality?

    Argue it on grounds of public health (ie, it encourages behavior that has bad results like HIV or unwanted pregnancy) but not morality.

  2. Jeffrey Quick says:

    Re your question: a negative action is not the same as a positive action. Example: the government offers a tax deduction for donations to a church. It does not collect tithes and give them to an established church, as the colonies once did. The amount of your money going to a church is entirely under your control. Likewise, not subsidizing screwing does not enforce sexual morality; students have the options of buying their own condoms, getting them from private sexual charities (if such a thing existed…gee, why is that?), riding bareback, engaging in cybersex, etc.

    If I were engaged in a public-policy battle in DC, your last advice would be wise, as clearly nobody there gives a flying you-know-what about morality. I’m mostly offering it as an example of societal decadence.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: