Information has been leaked that public health academics have identified sex control as the new alcohol control which itself is the new tobacco control. Based out of the University of New South Sydney, highly funded public health activists are planning a campaign based on the following information.
"Sex related harm" is immense. The monetary and psychological cost is staggering:
- Sexually transmitted infections cause substantial morbidity and even mortality. For example, the cost of treatment of HIV over a lifetime can be enormous, in addition to the psychological toll;
- Unwanted pregnancies can change lives. The cost to the government can be inordinate;
- Sex can lead to cancer (yes, it actually does);
- Waking up and realizing that you have just screwed your best friend's boyfriend can cause severe psychological suffering. It can destroy relationships.
These examples, as do rape, incest and child molestation, represent "Problem sex". Problem sex can destroy lives including innocent family members and friends. Whole communities can be affected by problem sex.
So therefore, the State has a right to control people's sex choices and limit consumption of sex.
One specific aspect of problem sex is sex-fuelled violence, which is a major societal problem. According to public health lobbyists, it is sex that fuels sex-fuelled violence not the behaviour of feral scumbags who commit sexual assault. Furthermore, public health lobbyists also point out that the science is clear that the appearance of scantily clad women most definitely acutely influences men's brain chemistry. Therefore in order to stop sex-fuelled violence public health lobbyists insist that we must prevent men being exposed to women, the appearance of whom might influence mens' brains. This is the availability hypothesis that public health lobbyists use to justify collective punishment. The availability hypothesis suggests that the availability of something, in this case women, is a cause of abuse. So the public health lobby's answer to sex-fuelled violence is to remove the availability of women. Curfews and mandatory male chaperones will be the public health lobby's recommendation. Far from banning the burqa, public health lobbyists from the University of New South Sydney want to mandate that women wear one.
Sex is without doubt a phenomenon that arises in the brain. It is a function of neurochemical and neurohormonal processes. This combined with the fact that it is claimed that people are "addicted" to sex means that sex must be a disease. The chemicals in people's brains MAKE them have sex. People can't be expected to take personal responsibility for controlling their pecker, their brain is MAKING them have sex.
With such strong biological urges how can we ask people to take personal responsibility. Expecting people to take responsibility for who they shag, to engage in safe sex, think about the consequences and to actually think that, hello, if you're repeatedly having sex without birth control that you might get yourself or your partner pregnant, according to public health lobbyists, is just plain ignorant. Personal responsibility is just so twentieth century when we know that problem sex is a disease of the brain.
The answer, overall, must be to ban sex. And to tax it of course. Oh, and of course, bully anyone who dare suggest that people should have the right to have consensual sex and that the government should get out of their bedroom.
The public health lobby are campaigning extensively to ban advertising with sexual themes, especially during sporting events. No sexually attractive men or women will be allowed to be in advertising. Imagine if an adolescent saw a naked thigh during an advertisement during the cricket. It would surely turn them into a life-long sexual predator.
Public health lobbyists don't believe in factoring in utility or enjoyment or fulfillment in people's lives. Public health lobbyists are therefore campaigning strongly that they don't believe that there is any purpose in homosexual sex as it does not lead to reproduction. Enjoying sex with some in no way justifies allowing gays and lesbians to have sex. However homosexual sex can lead to immense sex-related harm and even deadly disease. Therefore, public health academics will prohibit any homosexual sex. And if it doesn't stop, then they will make it illegal. The public health lobby is currently modeling outcomes of their new prohibition on homosexual sex based on extensive consultations with the Taliban.
Of course, public health lobbyists insist that blame never be apportioned for even the most egregious selfish or reckless acts. Therefore we aren't allowed to call violent sexual assault rape anymore, but instead merely a component of "problem sex". The politically incorrect terms of sexual assault or rape are not permitted anymore by public health activists as this might stigmatize people who have problem sex.
Because of the seriousness of "problem sex" and the cost to society of sex-related harm, the government must implement public health measures to stop people having sex. So if grandma happens to sidle up to grandpa and has a predefined look in her eye (defined by scientists of course), this must be stopped. A floor price for sex might be implemented. We can't just target aggressive sexual predators. No we must have a floor price across the board, because in order to stop problem sex we must stop grandma and grandpa getting it on in their own bedroom.
Furthermore, public health lobbyist insist that masturbation also be prohibited. Although this does not lead to the same sex-related harm that sex does, it might normalise sex and lead, especially young people, into a life of problem sex. This is the same reason why e-sex must be regulated out of existence.
Cigarettes and whisky and now wild, wild women. They all drive public health activists crazy..... they drive them insane.