Should public organizations and schools distribute condoms?

Written By: Frederick Martin-In-The-Fields

Should public organizations and schools distribute

condoms?

Should public and educational organizations teach the use of, and distribute, condoms? Of course they should! The teaching of sexual functions is something that is most germane to the health and adjustment of all human beings in the representative society, and yet it is an education neglected, or simply not taught because of STUPID, and obsolete religious objections and out-dated moral restrictions that have served no one but to exacerbate the anxiety of humanity about itself and the meaning of being. Therefore, as long as we suffer the sometimes practical, often arbitrary decisions of our institutions, educational in particular, then it is incumbent on all of us, since they represent us, to give them the necessary resources and tools to educate our youngest citizens about sex, which includes providing them with hygienic necessities, like condoms, to function normally and responsibly according to our nature. Only fools maniacally attached to their religious bigotry would still argue against such measures to curb irresponsible sexual behavior, UNLESS they have some valid, empirical gripe to express against an over-zealous pro-condom distributor that encouraged libertine, or even criminal, comportment; in this case then the negative nellies should be allowed a chance to voice their legitimate concerns, and to address them accordingly.

Nevertheless, those responsible organizations, community groups, governmental-educational institutions and so forth, who argue that we must try even the simplest of measures, like educating the ignorant about, and actually providing, condoms, and their usage. To help in curbing dirty habits, viral epidemics, like Herpes, teen pregnancy, sexual deviancy, such as multiple-partner sex or even rape, as well as to address the broader issues of illegitimacy, orphaning, over-population, et cetera, our representative institutions must have the final word because they represent (at least are supposed to) the public good, and we, as voter-citizens, have entrusted them to maintain order and standards of health, education and welfare, unlike religious groups today, which operate, as they have always operated, by brainwashing their adherents about what constitutes moral behavior and what doesn't. Yes, yes, they may still have a positive function to perform by continuing to pontificate their basic morality that makes for a decent society, but their contributions, despite their still large congregations, are increasingly irrelevant in this 21st Century globally connected world we live in.

Their role in back-ward, underdeveloped societies where most people are illiterate, and where most of their ''flock'' is to be had, is still very vital for the preservation of some semblance of civilization---mostly in Africa and Asia---whilst an issue like condom use is excusably secondary to issues of hunger, disease, environmental destruction, war and genocide. But, in our peaceful, plentiful, scientifically-technologically advanced and sophisticated societies, in Europe, America, East-Asia, Australia, most of Latin-America (the latter of which nations have already surpassed The U.S.A in promulgating Gay marriage and other related issues), it is imperative we regulate the intervention of religions, as well as other fringe interest groups, and allow our responsible secular institutions to do what is best for the public good.

Individuals who have expended much effort in promoting teen pregnancy programs argue enthusiastically that educational and other public organizations definitely must distribute sexual-education materials as well as condoms---after all, it is our institutions we entrust to regulate our baser instincts, then, logically, why shouldn't they be permitted to give us what we need to help ourselves? That is the question that the nay-sayers do not want to face. Why, some would ask, would we desire to give public and educational institutions the means to distribute hygienic resources to children? Well, that question is a deliberate obfuscation of the issue. Children, in the truest sense, would not be given condoms. Most of the promotion would be directed towards older teenagers, of at least 16 years of age, and young adults, 18 years of age and older, and would be targeted specifically for the distribution of said aids simply because they are the ones most sexually active, and must benefit from such a public service. Youngsters who have come of age, like 13 year old boys, generally are just discovering the pleasures of sex, are not likely to be promiscuous, and sex education rather than condom give-aways would be most beneficial for their sexual health.

Most educated, reasonable individuals would agree that we have evolved morally, ethically, even sexually since the so-called Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, and all for the better. The production, and eventual acceptance, of contraceptives, especially birth-control pills, demonstrated that Advanced Societies were not only more open and liberal about the issue, but that a much more educated, likely professional, generation had inherited the reins of society from their not so well-educated, repressed, ultra-conventional, materialistic, blue-collar laborer parents who still deferred to the brain-washing, and sexually obscurantist puritanical hypocrisy of their respective, money grubbing clergy.

Simple parenting is no longer much of a viable option, especially since most parents never receive a ''real'' education about how to be a great parent.

Today so many families are dysfunctional, or have disintegrated, which leaves us with the question: who then must be entrusted to make up for the failure of the individual? Well, then, that is what our government and institutions are for, to uphold and maintain society in spite of individual failures. Many would agree that it is somewhat perturbing that government appears to be raising our children more than we are, but whose fault is that? Will the nay-sayers insist on their specious objection on the grounds of conscientious moral or religious reflection? They cannot convincingly answer that charge, thus it is all the more vital and necessary that all schools teach sex education, and distribute condoms, including Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and other types of private schools, which are the most likely to raise these moral objections. Sex education, as much as they protest to the contrary, does NOT lead to the slippery slope of sexual promiscuity, let alone deviancy. This is an incontrovertible fact like ''the sky is blue''(and please spare me imbecilic rebuttals that the sky is not actually blue according to Newton---it was just a figure of speech on this writer's part, got that?).

It must be done as a necessary service to the health and well-being of the young, firstly, and their families, generally, since they are not likely, and are not educationally equipped, to take the initiative on their own. The miserable mores, foisted on our society by religious kooks and back-ward looking moral-reformers, that imposed shame and guilt on humanity for fulfilling its primary function---reproduction---are just inexcusable, and must be impermissible in this day and age.

The question, ''how has public education moved so far afield from its original conception of teaching the '3 Rs', that individuals might be able to function in a literate society'' reflects just how much society has evolved, and even improved, in spite of so many challenges against it posed by traditional, mostly obstructionist institutions fearful of losing their grip over the hearts and minds, not to mention the purse-strings, of their traditional followers, religions in particular.

If one must endure the arguments of the opposition, one can easily see just how narrow-minded their arguments seem to be, as they insist that ''education should be for education alone.'' Well, then, that just leads us to employ Socratic ironies, and soon enough their ignorance, along with their use of generalities or platitudes, will be exposed.

For every catatonic and emphatic No, there is a righteously emphatic Yes, which will show up the contempt of the opposition for what they may refer to as dissolute philosophies, or ''Malthusian hogwash,'' et cetera. Those who deride arguments against over-population, and mock the warnings about imminent food shortages in the tomorrow of today clearly and most glaringly reveal their ignorance, their lack of historical perspective, and they probably, if not actually, live in some insulated, isolated community far removed from the terrors and tribulations plaguing persecuted, oppressed societies, or what Henry Kissinger would call a ''basket case'' society. They further base their objections and imputations on the precepts of their religious theories, which provide neither aid, nor comfort, nor anything to the truly needy (for the most part, or like they should), and certainly are ineffective in regulating what they call ''immoral'' behavior ~ Oh, and let's just stick to the issue! Let's not start going off on tangents about murder, violence, et cetera, since we are not talking about the morality of the latter in this article.

In conclusion, it must be reiterated, re-affirmed, and remonstrated that we must trust, enforce, regulate and provide economically for our public institutions to assist the traditional family in educating their offspring about sex. We must further assist by providing, when apropos, materials to prevent the spread of genital diseases and unwanted pregnancies, concurrently disciplining their minds to the responsibilities and demands of practicing safe sex. It has been proven that such educational guides, or even inter-personal guidance, succeed in discouraging them from succumbing to the dangers of unprotected sex, which is a consequence of ignorance, or rebellion against the shame and guilt about sex imposed on them; inadvertently by their families, but directly, and purposely by the obsolete and closed-minded religions they cling to for moral support, even though they be hostile to modernity and scientific discovery simply because the latter spells their eventual, if not imminent, doom.

If my second sister, and second elder brother, both of whom happened to be the stupidest and most ignorant members of the family, had been exposed to some sex education, it is not likely they would have brought bastards in to the world to suffer needlessly, and grow up to lead inutile, worthless, unloved and unappreciated lives, and then die of AIDS, which was the end result in my brother's case and that of his mate (he never married her, nor did she expect to be asked), leaving their pathetic bastard as an abandoned orphan.

That's my two cents worth, and I'm sticking to them, ya bunch of lily-livered condom-lubbers!

http://www.booksofexcellence.com/martin-del-campo.html