Monday, October 31, 2005

It's all about control.

Do you know what this article and this article have in common? If you do, do you know how they might relate to this article. Let me tell you: they're all about control. Specifically, they're all about the religious right's burning desire to control our sexuality and our lives. Really.

Consider the first article. It reports the heartening news that pharmaceutical companies have developed a vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV), the leading cause of cervical cancer in this country. It also reports the appalling, yet unsurprising news, that our radical mullahs have severe misgivings about making this vaccine available to teenage girls because it might "send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage". Really? And what subtle message are these cracker-ass christopaths sending? Well, really, there's two. They are:

1. "I don't care if your cervix turns into a rotten pile of mush rendering you either sterile or dead, at least you weren't having sex."
2. "Our desire to see all woman conform to our views on sexuality and behavior outweighs any concern we might have for their health and welfare."

Both are equally disgusting and, ultimately, both are about controlling women's behavior. Consider what the wingnuts want to do: create disincentives to pre-marital sex. They want to make the avoidable risks of pre-marital sex unavoidable, thus ensuring that women inclined to consider such things won't engage in pre-marital sex. Unable to pass laws that explicitly penalize pre-marital sex, they're content to gamble away women's future for the sole purpose of controlling their behavior.

And look at the second article. It's all about Samuel Alito, Bush's new nominee to the Supreme Court and how the right-wing loves him. Why? Well, for one thing, he's opposed to abortion and seems likely to be another vote on the Court in any future challenges to Roe. Ask any right-winger why he opposes Roe and they'll try to stuff your ears, eyes and mouth full of putrescent shit about "the sanctity of life" and "save the babies" and "aren't you glad your mother didn't have an abortion?" Dig deeper, though, and you'll come up with this justification, "women should bear the consequences of their pre-marital sex and those consequences should always include a baby." Same argument, same topic. Make the risks of sexual activity so high that it creates disincentives to have pre-marital sex and do that regardless of the ultimate long-term effects. How many conservatives, despite their pathological willingness to suggest they might do so, have actually adopted a baby from a girl or woman who decided not to have an abortion? Not many, I'm quite certain.

So finally, we come to the third article. It reports that some drug companies are working on creating anti-HIV gels that can be inserted directly into a woman's vagina and, presumably, a man's anus so as to prevent the transmission of HIV. Sounds good, right? Well, it is. But what's going to happen if those companies are successful and start trying to market the gel in the United States. Well, suddenly, gay men might be better able to avoid a risk of unprotected gay sex. And, suddenly the raving lunatic fucktards of Kansas City won't be able to chant AIDS Kills Fags Dead with any factual basis. If the risk of gay sex decreases, what do you think the right-wing is going to have to say about that?