Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

These were the options I heard a CNN correspondent claim that college co-eds were going to have to make this year . . . well, o.k., not in these terms. It seems that pharmaceutical companies have had to eliminate the subsidies for oral contraceptives that they used to make to the health departments at schools of higher education due to the apparently unintended effect of a new law (see this WSJ article from July).

Well, the prices are going up from about $20 for a months supply to around $50 for name brands. CNN did not mention the generic options that the WSJ article mentions. This is probably because, as the WSJ article claims, it is unfair to ask women to change from a brand that they are comfortable with. So, CNN asserts, this means that many co-eds will end up having to choose between books, food, or contraception. Hmm . . ., a few thoughts here.

Another option that CNN didn’t mention that was in the WSJ article, is co-eds using their parent’s insurance for this. Perhaps this is unconscionable in the mind of the CNN reporter because, as the WSJ article says, this would require forfeiting the student’s privacy. We cannot have this now can we? After all, this is the foundational principle upon which our most cherished ideals stand . . . the right to off our unborn.

Now, this breathless, “the sky is falling” coverage is par for the course for most television reporting these days. However, the underlying logical contradictions make it noteworthy. You see, co-ed simply have to fornicate. If they meet a guy at the football game or the bar, or perhaps they might even have a meaningful relationship, they do not the capacity to say no to sex. Our media assumes that they cannot decline sex (unless the guy is unpleasing I suppose) because they are just animals who are driven by instinct or, at least, they would develop some sort of psychological complex by not submitting to their ids’ demands. Freud has done his work well.

However, in the same breath, the reporter says that they do have the capacity to choose to eat, or buy books. Abortion was the other option that was mentioned (surprisingly after having the child but I suppose this option was for the dramatic effect of having to destroy your life because you wanted to eat), which again is a choice. But the underlying presupposition is that they will get pregnant. So we are more than animals. We have a choice to eat, or buy books, or purchase expensive contraception, or leave school and have a baby, or simply eliminate the unwanted biological material from the womb. But wait, no we are not more than animals, we must submit to our sexual desires whenever they arise . . . again, unless the guy is ugly. We either have the capacity for self-mastery or we do not. We cannot have it both ways, unless we appeal to sentiment, or science, or medicine I suppose.

How can this be, that one would have to choose between a primary material need (nutrition), the primary reason one is at school (education) . . . or so I once thought . . . , or fornication. Not to worry, CNN reports that Congress is going to put a stop to this madness. However, the crisis will not end this news cycle. Until then, if you see a hungry co-ed hanging around your garbage can, open your charitable hearts and give her something to eat. After all, she will need her energy if she is going to make use of that name brand contraception for which she is now paying top dollar.