New CDC Guidelines for, um, ‘Having Sex’

Happy Puppies Photograph by Warren Photographic | Pixels

Here we go with the happy puppies again. How am I supposed to illustrate this mess?

(Thanks to Susan for the nooze clip–blame her.)

Reacting to the new monkeypox scare, the government’s Center for Disease Control has issued new guidelines for “having sex” (See for one of several examples)–and how the dickens do I write about this? I knew I was in trouble when I read a reminder to “wash your hands, fetish gear [“fetish gear”?], and sex toys” after “having sex.”

Yeah, better wash that fetish gear… Like everybody has some.

We’re also counseled to avoid “hugging, massaging, kissing”–but M______ is “always safe.” But just to make sure, preserve “social distancing” when “having sex.” Try not to do it at a distance less than six feet.

I trust this gives you some idea of how hard it is to write satire, these days.

But not to worry! There’s always mail-in voting! That’s how you wind up with SloJo in the White House. You know they’re gonna go for that again!

5 comments on “New CDC Guidelines for, um, ‘Having Sex’

  1. Apparently there are a lot of people that don’t realize that there are natural consequences to certain activities. Sexual activity is very efficient at transmitting certain diseases. That’s a fact of life, and has nothing to do with politics, ideologies or beliefs. No matter what group is in control of the government, sexual contact with an infected person carries with it a real risk that you will co fact that disease. Remember AIDS? AIDS was spread by blood, shared needles and sexual activity.

    Suddenly, the term “safe sex” entered the lexicon, and this was supposed to reduce the risk. The idea was to prevent the spread of disease, but there was an unintended effect because “safe sex” became a new moral category in the minds of many. I question if it actually made things safer.

    So now we are reduced to this. Essentially, protecting oneself in situations that would have been all but unthinkable, not all that long ago. I’ve actually heard people bragging about the fact that sexually transmitted diseases are becoming common in some retirement communities. Wow.

    Many people see sexual morals as some oppressive remnant of the dark ages, but that’s not really the case. The Bible’s moral standards have practical advantages.

  2. Good points, both Lee and WhiteRabbit.

    These moral issues cut directly to the value of life. Reproduction is a sacred trust. Humans do not mate like animals, because we are made in the Image of God. We are in a special position, unique among creation. If we do not love God, we do not love our source of life. If we take pleasure in immorality, then we are not respecting our sacred trust, as creatures made in God’s Image. Many in our day see these restrictions as old fashioned, but in the last 5-6 decades, when sexual immorality has been glorified, has civilization improved?

Leave a Reply