In light of the New Yorker article that was recently published about VP Michael Pence's views on women, I thought I would post this piece that I wrote a few years ago. I had thought that it was a bit too much, but now I think it might be a bit too modest. I would love your thoughts.

A Modesty Proposal 

That most important social problem, which has been plaguing humanity since Mary Magdalene, is thankfully being addressed by righteous members of the Republican Party.

Sad to say, America is being overcome by the lustful desires of its supposedly fairer sex. Woman have become so obsessed with attracting sexual attention that they have managed through various provocations to entice the naturally reticent, demur, and gentle men of America to have sexual intercourse with them, again and again and again. Indeed, it is safe to say we are experiencing an epidemic of intercourse.

What is more, the popular culture has had little choice but to give in to the power and depravity of these woman by making sex and all sorts of casual relationships among people seem fun and exciting. Their influence has led to non-procreational sexual contact being shown casually and endlessly in movies, television, advertising, online pornography, and even, it has been reported, in Girl Scout meetings, Planned Parenthood materials, and 7th grade health class. Horribly, this depravity has infected our naturally practical and sensible fashion designers, who under the influence of these sex-crazed women, are producing ever more provocative styles that over-emphasize cleavage and curves. Stores with good old fashioned names are now shamefully filled with rows and rows of shoes with 6-inch heels, and openly display aisle after aisle of push-up brassieres, and even sport bins of push-up panties lined with lace. Decent men like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich are helpless in the face of such blatant invitations to moral turpitude. Our very heroes are being brought to their knees.

Yes, we must face the fact that non-procreational sexual contact is no longer considered verboten, even among those raised in supposedly “good” church-going families. Fortunately, there are steps we can take to protect our vulnerable young men.

First, girls should be prohibited from participating in any activity in which they can show parts of their bodies that might distract young men, unless they are only in the company of other girls, but only under close supervision to prevent even more unnatural than non-procreational heterosexual contact, namely non-procreational homosexual contact. Better that girls participate in sport-type activities in isolation, but only under close supervision so that they are not wantonly led into some kind of monadistic arousal. In short, we strongly recommend an immediate halt to all female sports, and an end to production and sale of female bathing suits, shorts, skirts, frilly blouses, tee-shirts, strapless tops, jewelry, high heel shoes, stockings, and makeup. Also, the head and face of all females should be covered by a scarf or veil when in public, which should be as little as possible.

Second, the chastity belt has been long engaged in preventing women from participating in inappropriate sexual contact. From the time a girl begins to develop breasts (i.e., about the age of 7) to the time she is given away in marriage to a heterosexual male, she shall wear a properly fitted chastity belt, after which time the use of such device shall be at the discretion of her husband (or in certain circumstances, her legislator). We recommend for health reasons that the harsh metal model of yesteryear be updated with a more comfortable and sanitary plastic and rubber device equipped with a modern lock that can’t be tampered with. We strongly recommend that the chastity belt be the only form of birth control allowed, and that it shall be a mandated requirement of all employer-sponsored health plans. 

While we regret the potential imposition represented by this course of action on that small subset of women of good moral character, it is only fair to impose this restriction equally across all classes of women and of all religious faiths. It is not only for the good of the women of this country, but more importantly for the good of the men, who will be able to go about the important business of concentrating the wealth and political power of the nation undistracted by the baser instinctual desire for non-procreational sexual contact.


Please share this if you agree.