Has anyone else noticed the connection here, both literal terms and figurative?

In literal terms, there is a (un)surprisingly strong abstinence only sentiments in the libertarian camps. In addition to giving tips on murdering black people, Ron Paul would constantly complain about high schools giving out condoms in his newsletter.

But pretty much abortion thread at /r/libertarian basically boils down to "slut should have thought about that before having sex." The argument is that by consenting to sex, they consent to having a baby. This applies even in cases where they use protection, because they "consent" to the idea that protection isn't 100%. What about cases of rape? Libertarians tend to avoid talking about that, insisting that it's too much of a niche issue to consider, because the primary goal is to slut shame.

In the figurative sense, every libertarian solution boils down to "Let's do nothing and the problem will magically fix itself." Instead of looking for ways to make government more effective (or looking for ways to make sex safer), their goal is to avoid the issue altogether.

In the real world, the idea of sex education is "Kids are going to have sex no matter what because sex feels good and kids are curious, so let's make sure that their sex is as safe as possible." But abstinence only advocates don't recognize that position. Instead, they assume that you either teach kids to have zero sex at all, or you actively encourage them to be as slutty as possible. They see the issue in terms of quantity, rather than quality, and they assume that the opposition is doing the same.

Libertarians do the same thing. They see government size as an end in itself, and therefore they assume the opposition is doing the same, but in the opposite direction. "If you don't want zero government, then you must want infinite government." If you don't believe that private enterprise is the solution for everything, then you must believe that private enterprise is the solution for nothing. etc. It's the exact same tactic.

But the real problem with fundamentalism isn't simply the bad logic, or the fact that you're trying to force your personal moral code on others without giving them a good reason to adopt it. The real problem is that even the people who advocate abstinence only education refuse to practice it themselves.

And that's why states that preach the loudest on abstinence will also have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. And that's why states that tend to vote red and call for smaller government tend to take the most in terms of government handouts compared to what they actually pay in taxes. That's why Ayn Rand spent her retirement years on welfare. And why prominent libertarians will run for government positions funded by taxpayers, or working in public universities, rather than working in private enterprise.

The fundamentalists will insist that this is simply a tu quoque fallacy, and the fact that they themselves don't follow their advice doesn't make it invalid. But they never actually give a reason why anyone else should follow their advice, because the only justification provided is "because I personally believe in this this that I don't actually follow, so you should believe in it as well."