Reply
Sun 15 Jul, 2018 01:52 pm
There have been other thread topics regarding pro-choice, pro-life, contraception, abortion, birth control, and condoms. My personal opinion is that women should have control of what women want to do with their own bodies.
I have seen some posters on other threads blame, demonize, and put the burden on women. There are some people who demonize and put the burden on women who engage in casual sex. Those same people who demonize women, conveniently forget that it takes two people to engage in casual sex. Men are equally as guilty of promiscuity as women. Let me be clear. Personally, I am okay with promiscuous casual sex. I'm okay with the use of condoms, birth control, and other forms of contraception. I'm okay with ensuring women have the freedom of choice regarding abortions.
The following are three points I don't recall anyone bringing up on the other threads:
1. Some men want to have casual sex with women, but don't want the woman to get pregnant.
2. I wonder how men would feel if Erectile Dysfunction pills were banned and was no longer available. One stipulation is the banning were to be passed into law by a legislative body made up of mostly women.
3. I wonder how men would feel if the Vasectomy surgical procedure were to be banned and no longer available. One stipulation is the banning were to be passed into law by a legislative body made up of mostly women.
As long as feminism is about hating men, it will not go anywhere as a movement.
@Real Music,
There seems to be a big misunderstanding here.
Erectile disfunction pills have zero value as birth control.
I am glad I cleared that up. You're welcome
The other ridiculous part of this thread is that a female legislature would ban Erectile disfunction pills.
There are lots of women who enjoy sex. Feminists seem to forget that
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
As long as feminism is about hating men, it will not go anywhere as a movement.
I'm 1000% certain you don't believe that (and really don't care about this spectrum of social/civil rights politics). That that intentionally distorted view is meant to troll other conservatives who believe in that out and out lie of an interpretation so they can slavishly suck your moral wang and join your antigun regulation religion.
Unless you really are a misogynistic, promen's rights, prorape looney that happens to make a too large percent (any percent is too large, not saying its a majority or sizable minority) of the Republican base. You are whom you advocate the most strongly for (even if it's window dressing at best).
The things you'll defend in order to stop a single punctuation mark of gun regulation from being written into existence.
@maxdancona,
Your right that viagra isn’t a birth control pill for men, however it does allow the male to contribute to the birth rate. I think you missed the point, viagra allows men to continue to engage in sexual activity, birth control pills for women contain hormones that increase their risk of stroke. So, the most well known method that allows a women to engage without the risk of pregnancy is a health risk. Erectile disfunction medication also carries risks, but I guarantee that men who need the medication would be outraged (as they should be) if their health options were decided by people who believe sex is immoral unless between married people and had the power to deny you access. Imagine going to the pharmacy and instead of receiving the prescribed medication, you got a lecture about the immorality of sex before marriage, or adulterous sex? And then tossed out.
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The other ridiculous part of this thread is that a female legislature would ban Erectile disfunction pills.
There are lots of women who enjoy sex. Feminists seem to forget that
Max. You're smart. You are often the most reasonable individuals I frequently disagree with. Unless you have recently succumbed to a nearly life threating concussion, I KNOW THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS. You are stretching an actual and legitimate policy change into an outright ******* lie.
Female members of the US legislatures are trying to stop unnecessary subsidization of ED medicine if birth control for women are outright denied any health care subsidization and ultimately access to women who need them for legitimate social and medical reasons.
Any campaign that feminist groups use that may or may not call for a ban on the ED meds? They're just using the literal shock and awe fearmongering campaign that the far right uses to illustrate the insanely and obvious hypocrisy of the men's rights faction of the far far right Republican cancer that has infected the United States.
Subsidize and make accessible birth control and other health initiatives for women? And any criticisms that the sane majority that make up the feminist movement will drop and forget about calling to regulate ED meds for men.
@glitterbag,
Many women enjoy sex. An erection is generally considered an important part of that.
Do you accept that?
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Do you accept the fact that many women enjoy sex, and that an erection is generally considered an important part of that?
Not according to lesbians. You frakking walked into that one. About the size of the frakking Grand Canyon. Is there a history of dementia in your family? You're losing it completely. You had my respect for a long time. During these past few weeks with the crazy down thumber? Wow. You really gone off the deep end and lost any resemblance of moderation and sensibility.
@tsarstepan,
Most women are heterosexual (and I specified that), there is nothing wrong with that... I don't really get your point.
I am not really looking for your respect. My aim here is the same as it has always been, to push back on the group-think happening on Able2know from the ideological bubble that exists here, particularly when it is being ridiculous.
This thread is anti-sex and erroneously equates erectile dysfunction medication with birth control.
You are cheering it in spite of the fact it is ridiculous because it fits the ideological narrative. And that is exactly my point.
@tsarstepan,
He’s not senile, he just believes all feminists hate men and hate sex. I don’t know why he thinks this way.....I’m at a loss,
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Most women are heterosexual (and I specified that), there is nothing wrong with that... I don't really get your point.
No you didn't.
Words have meanings. They are literally NOT interchangeable. They maybe similar. They are not the same.
maxdancona wrote:
Many women enjoy sex. An erection is generally considered an important part of that.
Do you accept that?
Fighting silly conservative semantics with semantics. I'm glad I don't get migraines easily.
AS an aside? Heterosexual women who were violently raped? They LITERALLY CANNOT ENJOY SEX via erect penis BECAUSE OF PTSD.
@tsarstepan,
Fine, you win Tsarstepan. I accept your criticism, and I will correct my statement.
Quote:Do you accept the fact that many heterosexual women enjoy sex, and that an erection is generally considered an important part of that?
There I fixed it. Do you have a point?
This is a political stunt. There is no real objection to erectile dysfunction medication.
In real life, many middle-aged heterosexual women who enjoy sex would likely have a problem with such legislation.
@tsarstepan,
After your manipulative little stunt using victims of "violent rape" to push your political ideology... I am glad to have lost your respect. I would feel ashamed if I hadn't.
There are some lines you just shouldn't cross, even to win an argument.
@maxdancona,
You don't believe there is such a thing as violent rape?
@RABEL222,
Rabel,
He is using victims of "violent rape", who may or may not agree with him on this issue, to score political points. Are you going to pile on?
There are some lines you shouldn't cross, even to win an argument.
@tsarstepan,
tsarstepan wrote:I'm 1000% certain you don't believe that (and really don't care about this spectrum of social/civil rights politics). That that intentionally distorted view is meant to troll other conservatives who believe in that out and out lie of an interpretation so they can slavishly suck your moral wang and join your antigun regulation religion.
No. Being a man, I really do think that it would be nice if men's rights were not routinely ignored by society.
It ties in well with my gun views. In both cases I strongly object to having my rights violated.
tsarstepan wrote:Unless you really are a misogynistic, promen's rights, prorape looney that happens to make a too large percent (any percent is too large, not saying its a majority or sizable minority) of the Republican base.
Pro-men's rights, yes.
I reject the idea that being in favor of men's rights makes someone misogynistic or pro-rape. That's just anti-male bigotry.
tsarstepan wrote:You are whom you advocate the most strongly for (even if it's window dressing at best).
I'm very happy with myself. I consider myself the moral equal of Gandhi, Mandela, and Martin Luther King. Not because of this issue really. But this issue does fit with my general outlook of always doing the right thing in the face of adversity.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace