Some men want to have casual sex with women, but don't want the woman to get pregnant.

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Sure... I will play. I don't use ED drugs (although I am getting to be of the age where they are more popular), and I haven't had a vasectomy. But I will play along with this silly game...

1) The gender of legislators is irrelevant. I can't think of an example where I think the gender of my legislators matters. I voted for both of my current senators; Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.

2) I kind of get why you are making a big deal over the gender of legislators, given that abortion does impact a woman and that most of the legislature is male. However, the men in the legislature have passed pro-choice bills which I assume you think is acceptable. And 38% of women are pro-life including some legislators.

I don't see how you can have a democracy if you don't let legislators vote their conscience regardless of their gender.

3) I judge any law by the merit of such law. If ED medication were causing the death of unborn children, I might be persuaded to support legislation against it.

Imagine a thoughtful, respectful discussion over abortion that included women from both sides of the issue.

Do you think that erections would be a part of this discussion?

This is a political stunt.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

1 & 2) If the legislators are voting in FAVOR of granting more rights to someone, then I don't know why anyone would care the gender of the legislator. It's when one group can be perceived as taking away the rights of the other (and that the other, in this case, isn't represented in government to the same degree as they are in the population) that this becomes a political problem.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

In my Mr Rogers voice: Off-topic Max. Maybe you could start a thread about it and we could discuss over there. It may not end up being respectful though; abortion is a charged issue.

I would like to see an argument just between women on that issue though.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The premise of this thread is banning ED medication. I am pretty sure every post I have made on this thread has been about how ridiculous this is (except when I was responding to you directly).

It is a troll thread. But you already know that.

Any serious discussion about abortion needs to acknowledge both sides of this difficult issue. You can't do that in a troll thread, and the only person who has shown any interest in a serious discussion on the topic has been Engineer.

Most people just want to troll.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The premise of this thread is banning ED medication. I am pretty sure every post I have made on this thread has been about how ridiculous this is (except when I was responding to you directly).

It is a troll thread. But you already know that.

Any serious discussion about abortion needs to acknowledge both sides of this difficult issue. You can't do that in a troll thread, and the only person who has shown any interest in a serious discussion on the topic has been Engineer.

Most people just want to troll.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

That’s really not the premise.......no one really wants to take the little blue pills away....it’s the idea that people can make decisions on women’s or other women health care issues.......everybody knows that is how it has been treated when it’s women.............I think the real point is that it never occurred to men that their access to blue pills could be restricted by some else’s point of view (and it won’t be restricted). But it’s perfectly normal to accept that women’s access to heath care is never certain, no one really bats an eye unless you’re a woman who relies on birth control. I forgot who started this thread but let me try to rephrase the question, “Would it be ok if men had to meet certain ‘moral’ guidelines and have to prove that blue pills are absolutely necessary for their health, then have to prove you have permission from your wife, provide evidence you support your current children and can support additional children”. I think the OP is trying to point out that people would be outraged if men had to jump thru hoops to acquire certain health care just like many women jump thru hoops today.

At least that’s the way I read it, I may have missed something and if I misstated the OP’s intention I apologize in advance,

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I am grateful that Glitterbag admits this is a political stunt.

Her argument is nonsense of course. Every medication is already regulated by the government. There are quite a few of them that are restricted or completely banned from heroin to unpasteurized milk. There are several medications targeted for men that were rejected including birth control pills and baldness medication.

Medical treatments where the risks outweigh the benefits are routinely banned.

This obsession with erections is nothing but a political stunt. This is a troll thread.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I don’t think this is a stunt, I think the op is simply asking others to consider how they would feel if they lost the ability to make personal choices when it comes to their reproductive health.

It’s not a referendum on erections, no one wants to deprive you or any other man the opportunity to seek safe health care, it’s never discussed as a moral choice or something that need a law passed.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

It is a stunt.

1) Every person has "lost the ability to make personal choices" on all sorts of health decisions. Every medical treatment is regulated by the government. Some medications are banned outright. Some of them require you to undergo careful examinations before taking them.

2) This point ignores the real issue that people want to regulate, or ban, abortions. An abortion ends the life of an growing fetus with a heartbeat, and growing nervous system and the ability to react independently to stimulus.

3) If my erection medication, or baldness treatment, or foot fungus creme caused someone to die, I would consider legislation to ban it. This is why many women (38% of them) are pro-life.

This stunt doesn't even address the real issues behind the abortion debate.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Oh well

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

An abortion ends the life of an growing fetus with a heartbeat, and growing nervous system and the ability to react independently to stimulus.

Worms also have these things. These 3 items are not rare in the world.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

..or baldness treatment, or foot fungus creme caused someone to die, I would consider legislation to ban it.

Then start considering. I'm certain there are chemicals in some of those items which could prove quite deadly to some individuals with severe allergies.

An example, Propecia which is widely used for men and women with hair loss is quite the danger for the pregnant woman. Contact your Senators and Congressional rep immediately to end this item. (and stop the use of Proscar as well (used by men with prostate difficulties) as it too is a danger to pregnant women and women who might become pregnant).

0 Replies

@Real Music,

The problem with this thread is that no one is saying take away birth control from women, there are groups who don't want to have birth control as a mandatory coverage of their health insurance and pay for someone else to have sex. ED pills are not paid for by others, but the person who actually buys them.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

ED pills are not paid for by others, but the person who actually buys them.

Really? My Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance plan has them covered if prescribed for a medical condition.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

And... do they get given out for free, or do they actually have to pay money? Last time I checked, birth control was given out free as part of my "mandatory" insurance coverage, ED pills aren't free and have to be paid for.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I don’t know. I don’t use either.

My plan just says both ED pills and BC pills are covered if medically necessary.

Probably depends on your copay setup.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I don’t know. I don’t use either.

I thought you were a big fan of the ACA, that's were all these changes came from.

Quote:

My plan just says both ED pills and BC pills are covered if medically necessary.

Guess what, everyone's plans cover BC pills, once again that was one of the selling points for the ACA, which wasn't a point for me, I no longer required any sort of BC services and yet I was required to have coverage for it.

Quote:

Probably depends on your copay setup.

I thought you were paying attention during the lead up to the ACA... I guess not

Quote:

As of spring 2014, two-thirds of women using oral contraceptives and nearly 75 percent of women using the vaginal ring did not pay out-of-pocket for these methods. Additionally, another survey found that 87 percent of women do not have out-of-pocket costs for intrauterine devices (IUDs).

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2017/10/06/440492/contraceptive-coverage-affordable-care-act/

So now we have established that women no longer have to pay out of pocket for BC pills, I'm wondering what the shake up is about men getting ED even though they have to pay out of pocket... I'm guessing the BS issue stems from Congress maybe targeting having women pay out of pocket for their BC pills? No more free rides on people who don't need BC?

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

Quote:

Not according to lesbians.

Since when do lesbians count as "many"? Aren't they a minority of female representation? If women make up 50% of the population and only about 2-6% of the population id as gay, then lesbians would make up half of that percentage based on simple stats. So "many women" would indeed indicate the majority, like their partner to have an erection...

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Why even answer that Baldimo? He is being ridiculous.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
Not according to lesbians.

Since when do lesbians count as "many"? Aren't they a minority of female representation? If women make up 50% of the population and only about 2-6% of the population id as gay, then lesbians would make up half of that percentage based on simple stats. So "many women" would indeed indicate the majority, like their partner to have an erection...

BZZT.
Incorrect, do not pass go.

Under no definition does the word "many" mean the same as the word "majority", nor does it equate to the word "minority".

If 2 to 6% of the population identify as homosexual, that means that 2 to 6% of males identify as gay, and 2 to 6% of females identify as lesbian.

You don't get to parse up the whole that way.

It appears someone wasn't paying attention in statistics class.

In any event, there is not a cut off line that demarcates sexuality like that.

Some women who are straight aren't particular fond of, or couldn't care less about erections. More than you might suspect. Many women are just aware of the fragile male ego.

Straight woman does not equal "I like hard dicks" Straight sex involves many other things, just as homosexual sex does not equate to anal or oral sex for men....or oral or manual sex for women.

Many people enjoy the fruit durian. Your reasoning smells like what many people, including those that like it, think it does.

1 Reply

Some men want to have casual sex with women, but don't want the woman to get pregnant.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know