How far do the religious right intend to go?

[Phi for All]

Soon we'll have employers demanding access to our Facebook accounts so they can check all our personal contacts and thoughts....

[zapatos]

Well, that's the hypocrisy of the religious right Republican. They want smaller government that doesn't intrude in people's lives, less taxes and freedom, but only if you believe the way they do. And only when the intrusions don't involve sex. And only when the tax money benefits just them and no one else. And only when the freedom isn't free enough to be responsible for your own body.

I actually find it scary that people can so easily be convinced to give up their liberty. It seems to be the mindset that "as long as the liberty contrained is not one that affects me personally, then it is acceptable". But power moves from group to group, and over time all people will feel essential liberties contrained.

 

So many people seem to find it difficult to keep their eye on the big picture. And sadly, the people selected to lead us are often the ones causing the biggest distraction.

[Moontanman]

Is this far enough? I doubt it is...

 

[iNow]

Same as they always were:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-conservatives-are-still-crazy-after-all-these-years-20120316

 

It suddenly feels like conservatism has gotten crazier than ever.

 

Republican debate audiences cheer executions and boo an active-duty soldier because he is gay. Politicians pledge allegiance to Rush Limbaugh, a pill-popping lunatic who recently offered "feminazis" a deal: "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, we want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." Thousands of "Oath Keepers" — "Police & Military Against the New World Order"— swear to disobey the illegal orders certain to come down the pike once Barack Obama institutes martial law. One major Republican presidential candidate talks up indentured servitude — and another proposes turning schoolchildren into janitors. Only 12 percent of Mississippi Republicans believe Barack Obama is a Christian. Arizona Republicans push a bill to allow bosses to fire female employees for using birth control.

 

And so on and so forth, unto whatever wacky new wingnuttism just flashed over the wires today.

 

But are right-wingers scarier now than in the past? They certainly seem stranger and fiercer. I'd argue, however, that they’ve been this crazy for a long time. <Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/why-conservatives-are-still-crazy-after-all-these-years-20120316 >

[insane_alien]

That is genuinely horrifiying.

 

so, not only would women have to endure the usual traumas of rape (I say usual, i mean the potentially life destroying psychological trauma) but they also have to have the rapists child, which i'm guessing is going to be treated with such conflicting emotions that its not really going to get a normal upbringing either.

 

i'm pretty sure that would fall under cruel and unusual punishment never mind it being the victim that has to endure this.

 

I think you guys need to reboot your political system (again).

[Phi for All]

From iNow's Rolling Stone article:

 

One major Republican presidential candidate talks up indentured servitude

I predicted a few years back that this would happen. After reading some articles about privatizing education and corporate lobbying being so closely tied up with lawmaking, I envisioned a future where a high school graduate would be given an opportunity to go to college and have a corporation help pay his student loans if the student agrees to take a certain approved curriculum and then work for the corporation for five years once he graduated.

 

It would all sound great, education and guaranteed employment. And then the corporation could offer a down payment on a home if the graduate would work another five years (of course, the corporation would own the housing development). The deals would just keep coming, and the employee would face some huge penalty if he tried to buy himself out of the deal (it would be fairly easy to unofficially blackball the guy from working for another corporation - "I see here you left corporation X after they put you through school and helped you buy a house - not very loyal, are you?").

 

Scary stuff, indentured servitude.

 

I think you guys need to reboot your political system (again).

We'll need help this time, I think. I fear it's too late to just stir up a block of voters and rally others to the cause. We need as many people as possible.

 

Or a really charismatic, rational independent politician with no ties to corporate interests. And is bulletproof.

[jeskill]

I think the religious right has gone too far, has angered a lot of women and (I hope) has galvanized women to vote against the Republicans. And while I'm appalled at what comes out of the mouths of Santorum, Limbaugh, and others, I'm also secretly ecstatic because women's issues are ACTUALLY being talked about in the United States! Yeah!

 

I've been arguing the contraceptive issue with a Libertarian, and his argument is that "he shouldn't have to pay for it if he's not going to use it". I made a number of counter-arguments, including the well-discussed point that Viagra is covered. His response was that "Viagra shouldn't be covered either". OK, fine. THEN WHY AREN'T YOU UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT?

 

What's kind of funny, is that in Ontario, neither contraceptives nor Viagra are covered by the universal health plan. And I don't think I have a problem with that, because it is more fair. That, and when you factor in the ridiculous U.S. copays, contraceptives probably cost the same in both countries.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Has anyone read freakonomics?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

[zapatos]

I've been arguing the contraceptive issue with a Libertarian, and his argument is that "he shouldn't have to pay for it if he's not going to use it". I made a number of counter-arguments, including the well-discussed point that Viagra is covered. His response was that "Viagra shouldn't be covered either". OK, fine. THEN WHY AREN'T YOU UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT?

 

What's kind of funny, is that in Ontario, neither contraceptives nor Viagra are covered by the universal health plan. And I don't think I have a problem with that, because it is more fair. That, and when you factor in the ridiculous U.S. copays, contraceptives probably cost the same in both countries.

It seems to me the comparison of Viagra to contraception is a false comparison. Viagra is for a medical problem while contraception (as generally being discussed) is not. In other words, you could just as easily say "if you are not going to cover contraception you shouldn't cover blood pressure medicine".

 

Perhaps contraception should be compared to preventive medicine.

[Moontanman]

It seems to me the comparison of Viagra to contraception is a false comparison. Viagra is for a medical problem while contraception (as generally being discussed) is not. In other words, you could just as easily say "if you are not going to cover contraception you shouldn't cover blood pressure medicine".

 

Perhaps contraception should be compared to preventive medicine.

 

 

Actually, and this really is true, it's cheaper for a business to provide health care that includes contraception than it is to provide health care that does not... It's cheaper for the insurance carrier due the cost connected with pregnancies...

 

This argument has nothing to do with actual costs... it's because of the religious right and their opposition to any form of birth control because it might empower women, hard to keep em bare foot and pregnant if they can take birth control... God help us if a woman can actually have sex anytime she wants, the world will come to an end...

[jeskill]

It seems to me the comparison of Viagra to contraception is a false comparison. Viagra is for a medical problem while contraception (as generally being discussed) is not. In other words, you could just as easily say "if you are not going to cover contraception you shouldn't cover blood pressure medicine".

 

Perhaps contraception should be compared to preventive medicine.

 

Contraception is sometimes used for medical problems, while Viagra is sometimes used for recreation. In any event, I agree with Moontanman that this has nothing to do with costs, and everything to do with pushing a specific morality. Which is why it is apt to compare the coverage of Viagra and the pill. Viagra helps men have sex. I think it's safe to assume that most people who use Viagra are not having sex with the primary intent to reproduce. Contraception helps women have sex without the primary intent to reproduce. Why is one vilified and the other is not?

[iNow]

It seems to me the comparison of Viagra to contraception is a false comparison. Viagra is for a medical problem while contraception (as generally being discussed) is not.

This is actually not entirely true. While that certainly is the most common reason for usage, contraception is used for far more than just preventing pregnancy.

 

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/1/gpr140107.html

 

Contraceptive methods have additional health benefits beyond those related to preventing and timing pregnancy. A 2010 analysis of the literature found that hormonal contraceptives can help address several menstrual disorders, including dysmenorrhea (severe menstrual pain) and menorrhagia (excessive menstrual bleeding). Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent menstrual migraines, treat pelvic pain due to endometriosis and treat bleeding due to uterine fibroids. Perhaps most notably, oral contraceptives have been shown to have long-term benefits in reducing a woman’s risk of developing endometrial and ovarian cancer, and short-term benefits in protecting against colorectal cancer.

 

And, of course, the male and female condom can help prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, among sexually active women and men. According to the most recent summary of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), consistent and correct use of latex condoms is highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. It also reduces the risk of other sexually transmitted infections, particularly those transmitted by genital secretions, and may reduce the risk for HPV infection.

 

 

And then, in support of Moontanman's comments on the economics, from that same article:

 

Yet, although the costs of contraception can be daunting for individual women, insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies—both public and private—actually saves money. Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies. In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.

 

In terms of costs and savings for the private sector, multiple studies over the past two decades have compared the cost-effectiveness of the various methods of contraception, finding that all of them are cost-effective when taking into account the costs of unintended pregnancies averted. The federal government, the nation’s largest employer, reported that it experienced no increase in costs at all after Congress mandated coverage of contraceptives for federal employees. Moreover, a 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity. Mercer, the employee benefits consulting firm, reached a similar conclusion. And a more recent National Business Group on Health report, drawing on actuarial estimates by PricewaterhouseCoopers, concluded that even if contraception were exempted from cost-sharing, the savings from its coverage would exceed the costs.

 

 

More on costs here:

 

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/the-economic-impact-of-the-pill/?pagewanted=all

 

A study by Martha J. Bailey, Brad Hershbein and Amalia R. Miller helps assign a dollar value to those tectonic shifts. For instance, they show that young women who won access to the pill in the 1960s ended up earning an 8 percent premium on their hourly wages by age 50. Such trends have helped narrow the earnings gap between men and women. Indeed, the paper suggests that the pill accounted for 30 percent – 30 percent! – of the convergence of men’s and women’s earnings from 1990 to 2000.

 

Interestingly, the study also found that the pill had the greatest economic benefits for women with average IQ scores. “Almost all of the wage gains accrued to women in the middle of the IQ distribution,” the paper said. For this group, it said, women with early access to the pill “enjoyed greater hourly wages throughout their twenties and the premium grew to a statistically significant 20 percent at ages 30 to 49.”

[zapatos]

Actually, and this really is true, it's cheaper for a business to provide health care that includes contraception than it is to provide health care that does not... It's cheaper for the insurance carrier due the cost connected with pregnancies...

Which is exactly the point I was making when I said it should probably be compared to preventive medicine instead of Viagra.

 

 

Contraception is sometimes used for medical problems, while Viagra is sometimes used for recreation. In any event, I agree with Moontanman that this has nothing to do with costs, and everything to do with pushing a specific morality. Which is why it is apt to compare the coverage of Viagra and the pill. Viagra helps men have sex. I think it's safe to assume that most people who use Viagra are not having sex with the primary intent to reproduce. Contraception helps women have sex without the primary intent to reproduce. Why is one vilified and the other is not?

Which is why I said "Viagra is for a medical problem while contraception (as generally being discussed) is not." I haven't heard any opponents of covering contraception talking about its use for medical issues. It is generally being discussed in terms of its use for birth control. And I feel that the fact that Viagra is sometimes used for recreation is beside the point. Lots of drugs are. You can't block the valid use of a drug just because it can also be misused.

 

There is no moral objection from the church to erections. There is a moral objection to contraception.

Viagra is primarily for medical problems. Contraception is not.

If you try to compare contraception to a drug for medical problems, no one who is arguing with you is going to let you stay on the "both help to have sex" topic. They will not let go of the stand the church has on contraception.

 

This is actually not entirely true. While that certainly is the most common reason for usage, contraception is used for far more than just preventing pregnancy.

Again, this was the reason I made the point of how contraception is generally being discussed.

 

Basically I agree with what all of you have pointed out, but I still contend that it is more appropriate, and would be a more effective argument, to make the comparison of contraception to preventative medicine instead of Viagra, primarily because of all the issues you've just pointed out.

Edited March 18, 2012 by zapatos

[iNow]

Thanks for clarifying. That definitely helps me to understand your position much better.

[jeskill]

There is no moral objection from the church to erections. There is a moral objection to contraception.

Viagra is primarily for medical problems. Contraception is not.

If you try to compare contraception to a drug for medical problems, no one who is arguing with you is going to let you stay on the "both help to have sex" topic. They will not let go of the stand the church has on contraception.

 

The church may be cool with erections, but according to the reasoning of Santorum, Limbaugh, and the Catholic Church, sex is about procreation, not recreation. To assume that Viagra is only being used to help men procreate is likely more erroneous than assuming that contraceptives are mostly used to relieve acne and menstrual cramps. Yet, no one puts up a fuss. Because ultimately, no one cares if a guy has sex for fun. Women, on the other hand .....

 

If Arizona puts a bill through that allows employers to fire women for using contraceptives to have non-procreative sex, then they should also put a bill through that will allow employers to fire men for using Viagra to have non-procreative sex.

 

(Edit: Grammar)

Edited March 18, 2012 by jeskill

[zapatos]

The church may be cool with erections, but according to the reasoning of Santorum, Limbaugh, and the Catholic Church, sex is about procreation, not recreation. To assume that Viagra is only being used to help men procreate is likely more erroneous than assuming that contraceptives are mostly used to relieve acne and menstrual cramps.

(Edit: Grammar)

Which is why NO ONE assumes that. So why bring it up?

 

Recreational sex is not frowned upon by the Catholic Church. Contraception is.

Erectile dysfunction is a medical issue. Contraception is not.

 

Conflating the issues is not going to get you anywhere.

 

Yet, no one puts up a fuss. Because ultimately, no one cares if a guy has sex for fun. Women, on the other hand .....

 

If Arizona puts a bill through that allows employers to fire women for using contraceptives to have non-procreative sex, then they should also put a bill through that will allow employers to fire men for using Viagra to have non-procreative sex.

Now you just sound like you have an axe to grind because women are held to a different standard when it comes to sex.

 

Which topic do you wish to discuss? What the Right is doing on the contraception issue, or how women have to worry about their reputation and men don't?

[jeskill]

From catholic.com:

 

Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation.

 

I am bothered that in this day and age, women are still held to a different standard than men when it comes to sex. Why wouldn't I be?

 

And if you're implying that the contraceptive issue is separate from the issue of equal standards -- well, I very much disagree. Contraceptives are the great equalizer: they allow women to control their reproductive rate, thus allowing them to participate in the public sphere, to have careers, to travel, and to (OMG) have political and economic power that they would otherwise not have. Contraceptives have drastically changed the game, and quite frankly, I like that I've been able to see the world, get a higher education degree, and work while still having a long term partner. So please forgive me when I get a bit irate after hearing about potential bills that allow employers to fire employees for being on the pill. It is completely ridiculous that we are expected to act like nuns if we want to work, whilst men can continue to enjoy both.

Edited March 18, 2012 by jeskill

[zapatos]

From catholic.com:

 

"Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation."

Yes, you found the standard regarding why the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception.

 

I am bothered that in this day and age, women are still held to a different standard than men when it comes to sex. Why wouldn't I be?

Well, in 'this day and age' since most of the world's women are not yet treated as equals of men, I am not really surprised that women are still held to a different standard than men when it comes to sex. However, I agree that it is very frustrating and look forward to the day when that inequality is gone.

 

I never said that you shouldn't be bothered by it. I said you were treating two different issues as if they were the same thing.

 

And if you're implying that the contraceptive issue is separate from the issue of equal standards -- well, I very much disagree.

I am not implying anything. I am saying that contraception is a separate issue from erectile dysfunction.

 

Contraceptives are the great equalizer: they allow women to control their reproductive rate, thus allowing them to participate in the public sphere, to have careers, to travel, and to (OMG) have political and economic power that they would otherwise not have. Contraceptives have drastically changed the game, and quite frankly, I like that I've been able to see the world, get a higher education degree, and work while still having a long term partner. So please forgive me when I get a bit irate after hearing about potential bills that allow employers to fire employees for being on the pill. It is completely ridiculous that we are expected to act like nuns if we want to work, whilst men can continue to enjoy both.

I'm happy to discuss anything you wish, but if you are going to direct your anger and frustration at me regarding sexual inequality just because I question how you've linked two issues, then I'll be moving on.

[swansont]

Which is exactly the point I was making when I said it should probably be compared to preventive medicine instead of Viagra.

 

That's the case if it were really about health and economics. But it's about religion and having sex, and whether it's for procreation. Contraception ensures that it's not for procreation, and <gasp> some of the people doing it aren't married. If there were a way to legislate missionary style, eyes shut and lights out, you'd have a dozen GOP co-sponsors on the bill.

[Moontanman]

That's the case if it were really about health and economics. But it's about religion and having sex, and whether it's for procreation. Contraception ensures that it's not for procreation, and <gasp> some of the people doing it aren't married. If there were a way to legislate missionary style, eyes shut and lights out, you'd have a dozen GOP co-sponsors on the bill.

 

The technology exists to watch everyone, if not all of the time, a great deal of the time. I know it sounds crazy but it does worry me, no I don't believe there are cameras in my TV but the technology exists to make it so, a theocracy just might have the will to make it happen...

[swansont]

Recreational sex is not frowned upon by the Catholic Church. Contraception is.

 

But it is apparently frowned upon by the religious right, as evidenced by Rush's diatribe about "paying someone to have sex"

[zapatos]

That's the case if it were really about health and economics. But it's about religion and having sex, and whether it's for procreation. Contraception ensures that it's not for procreation, and <gasp> some of the people doing it aren't married. If there were a way to legislate missionary style, eyes shut and lights out, you'd have a dozen GOP co-sponsors on the bill.

Yes, the Right wants to make it about religion, but why do they get to decide? The debate needs to be about health and economics, and if we want to win the debate we need to move it away from morals.

 

But it is apparently frowned upon by the religious right, as evidenced by Rush's diatribe about "paying someone to have sex"

First, I should probably clarify something I said earlier. The church does not object to recreational sex inside marriage.

 

I think even the religious right backed away from what Rush had to say.

[Phi for All]

To assume that Viagra is only being used to help men procreate is likely more erroneous than assuming that contraceptives are mostly used to relieve acne and menstrual cramps.

This is a really, really excellent point. And with this in mind, I totally see the hypocrisy in allowing one and not the other.

 

Erectile dysfunction is a medical issue. Contraception is not.

 

Conflating the issues is not going to get you anywhere.

I think you're missing the issue here. Men are using Viagra just to have more sex, but only some are using it for medical reasons, the same as women and the pill. I'd say the two issues aren't really separate at all.

 

Now you just sound like you have an axe to grind because women are held to a different standard when it comes to sex.

Wow. THAT was unworthy. I understand about the heat of the moment, but still....

 

I am saying that contraception is a separate issue from erectile dysfunction.

You're stacking the deck by misstating the element jeskill included. Both men and women are using these pills for their intended use, and both men and women are NOT using them for their intended use. The real problem here is that the religious right has a problem with the intended use of birth control, but they don't have a problem with men using Viagra even when they don't have any medical reason to do so.

 

http://health.msn.co...age-the-culprit

We do know that by age 45 most men have experienced a temporary form of ED at one time or another. For these men, erectile dysfunction tends to go away and life returns to normal. But for the millions of American males (5 percent of men over 40 and 15 percent of men over 70) who experience chronic ED or impotence, the condition has the potential to cause emotional turmoil and destroy intimate relationships.

5% of men over 40 and 15% over 70 can't possibly account for the market Viagra and its competitors have. But this article might account for the discrepancy:

 

http://www.subboard....89323175554.asp

About 75 percent of the drug distribution is now prescribed by general practitioners instead of urologists. This has become a problem because there is no exact scientific way to prove if a man has erectile dysfunction, and no doctor is expecting a patient to prove that they do. So, a potent male can ask their caregiver for a prescription, as long as they answer all of the right questions. It is mainly the practitioners' responsibility to use their better judgment when prescribing the pill.

Employers who provide health insurance are paying for men to have more sex, too. Since the central issue in these new laws is not wanting to pay for women to have more sex, why can't you see that these issues are the same?

 

I'm happy to discuss anything you wish, but if you are going to direct your anger and frustration at me regarding sexual inequality just because I question how you've linked two issues, then I'll be moving on.

Dude, I think your responses are the ones that sound overly emotional in this thread. I suspect there is something underlying all this, since you're normally very rational. Sorry, but that's what I see.

[zapatos]

This is a really, really excellent point. And with this in mind, I totally see the hypocrisy in allowing one and not the other.

 

I think you're missing the issue here. Men are using Viagra just to have more sex, but only some are using it for medical reasons, the same as women and the pill. I'd say the two issues aren't really separate at all.

I still don't buy it.

 

1. Contraception as used for birth control does not address a medical problem in women. I recognize it has uses that do address medical problems in women. I don't believe the use of contraception for medical need is an issue with anyone. Not me, you, Rush, the Church. For example, the Church does not oppose hysterectomies for medical need even if it prevents the woman from getting pregnant. The issue is contraception's use for birth control. I am only guessing here, but I'd be surprised if an insurance company that did not cover contraception, would refuse to pay for contraception for a woman to address a medical issue.

 

2. Viagra as used to treat ED does address a medical problem in men. I recognize that the drug is abused. I don't believe the use of Viagra to treat a medical issue is an issue with most people. Not me, the Church, or anyone with ED (Although after this thread I am now not so sure of that). The issue I see with Viagra is only when it is abused. Same for Xanax, pain killers, etc.

 

3. In my opinion, to suggest that it is fair to cut out Viagra for someone who has a medical issue because someone else is abusing the drug is ludicrous. It is my opinion the same as an insurance company not paying for pain killers for a person with chronic pain because someone somewhere is abusing pain killers.

 

4. If there is problem with drug abuse, you punish the abusers, not the ones who have a legitimate need. I know this analogy is really going far, but it reminds me of God punishing me because an ancient ancestor of mine did something wrong in a garden. That one always did piss me off.

 

5. In my opinion, the only reason the two issues are being connected is because both have to do with sex. Pain killers for men with testicular cancer are probably abused (assuming they are the same pain killers subscribed for other pains). Perhaps if we are not going to pay for birth control for women we should not pay for pain killers for men with testicular cancer. How is this analogy different?

 

You're stacking the deck by misstating the element jeskill included. Both men and women are using these pills for their intended use, and both men and women are NOT using them for their intended use. The real problem here is that the religious right has a problem with the intended use of birth control, but they don't have a problem with men using Viagra even when they don't have any medical reason to do so.

I believe I'm stacking the deck by looking at the issue more closely than you.

 

I agree the real problem is that the religious right has a problem with the intended use of birth control. For both men and women. Women seem to be the focus because most birth control is aimed at women (and because women are still held to different standards). Rush did not say to pay for it for men but not women. And I'd love to see you support your assertion that the religious right does not have a problem with drug abuse, whether Viagra or any other drug.

 

5% of men over 40 and 15% over 70 can't possibly account for the market Viagra and its competitors have. But this article might account for the discrepancy:

Of course it cannot account for it all. Everyone knows it is being abused. Not that I feel it matters, (due to my previously stated position that you don't punish the patient because someone is misusing your drug), but what is the percentage that is abused? You statement makes it sound like it is a lot.

 

Employers who provide health insurance are paying for men to have more sex, too. Since the central issue in these new laws is not wanting to pay for women to have more sex, why can't you see that these issues are the same?

Sure, it makes sense if you put it that way. One could also say health insurance is paying to fix a medical problem for men, and the issue in the new laws is not wanting to pay for a non-medical intervention for either men or women.

 

All depends on how you word it.

 

I can see you can make an argument for equating the two, but I don't find it to be a strong argument. If, on the other hand, you compared contraception to other forms of preventive medicine that are already covered, I think it would be harder to dismiss. They still would because it is also a moral issue for some, but at least then the arguments can go head to head.

 

Dude, I think your responses are the ones that sound overly emotional in this thread. I suspect there is something underlying all this, since you're normally very rational. Sorry, but that's what I see.

No need to be sorry. But I do find it interesting that you (and at least two others) did see it that way.

 

In my first post on this topic I suggested contraception/viagra was not a good comparison but that contraception/preventive medicine was and quickly went over why.

 

Moon, jeskill and iNow then questioned my assertion, and I responded by saying I agreed with them all and at least in part discussed it in my first post.

 

jeskill then directed at me:

 

1. The point that women are not treated fairly.

Because ultimately, no one cares if a guy has sex for fun. Women, on the other hand .....

2. If women are treated unfairly, rather than fix that error we should instead create another error targeting men.

If Arizona puts a bill through that allows employers to fire women for using contraceptives to have non-procreative sex, then they should also put a bill through that will allow employers to fire men for using Viagra to have non-procreative sex.

3. Read into my posts something I did not say.

And if you're implying that the contraceptive issue is separate from the issue of equal standards --

4. And finally, directed a rant to me, not about contraception vs. Viagra, but about how women are treated unfairly.

Contraceptives are the great equalizer: they allow women to control their reproductive rate, thus allowing them to participate in the public sphere, to have careers, to travel, and to (OMG) have political and economic power that they would otherwise not have. Contraceptives have drastically changed the game, and quite frankly, I like that I've been able to see the world, get a higher education degree, and work while still having a long term partner. So please forgive me when I get a bit irate after hearing about potential bills that allow employers to fire employees for being on the pill. It is completely ridiculous that we are expected to act like nuns if we want to work, whilst men can continue to enjoy both.

 

Thus leading to my final response of, "I'm happy to discuss anything you wish, but if you are going to direct your anger and frustration at me regarding sexual inequality just because I question how you've linked two issues, then I'll be moving on."

 

 

So anyway, you may still think that response was over emotional, but now you know what I was thinking.

Edited March 19, 2012 by zapatos

[jeskill]

I am only guessing here, but I'd be surprised if an insurance company that did not cover contraception, would refuse to pay for contraception for a woman to address a medical issue.

 

Actually, insurance companies do refuse to pay for the pill even when women need it for medical reasons. In her speech, Sandra Fluke gives a heartbreaking example of this at her university.

 

2. Viagra as used to treat ED does address a medical problem in men. I recognize that the drug is abused. I don't believe the use of Viagra to treat a medical issue is an issue with most people. Not me, the Church, or anyone with ED (Although after this thread I am now not so sure of that). The issue I see with Viagra is only when it is abused. Same for Xanax, pain killers, etc.

 

Listen, I have no problem with guys using Viagra to treat ED. However, I do think it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of the religious right on this issue. The only purpose I can see for Viagra is that it allows men with ED to get an erection. Am I wrong? And unless I'm missing something, the only reason to get an erection is, well, to have sex! (Or masturbate. Whatever floats your goat. Edit: I meant boat. lol.) The reason I think it's pertinent to compare the religious right's non-discussion of Viagra with their tizzy over the pill is because it blatantly shows the double-standard they have concerning women and men. If there were no double standard, then the religious right would also think it's appropriate to limit Viagra to only those who need it for procreation.

 

3. In my opinion, to suggest that it is fair to cut out Viagra for someone who has a medical issue because someone else is abusing the drug is ludicrous. It is my opinion the same as an insurance company not paying for pain killers for a person with chronic pain because someone somewhere is abusing pain killers.

 

I agree, but that wasn't my point at all. See above.

 

 

5. In my opinion, the only reason the two issues are being connected is because both have to do with sex. Pain killers for men with testicular cancer are probably abused (assuming they are the same pain killers subscribed for other pains). Perhaps if we are not going to pay for birth control for women we should not pay for pain killers for men with testicular cancer. How is this analogy different?

Question (again showing my ignorance of the male anatomy). Is ED painful? Does it kill men? Or does it just stop them from getting an erection? The reason I think the pill and Viagra are related is because a lack of both seem to just reduce sexual choices. Testicular cancer, on the other hand, sounds incredibly painful and is probably fatal if not treated.

 

 

I can see you can make an argument for equating the two, but I don't find it to be a strong argument. If, on the other hand, you compared contraception to other forms of preventive medicine that are already covered, I think it would be harder to dismiss. They still would because it is also a moral issue for some, but at least then the arguments can go head to head.

 

I agree that the pill can also be compared to preventative medicine. I know there are studies out there that suggest insurance policies that cover the pill have overall lower costs. My personal opinion -- I just don't think that the religious right cares if it's preventative medicine.

 

 

jeskill then directed at me:

 

1. The point that women are not treated fairly.

 

2. If women are treated unfairly, rather than fix that error we should instead create another error targeting men.

 

3. Read into my posts something I did not say.

 

4. And finally, directed a rant to me, not about contraception vs. Viagra, but about how women are treated unfairly.

 

OK. I do hope that you recognize #2 was not a policy suggestion, but rather a statement meant to show the hypocrisy of the religious right's position?

 

The reason I directed a rant at you is because you wrote,

Now you just sound like you have an axe to grind because women are held to a different standard when it comes to sex.Which topic do you wish to discuss? What the Right is doing on the contraception issue, or how women have to worry about their reputation and men don't?

 

In subsequent posts, you did state that you do recognize that the double standard exists and that you do hope for a day of more equality, which I appreciate.

 

However, at this point in the conversation, my heuristic mind linked these comments you made to past statements made by other people that were used to silence my concerns about equality of the sexes. As I'm sure you know, many people in developed countries such as Canada or the US believe that feminism is not needed anymore, that there's not a double standard, and that feminists are just whiners with no real reason to complain. Don't get me wrong -- I know that I have it good compared to even my mother's generation, but I also recognize that women's liberation is a very young concept and susceptible to backsliding if those of us who believe in equality aren't vigilant. And right now, there's a lot of backsliding going on, especially as the religious right gains political power.

 

Can you understand why I'd be sensitive to the implied sentiment that I shouldn't have an ax to grind because women are held to a different standard? Is that what you meant to say? Because that's kinda how it was worded.

Edited March 19, 2012 by jeskill