My little question

[eleanor]

In an earlier thread, there was much talk about condoms, birth control, etc. People mentioned how condoms led to a greater amount of "recreational sex".

Strangely, no one mentioned Viagra, Cialis, Levitra.

Isn't that odd??

Doesn't that lead to "recreational sex"? Doesn't it subvert "G*D's Will"?

After all, if men suffer from ED -- isn't that a sign from "on high" that it's time to "change priorities"?

With all the statements about the failure of condoms (by the way, only 2% of condom users have unwanted pregnancies every year -- 98% is still better than nothing), no one has said anything about the creation of artificial potency among men. Doesn't anyone else see that as strange?

[OrangeSkies]

After all, if men suffer from ED -- isn't that a sign from "on high" that it's time to "change priorities"?

No more so than a woman with a yeast infection being a sign from "on high".

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by OrangeSkies

No more so than a woman with a yeast infection being a sign from "on high".

That is truly a non-starter as far as equivalency goes.

Cranberry juice -- ATHLETES FOOT medication -- and I'm "good to go" (in more ways than one)

That was just silly on your part -- but I'm well aware that men do not want to open THAT potential "can of worms"

[OrangeSkies]

You really don't like men, do you?

[sjp2452]

As I understand it most men that are affected by ED are middle-aged or elderly, and use these medications to put a little spark back into their marriages. The problem with current condom marketing is that they're handed out like candy to high schoolers. They're given out with a "just in case (wink wink)" kind of message, but putting one into the hand of a high school boy is just like saying "here, go have some fun." Teenagers are the ones that have most of the unwanted pregnancies, and they're also still impressionable. Pushing a message of "wait for marriage for x, y and z reasons" is only sensible. If a student wants to walk down to the school nurse's office and ask for a condom, fine...but the larger message should be one of responsibility, not "here's an easier way to do what feels good."

If schools start handing out Cialis like they do condoms, then I'll concede your point. I just don't see that happening. Passing out free sex stuff encourages promiscuous sex, and I've yet to hear an argument that this is a good thing.

[Miguel]

tatat tatat tatat!!! Another condom update!!


Condoms are for casual sex, not many happily married couples use them. Viagra can be used for casual sex, or for marital sex.

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Miguel

Condoms are for casual sex, not many happily married couples use them.

Just a small nitpick, but I know of many who do, mostly for the reason that the wife involved can't tolerate hormone-based birth-control, and the other widgets and gadgets available are more trouble than they're worth.


As for the original question, I think ED medications are no more unnatural or unethical than the hormone-replacement concoctions women use to mitigate the unpleasant effects of menopause or prevent osteoporosis. +1 to sjp on his post.

[cjive134]

Originally Posted by OrangeSkies

No more so than a woman with a yeast infection being a sign from "on high".

You are aware that a yeast infection doesn't really inhibit a woman from having sex don't you? On the other hand, am over ripe banana is another story.

Personal, Eleanor, I think anytime someone wants to tell people why certain kinds of sex are an abomination, they are just being nosy. I made a point the other day that is one is going to condemn gay sex because it says it's an abomination in the bible according to the book of leviticus, that they also need to follow the other teachings in that book of the bible. Namely, avoiding sex during a womans period, no shellfish, planting 2 kinds of crops next to each other ect ect. This I don't think was appreciated by some members of the forum, but oh well. The point that gay sex doesn't lead to offspring was an example of why gay sex was an abomination was given. But this arguement doesn't hold water, as many many things that humans do in the bedroom don't lead to offspring. Condoms, sex toys, oral sex, and even the occational back door encounter, just to name a few. So why should someone get so up in arms about two people of the same sex having a relationship? It really is a non-issue.
Which leads to my point that gay marriage, civil unions or what ever you wish to call them are no more an abomination to god than my unwillingness to commit, or someone elses unwillingness to have children.
Someone wil always bring up the sanctity of marriage. Well, marriage isn't all the santified in this day and age. I'm sure that Newt Gingrich's ex-wives can attest to this fact.
Anyway, sorry to hi-jack your thread eleanor, but I had to vent a little.

[eleanor]

Originally Posted by sjp2452

As I understand it most men that are affected by ED are middle-aged or elderly, and use these medications to put a little spark back into their marriages. The problem with current condom marketing is that they're handed out like candy to high schoolers. They're given out with a "just in case (wink wink)" kind of message, but putting one into the hand of a high school boy is just like saying "here, go have some fun." Teenagers are the ones that have most of the unwanted pregnancies, and they're also still impressionable. Pushing a message of "wait for marriage for x, y and z reasons" is only sensible. If a student wants to walk down to the school nurse's office and ask for a condom, fine...but the larger message should be one of responsibility, not "here's an easier way to do what feels good."

If schools start handing out Cialis like they do condoms, then I'll concede your point. I just don't see that happening. Passing out free sex stuff encourages promiscuous sex, and I've yet to hear an argument that this is a good thing.

Well said -- of course, this all assumes you were never 16 year old boys -- or you have forgotten what 16 year old boys (and girls) are REALLY like. Promiscuous sex has been around since the beginning of time -- it's all over The Bible, literature, and the basis for "great love stories", "great romances"

There are an awful lot of older wives of older men who DON'T want more "spark". Many are happy their husbands are now faithful, tend to be better mates, and are more affectionate and caring.

Men's sex drives diminish naturally with age. That was THE PLAN. That's the way it's always been.

I just find it amusing that the "abstinance" program is now directed toward single folks as old as 29. That condoms are lied about, not to be used in ANTI-AIDS programs -- but no one dares say a word against ED medication.

I wonder how many older wives now wonder where the "old goat" is going to "get his rocks off"

By the way, that "you really don't like men, do you?" comment is both uncalled for, and typical whenever ANY woman criticizes ANYTHING men do.

If I used the criteria many guys seem to use, I could say, very honestly, "Wow! You guys really don't like women, do you?"

Anti-woman comments are far more common than anti-male ones. You just think it's your right to say that stuff -- and most of the time we don't bother to call you on it. It's not worth the grief, and serves no purpose.

We just look at each other and either nod, or roll our eyes -- sometimes there's a little sigh.

"You guys REALLY don't like women (as PEOPLE) do you?"

[XDAndMe]

Originally Posted by OrangeSkies

You really don't like men, do you?