Agnostic.com

11 3

VIAGRA

Is it possible there could be a link between sexual harassment and Viagra?

Now the ‘blue pill’ is going generic and be bought OTC. Funny, we have allowed this enhancement drug to be covered by health insurers yet, at the same time, denying many family planning programs. Too many %#+*&^ Tarzan's beating their chests (and too often their Jane's).

What the hell is wrong with some men?? I know if I needed this stupid pill I would refuse it as long as women are denied a means of birth control and a chance to control their own sexuality.

By JackPedigo8
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

There was an old dude that used to hang out at the coffee shop near my college who had a catchphrase, "Never miss an opportunity to let women know your dick still works."

I usually wouldn't care, but I'm a tiny bit sad only one person got/liked my joke.

0

Seems unlikely. I don't see how an erectile dysfunction medication, that has no effect on libido, and that you have to take the best part of an hour before you need the erection, could play any meaningful part in harassment. How does this work? Pop a pill, wait 45 minutes, and then go and find someone to harass before you go off the boil? It doesn't sound like the best use of an expensive medicine, to me.

It isn't a 'stupid' pill. Sex is important for a lot of people, and impotence can be a thoroughly traumatic thing for people to deal with. Birth control is an entirely different issue, centering around a moral debate on what constitutes human life, further confused by a common belief that God owns your genitals and gets to decide what you use them for and who with. While I'm very much pro-choice, I don't see this as a double standard at all.

First off I do not know how Viagra works. I would think there has to some sort of mental stimulation to go with the physical.

The double standard us about providing coverage for a male issue and yet denying them for female issues. Every humanistic group I know is against this. Another point is from an overpopulation standpoint (this site is supposed to bring awareness to this issue). Deny a coverage that helps to control population yet allow it for something that expands it.

The mechanics or an erection involve restricting the bloodflow out of the organ. With blood coming in at full pressure but not being allowed to flow out without restriction, pressure builds up and the organ engorges. Two ways of assisting this: the first is to get more blood flowing in, and the second is to restrict it coming out. Viagra does the former by dilating the blood vessels. A cock ring does the latter by constricting the return path.

Sex isn't all about making babies, and erections certainly aren't. It's possible to orgasm without getting an erection, and the resulting semen could be used via IVF, or simply inserted into your partner's vagina. ED drugs are a 'quality of life' thing, so that men can continue to enjoy sexual activity even after their body stops giving them natural erections.

Abortion is a completely different issue with a whole bunch of moral and ethical challenges that just aren't present when it comes to assisting a guy in getting wood. As I've said before, I'm pro choice. Partly because I don't believe God is up there, choosing who gets pregnant and who doesn't (If he is, then this is a God that frequently gives the thumbs up to rape) but mostly because a woman who is desperate to terminate a pregnancy will find a way of doing so. And if a safe means is not available, she will choose an unsafe one.

And I don't believe an ovum becomes a human life the moment it is fertilised. The debate should be at what point during pregnancy they become one, because clearly abortion shouldn't be allowed after this stage, unless there are sound medical reasons for it.

0

I worked in a pharmacy for 5 years and I saw Viagra covered twice. The first was for a 5 month old girl with underdeveloped lungs and the other for a stock broker who couldn't hold his life together after surviving 09/11 and losing his brother and coworkers in the rubble. I've seen Viagra approved by insurance and paid at a negotiated rate, with the insurance company contributing 0% as a means of keeping better records for the customer and enabling group negotiation, but never saw insurance pay for it other than PTSD and infant lungs.

DJVJ311 Level 7 Dec 23, 2017

That may be but the drug was developed for ED. Other side treatments came later. So many groups FFRF and the Humanists (and ZPG) decry the double standard. I have to go by what I have learned from concerned groups and not let exceptions sway me. True, there are two sides to every situation but there are two sides to every situation. Often the reality is some of both.

@JackPedigo Viagra was developed in 1989 for blood pressure and angina. It has no hormonal component and works completely on the blood vessels. Since we are a community who likes facts and knowledge, here is one of many articles that describes it: [cnn.com]. If you want to provide an article talking about the hormonal impact or how it was developed, please provide a source.

The double standard most often decried is DoD spending on Viagra which is for cases of prostatectomies and PTSD, which are both cases that should be covered. The DoD also provides hormonal birth control to millions of female soldiers, military spouses and military children. They even cover IUD's, surgical sterilization and non-prescription emergency contraceptives. If you want to discuss a double standard in more detail, please explain what you see as a double standard and how you think it should be resolved.

@JackPedigo DJVJ is right, Viagra was not developed for ED. It was a somewhat failed vascular drug that had an unexpected side effect that ended up making them a billion dollars.

1

The pill does not control morality. I love women, but I do not force myself onto them. When I ask a woman out and she says no, I take no as an answer and respect their decision. These assault have been going on for centuries, the only difference is that women are not keeping quiet anymore. They need to change the rules of civil court about non disclosure settlements. A lot of women have spoken up, and then are threatened and silenced by the non disclosure rule. They are also faced with the fact no one will believe them, and they would be called liars and whores by the people and companies they are accusing. Look at our own congress where several law makers were accused of sexual harassment, and the women were paid off and silenced. The public have been paying for it, and the public never knew about it.

noworry28 Level 7 Dec 17, 2017

My question was rhetorical not judgemental. Tell me why was the birth control 'pill' said to be about morality and the 'blue pill' not.
I feel as you in regards to women. To force oneself on another does not make for a mutual relationship. Unfortunately we are not, it seems today, the norm. Did you see my cartoon on this?

@JackPedigo Because God. That's why. There are a ton of crazy people who believe that contraceptives are in direct contravention of god's will. Viagra helps mankind fulfill god's law to go forth and multiply. Of course, anyone talking about morality in relation to sex should likely have everything that comes out of their mouth ignored.

@JeffMurray My late partner told me a story about a comment her mother made to someone who talked about family planning not being a part of god's (Allah's) plan. That everything was in God's hands. The mother replied "God has funny shaped hands".

@JackPedigo Again, I fail to see your point.

2

And what is the excuse for those guys who were around touching / proposing girls three decades younger than them....50 and 60 years ago....when Viagra didn't exist?
Wait....lets not put "compliments and abuse" in the same box.

DUCHESSA Level 8 Dec 17, 2017
1

I believe sexual harassment precedes Viagra by a few hundred ( ? ) years... Is it possible sexual harassment may have innocent origins ? The idea of putting women on pedestals, may have been an extreme... and when the “idols” rejected that approach, the weakened man (boy) reacted with some type of harshness.
Many (most) American men (boys) lack maturity, are insecure, allowing Hollywood to gave men/boys (me back in the day) the allusion we should (permission) act macho, be the tough guy hero... “don’t take any crap from a broad” ... be dominant, be the boss... I was somewhat influenced by Hollywood, media, magazines... growing up in the 50’s/60’s, the so called sexual revolution, seemed to suggest it’s time to take charge of “women”, that’s what women wanted, that’s what men wanted. It’s lasted since then... and now it must stop... women said so, and now I’m hoping men say so as well. How many times have we heard, read, said... “it’s a mans world”... no more!
Today I brag about being a gentleman... but I know there were times I wasn’t, (yearnyearsago) lost a friend or two, being a dumb boor (ignorant), honestly, I’ve learned from my mistakes, at least when it concerns behavior. I’m aware.

Tomas Level 7 Dec 17, 2017
0

What ? I'm lost here.

0

I haven't found any research linking the two, and as HeathenFarmer said, SH has been around for centuries. Viagra came out in 1998. About a year after that, I started my own business because I was fed-up with the corporate environment that lacked accountability. I only recall two, maybe three male bosses in my career who didn't sexually harass me, and I had the utmost respect for their professionalism.

When I say sexually harassed, I mean, propositioned, and sometimes punished (or fired) for resisting their advances, groped, etc. I know there are plenty of professional men who respect boundaries, so I'm not suggesting that this has been most women's (and some men's) experience. This was my experience.

With regard to your other comments, it does seem apparent to me (and I've read a good bit of research on the subject) that the priorities in this country, under the guise of "family values" tend to be indicative of a slowly dying, highly stratified, hyper-masculine culture.

Btw, thank you.

Everyone answered as you so I will reply and hope the others see it. My question was, I admit, a little unclear. It was meant to be hypothetical but with an undertone of if this could foster men to act on their heightened 'state' (for won't of a better word). Also, remember the anti-sexual harassment movement is fairly new and has, rightly so, scared a lot of men (and a few women) into watching their behavior.

Given the increased lobbying by special interest groups to eliminate funding for certain areas I would not be surprised if it would be difficult to do research in a number of fields (these days one must be skeptical about everything).

Several years ago we got involved with the local domestic violence awareness movement in our county (despite our size it does happen here and I even sat on a jury deciding such a case). One thing we did was to make female, male and children silhouettes which indicated the number of deaths in the state. Each silhouette had the name, age, and circumstances of the victim. In 2014 there were 26 figures, this year there were 51! I know there are probably numerous links and I would not rule out sexual drives.

So funny (but not really). I was checking my spam and got a message from Canadian Pharmacy that said "Free Viagra with every order".

Hmmm, I guess that could happen if the guy likes taking viagra on his way to work. Lol

This issue keeps resurfacing and has caused me to do some deep critical thinking and I made copious notes for and against. I still don't understand why there is so much fuss about a male enhancement pill and so little about women losing their birth control rights (which includes abortion).

Several years ago there was a big study done in Germany (since our national health groups cannot do this) on the affect of guns in a society. One thing found is that owning a gun often changes the way a person thinks. They become paranoid and self important and a lot of other negative things. Basically every cause has an effect and I see a link here. There is a health crises in this country (obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure) and everyone looks to a pill to cure what ails them. To me Viagra is a lazy solution to a lifestyle problem.

As I stated in one reply, with overpopulation being the "Core" issue why are we spending so much energy on was to add to the "surplus population" (Scrooge) and nothing to help reducing it?
Bah Humbug j/k (this is also a part of the season).

@JackPedigo There are exactly two reasons why Viagra exists: demand and profit. This has nothing to do with any other perceived societal problems.

@JeffMurray It wasn't meant to be about perceived problems but ones that came later. There are always unintended consequences. Profit can be a strong reason for cover ups and hiding information.

@JackPedigo I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I was replying to the "why are we spending so much energy on..." statement. I was saying that there were no motives regarding population expansion or control or any other issues or problems we face in the creation, production, or sale of Viagra. I don't even know what you think they'd need to cover up.

2

From what I can find, viagra can only be bought over the counter in the UK.

As for the answer to your question..... we've had sexual harassment long before viagra. Like domestic abuse in the past, it was pretty much considered normal and women could not do anything about it. Now that women are getting their power, we can and are demanding something be done.

kiramea Level 7 Dec 16, 2017
1

I once dated a guy who I believe used Viagra because he was Tarzan beating his chest for several hours. Thats all I'm going to say. I don't see a link between sexual harassment and Viagra

see my answer to Victoria

2

I doubt there is a link between the two, sexual harassment has been around for centuries; what is changing is society's tolerance of it.
As for the blue pill you need to recognize that at least some cases the beneficiary of the pill can be the partner of the man, funny thing is women like sex, too.
I admire your stance but, as a Canadian I can't or need to relate to it.

I replied to Victoria on this.

The pill is meant for men. Whether it benefits women is often the case but not always.

My lips are sealed.

People often forget how birth control and abortion help men too. I don't think any of these are "Men's Issues" or "Women's Issues" A safer world with more choice for everyone sounds wonderful to me.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:8693'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • Agnostic.com is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!