There are two fundamental principals of feminism:
-
Women are the same as men and must be treated equally [sub]when it suits us[/sub]
-
Women are different from men and must be given special treatment [sub]when it suits us[/sub]
That’s two threads you’ve tried shit-stirring in. Got a third lined up?
Look, I’m not saying men shouldn’t get Viagra if they want it. I’m saying that if men can do that, then women should be able to get the pill if they want it. How many different ways can I say it? My stance is if women can’t get the pill covered, then men shouldn’t get Viagra. If, on the other hand, women did get coverage for the pill, then men should also be covered for Viagra. I am not saying men should never be covered for Viagra. I am not saying men should only use Viagra if they need it. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
And YES I do believe that men should pay more “per visit”. Because women are inherently stuck with virtually all reproductive costs. That is not fair. Think of it this way. If I buy two candy bars, then share it with you, shouldn’t you contribute half?
Women bear the cost of reproductive services. This is not fair. I stand by this assertion.
Sure, but you aren’t sharing with me. Hell, I’d treat if I got some, but I’m not getting any candy bars so I don’t want to pay for yours!
Surely someone has shared their candy bar with you at some point, right? 
Well sure, but I foolish married the last one and ended up paying for all her candy while she was sharing it with the handyman. :mad: Now I so need a Three Musketeers… 
And women get prenatal care, pregnancy care, coverage for childbirth, maternity leave, etc. etc., none of which men get. Sounds pretty goddamn fucking fair to me.
That’s pretty funny.
But men do need those services. They are parents too. Get it? It takes two to tango, as someone said up thread. I’m ready to stop beating this horse now. You are being deliberately dense.
Then what are you whining about? If there are two parents, they ought to be sharing expenses anyway. Why do you need the government to redistribute wealth from husband to wife? They’re supposed to be sharing everything already.
Then I could use that argument to claim that women should subsidize Viagra for men. Sends us back to square one.
Oh, I see - “Pointing out that you’re wrong” equals “deliberately dense” in your mind. Whatever you say, dear. :rolleyes:
I’m not talking about only married couples. I’m talking about women - all women. Of course parents and couples using medications for sex ought to be splitting the cost. But the reality is that this is not always true. There are plenty of children born out of wedlock.
You don’t seem to understand that what I’m saying about Viagra is that if it is subsidized, then birth control should be subsidized for women. Get it? I don’t know if I can make this any clearer without diagrams and visual aids. In fact let me try again: I believe women should be subsidized for birth control. Men should be subsidized for Viagra as well. You shouldn’t have one without the other.
It’s the inequality of the situation that bothers me.
Under federal law, men are entitled to the same 12 weeks of leave that woman are following the birth of a child.
But you said “men are parents too”. If you’re talking about single mothers, then the man isn’t in that equation. Why should I, as a single man, be forced to pay for a single woman’s baby that I had nothing to do with? How does your “men are parents too” argument apply to me?
If a child is born out of wedlock, the father is ALREADY required by law to support that child. But that’s not enough for you. You want to DOUBLE-penalize men by making all men cover the cost of women having babies, AND having the father of each baby pay the mother directly as well.
Why don’t we just go ahead and have a national penis-tax? Apparently that’s what you want.
One last time with you and I’m done. There is a man in the equation. The man who got her pregnant. And I’m talking about women’s healthcare. I’m not talking about child support, which is totally off-topic. And men shouldn’t cover the whole cost of women having babies, they should cover HALF the cost. Christ you’re thick.
Another thing: You have presented absolutely no evidence that these extra doctor visits for women are related to pregnancy issues. For all we know, women visit the doctor more because they freak out every time they get a hangnail or something. Or visit the doctor for common colds and other untreatable routine illnesses. This whole premise that women pay more because they have babies is unsupported by any evidence you have shown yet.
That somehow assumes that sex and sex without pregnancy are interchangable, which they aren’t. Rather to equate your argument, you shouldn’t associate Viagra with birth control, they are after two different aims. You should include all birth controls by themselves.
Well I didn’t get anyone pregnant. Why should I have to pay more for my health insurance? Women who get pregnant are already getting support payments from the father. Why is that off-topic? Besides which, I don’t believe the cost disparity is due to pregnancy issues - you haven’t proven that. And who said you have to have a baby anyway? I’M supposed to subsidize your decision to have children? Fuck that. But please - continue to think that everyone who calls you on your bullshit is “thick”, including the judges who ruled against you.
Sex without pregnancy is sex. I don’t think I understand your meaning. I made my comparison between the rationales for covering Viagra and birth control in post 173:
Do you feel differently? If so, why?
There you go again, you wacky poster, you! I’m not calling everyone thick. I’m calling you thick. Just you.
Not all women are getting child support. Besides child support has nothing to do with the mother’s medical coverage, which is why it’s not on topic.
Damn, I broke my promise.
Healthy, normal human beings can have sex. Well not uber nerds, but that’s a totally different problem…
Viagra treats one of the problems of a male not being able to have sex. It doesn’t make judgements about at which age it’s not normal, it just does its thing and hopefully at least two people are made better by it.
Birth control. Be it the pill, condom, turtle shell, what have you, has nothing to do with fixing any issues with human beings working how they should. AFAIK people using birth control can have sex just fine without it. Consequences may result, but that’s a seperate issue. Birth control is in some way altering the natural way in which our bodies work to some extent. Like Viagra, it doesn’t judge, but it isn’t correcting anything, it’s altering sex to prevent a normal (possible) outcome that we don’t want.
Now, one could argue that after a certain age, men having sex is a luxery. Okay, what age? Erectile disfunction can start in the 20s and men in their 80s were having kids prior to Viagra. A very messy argument there.
Also, one could argue that brith control is good, bad or ugly. Whatever, a seperate issue there. But I don’t see the two as being converses of one another. Sort of like Vanilla versus Chocolate. Should both be served? Maybe, maybe not, maybe get them swirled, but Chocolate isn’t the anti-vanilla.