Paying for Sex

[TX-Beau]

I'm a huge proponent of gay sex myself. All the getting off, no chance of conception.

Back in WEHO you could get free condoms from the jar in the cafe around the corner.

 

[JayHawk]

Hey you know what we can appease the church and have sex...

Do it in the Butt!

 

[chance1]

You mean the primary medical condition where men can't get an erection to have sex? Yes, exactly. And I'm talking about the primary medical condition where contraception allows women to have sex without getting pregnant. When the treated condition is the continued practice of sexual intercourse, there is no difference. Furthermore, both Viagra for men and contraception for women contains other important health benefits that treats various other medical conditions. I don't know about you, but if I could take a pill that could keep my vagina from bleeding every month, I'd take it, even if I wasn't having sex. However, the difference between the two is that Viagra is universally supported in being covered by health insurance, whereas people are having problems accepting the same medical right being extended towards women.

I would be wary of being snarky in making the attempt of criticizing others' reading skills of a thread as I did read all of your replies. You're going to need to quote where you "have agreed with JayHawk that I can see the economics of prevention" as you were not clear at all where.

contraception is not treatment for a medical ailment

squirm all u like or is that too ....... snarky?

I like snarky

sorry if i was unclear but me and fellow snarkster jayhawk had this back/forth early on in the thread and i said that i agreed with the principle IF if was for economic reasons as in, providing contraception has been proven to SAVE medical costs in the long run thus it's makes sense

but i don't think it's a slam dunk by any means and the examples i gave are gym memberships, paying for my new bike so I can cycle 50 miles/day and be uber healthy and save you all taxpayers my heart disease, etc.

i find it outrageous frankly that all of you supposedly bright people CANNOT see the argument against paying

because it's plain as the noses on your handsome (some) faces

it's a debatable issue - not one to be demagogued frankly which is what is happening

 

[chance1]

Hey you know what we can appease the church and have sex...

Do it in the Butt!

i don't mind dropping a load in there

but receiving ????

yech

 

[Just_Believe18]

This is where the disconnect comes in. You know, I'm no lover of women. In fact, when it comes to friendships, I pretty much only have male friends. I have zero interest in women both intimately and in friendship (although I do get along with them very well professionally and publicly). However, despite my lack of interest in their welfare, I can recognize a social injustice when I see one. You complain of demagoguery, but my position on the matter is anything but that. These women have a right to have their contraception covered by medical insurance. Multiple examples of how contraception serves as medical treatment have been offered and compared to the medicinal value of men's Viagra. You have not directly responded to this. Just saying contraception is "not treatment" over and over again does not make it true without proof. Nor does it move the discussion forward. I have provided proof with a very logical comparison, backed by the value of equality.

Contraception should be covered by a woman's medical insurance.

 

[chance1]

^ so you're a member of the he-man woman hater's club too ?

we do have something in common then

i understand your POV

and i appreciate the lack of snarkiness

gonna be 70 degrees in nyc this week

 

[cocksucker4use]

Hormonal therapy can prevent pregnancy and/or treat certain conditions for women. Men with prostate cancer sometimes benefit from hormone therapy that renders them sterile. Chemotherapy often leaves both men and women incapable of conception. How are treating erectile dysfunction and preventing unwanted pregnancy somehow not valid to healthcare or public policy? The economic advantage of contraception is a no-brainer. As public policy, providing contraception makes sense.College educated white people are the ones getting married, but not the one's having unwanted pregnancies. They could best afford to have children and multiples, but have a choice because they have careers, jobs, insurance, etc. If you are poor and/or uneducated, you don't have as much access to healthcare, including contraception. Firstly, you are a whore for wanting contraception, and secondly, once you fuck without protection you're a dumb whore for getting pregnant (with or without STDs). Then, when you need an abortion because you believed what they told you, you're not only a whore, but an irresponsible, sinful baby killer in their eyes. Congrats for being a woman in our society, but apologies for being undervalued generally and deemed not worth the cost of contraception.

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

^^ such a lucid adult response - why do you post here?

Dude im so SICK of your ignorant stupidity I dont care if i get an infraction fuck it you post shit to get a RISE. You know DAMN well how retarded you sound trying to bait people off of controversial issues. Then you insult other people for calling you out and proving how irrational your brain is. Calling Kuli a "Mountain Man" "I" felt offended by that. You're going on my ignore list.

Either you're saying things for a rise like RedRubberBall/pixel watever or you are that dumb to believe what you are saying like Rick santorum.

 

[chance1]

Dude im so SICK of your ignorant stupidity I dont care if i get an infraction fuck it you post shit to get a RISE. You know DAMN well how retarded you sound trying to bait people off of controversial issues. Then you insult other people for calling you out and proving how irrational your brain is. Calling Kuli a "Mountain Man" "I" felt offended by that. You're going on my ignore list.

Either you're saying things for a rise like RedRubberBall/pixel watever or you are that dumb to believe what you are saying like Rick santorum.

i was joking with loki - who is one of the most intelligent posters we have on the forum and consistently posts with patience and balance

get a grip

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

No dude read ALL yours posts

Sound Silly Don't You know?

I can talk like a idiot Valley girl too like OHHH MY GOSHH.

Obama is a fool because he wants to force people to do smart things.

Oh why me am i So dumb.

 

[andysayshi]

Here's some facts about the contraceptive pill:

• A study in England found women who take the pill have a 12% lower chance of getting cancer, and are less likely to die from heart disease or stroke. Numerous other studies in the US and other countries confirm similar statistics.

• The pill is also used to treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, endometriosis, amenorrhea, menstrual cramps and Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS), to name just a few!

• The pill is prescribed to women with anaemia and/or low iron levels

• The pill can help reduce acne in women


The reality is that medical insurers pay for all sorts of prophylactic medications, not just the contraceptive pill. Immunisations for polio, smallpox, measles, or mumps. HPV vaccines to protect against influenza. Anti-milarials. Anti-migraine medication. All of these medications are given to PREVENT conditions, not to TREAT them.

From an insurers point of view, supplying contraceptive pills is MUCH cheaper than paying for pregnancies and births, not to mention the ongoing costs of the child.

I agree with the sentiments expressed above that, if the Catholic Church wants to be an employer, they must abide by the rules of employment. If they don't want to provide the appropriate insurance services due to ideology, then they should have the choice to pay for it via a third party insurer, or they just shouldn't employ people. Otherwise, where does it end? Should Jehovah's Witnesses be able to deny employees insurance for blood transfusions?

For the record, here in Australia where basic medical services are covered by universal health care, people who buy additional health insurance often have extras like subsidised gym memberships, sports clothing & footwear, even yoga and massage, included in their policies. The insurers know that happy, healthy, relaxed people get sick less often.

 

[Kulindahr]

Chance, did you call me a "Mountain Man"? WoW!


It occurs to me that if we shouldn't pay for contraception because "it's just for recreation", then we shouldn't pay for arthritis medications for the elderly; they don't need to be out and about, they can just [STRIKE]rot[/STRIKE] sit quietly in retirement.

 

[rareboy]

Chance, did you call me a "Mountain Man"? WoW!


It occurs to me that if we shouldn't pay for contraception because "it's just for recreation", then we shouldn't pay for arthritis medications for the elderly; they don't need to be out and about, they can just [STRIKE]rot[/STRIKE] sit quietly in retirement.

Very nice.

Is there anyone left on this site besides Jackoroe and Springer who hasn't been called some name by this guy?

But to the point.

Men don't need boners either. So paying for Viagra, particularly for recreational sex, is repugnant hypocrisy.

But the slippery slope that you describe Kuli, is enough to give American Health Insurance companies a boner if they start to think about all the conditions that shouldn't be covered while they continue to rake in the extortionate profits from premiums.

 

[chance1]

Chance, did you call me a "Mountain Man"? WoW!


It occurs to me that if we shouldn't pay for contraception because "it's just for recreation", then we shouldn't pay for arthritis medications for the elderly; they don't need to be out and about, they can just [STRIKE]rot[/STRIKE] sit quietly in retirement.

i did

i called you that in frustration couple days ago

i think u r

a mountain man

bad analogy though

arthritis meds are TREATMENT FOR not PREVENTATIVE

how's the beard? to ur knees?

 

[chance1]

Very nice.

Is there anyone left on this site besides Jackoroe and Springer who hasn't been called some name by this guy?

But to the point.

Men don't need boners either. So paying for Viagra, particularly for recreational sex, is repugnant hypocrisy.

But the slippery slope that you describe Kuli, is enough to give American Health Insurance companies a boner if they start to think about all the conditions that shouldn't be covered while they continue to rake in the extortionate profits from premiums.

I don't NEED allergy medicine either

it makes my life better

viagra makes your life better - admit it

contraception is not TREATMENT FOR A MALADY

spin away

 

[andysayshi]

Chance, I would suggest to you that the pill makes the lives of many women better.

Not because it makes them sexually promiscuous, which is Limbaugh bullshit, but because it provides them freedom and confidence. A vast number of women using contraception are not single - they're happily married, but they simply can't afford to pop out a child every year. As gay men, it's easy to just throw out a "use a condom" line, but life is more complex than that for women. Married or committed couples don't WANT to use condoms, including committed gay couples, but hetero couples face risks that gay men do not. Women are often pressured by their male partners to NOT use condoms, because a lot of guys don't assess the true risks of their action while their dicks are hard. For a woman, using the pill or an IUD is an empowering and responsible action to protect themselves and their future.

A woman with limited finances is often denied that capability. Mysoginists like Limbaugh will just say "close your legs", but life is never, ever that easy. We are sexual beings. We want and need intimacy and sex.

In my mind, the choice to use contraception is one of logic and responsibility, and it should be encouraged, not ignored or denigrated. Anything the Government can do to discourage unwanted pregnancies should be applauded and encouraged.

 

[chance1]

Chance, I would suggest to you that the pill makes the lives of many women better.

Not because it makes them sexually promiscuous, which is Limbaugh bullshit, but because it provides them freedom and confidence. A vast number of women using contraception are not single - they're happily married, but they simply can't afford to pop out a child every year. As gay men, it's easy to just throw out a "use a condom" line, but life is more complex than that for women. Married or committed couples don't WANT to use condoms, including committed gay couples, but hetero couples face risks that gay men do not. Women are often pressured by their male partners to NOT use condoms, because a lot of guys don't assess the true risks of their action while their dicks are hard. For a woman, using the pill or an IUD is an empowering and responsible action to protect themselves and their future.

A woman with limited finances is often denied that capability. Mysoginists like Limbaugh will just say "close your legs", but life is never, ever that easy. We are sexual beings. We want and need intimacy and sex.

In my mind, the choice to use contraception is one of logic and responsibility, and it should be encouraged, not ignored or denigrated. Anything the Government can do to discourage unwanted pregnancies should be applauded and encouraged.

I agree with you

and not with Rush - at least not about the sexually promiscuous part - or the term

Ms. Fluke I found not terribly compelling - her testimony - her "truth" - her position that it's a women's health issue totally is IMO just not accurate

I found the Pres. calling her pretty fucking weak - he treats her better than the Israelis - go figure

anyway

and your paragraph is a great example of the real reason why this makes sense from a humanistic standpoint - i agree

but that is not the argument that his being made all over america by idealogues who confuse that real and legit argument with ............ by definition not wanting to provide contraception is anti-women and it is their right to have it - it is a medical necessity

so to you andy i say

kiss me

 

[Sausy]

Chance, I would suggest to you that the pill makes the lives of many women better.

Not because it makes them sexually promiscuous, which is Limbaugh bullshit, but because it provides them freedom and confidence. A vast number of women using contraception are not single - they're happily married, but they simply can't afford to pop out a child every year. As gay men, it's easy to just throw out a "use a condom" line, but life is more complex than that for women. Married or committed couples don't WANT to use condoms, including committed gay couples, but hetero couples face risks that gay men do not. Women are often pressured by their male partners to NOT use condoms, because a lot of guys don't assess the true risks of their action while their dicks are hard. For a woman, using the pill or an IUD is an empowering and responsible action to protect themselves and their future.

A woman with limited finances is often denied that capability. Mysoginists like Limbaugh will just say "close your legs", but life is never, ever that easy. We are sexual beings. We want and need intimacy and sex.

In my mind, the choice to use contraception is one of logic and responsibility, and it should be encouraged, not ignored or denigrated. Anything the Government can do to discourage unwanted pregnancies should be applauded and encouraged.

A perfectly reasoned,thoughtfully presented liberal argument that speaks to people,not condescending but civil and principled.

And congrats on 15,000 posts chance....any "chance"you'll double that?

 

[Kulindahr]

i did

i called you that in frustration couple days ago

i think u r

a mountain man

bad analogy though

arthritis meds are TREATMENT FOR not PREVENTATIVE

how's the beard? to ur knees?

I shave every three days. That makes the bits just the right length to be good fiber for the soil at my conservation project.


Oh -- arthritis pills are definitely "preventative", they're to prevent pain.

As my doctor said recently, there really are no treatments for arthritis -- we can't fix it (though there are some interesting efforts on that angle).

 

[CowboyBob]

bring it on further then. Why should anyone pay for AIDS treatment, for gays, drug addicts, or whores who need $20,000 worth of drugs, often a lot more for the rest of their lives?? Because they had sex or used illegal drugs.
Tax payers, employers, or religious institutions where Homosexuality is against their values.
Why should I as a employer have to cover treatments in my hospital plan that morally I don't accept like smoking or alcohol long term illness.
Pious, self righteous authoritarian types crack me up until it bites them in the ass at some sad point in their life.
O`Reilly likes to talk big but no one really knows how much he paid out to shut some of those woman up. All's we know is he likes the Luffa sponge on their privates

Vulgar_Newcomer said it right here.

If contraception is forbidden, then why should insurance companies pay for meds for AIDS? Those homosexuals shouldn't be having sex and the drug addicts who share needles did it to themselves.

And smokers...... you brought that on yourself. Same thing for obese people. When you eat that junk at McDonalds and eventually develop diabetes you were only hurting yourself. Alcoholics?

If a a company wants to be in the insurance business, they have to follow the rules and regulations. Same goes for a Catholic charity. All the more reason to have Medicare for all.