Seems sensible to me

Only married men should be allowed access to erectile dysfunction medication, and only with spousal permission.

If a married man’s about to take a drug which will give him a raging hard on for the next four hours then his wife might well be asked whether she’s up for this.

She might want to brace herself.

Or investigate where he is with that raging four hour hard on perhaps.

31 thoughts on “Seems sensible to me”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Men do not have the right to know anything about the state of their wives internal organs. Not if she is pregnant. Not if she is having an abortion. Not if she is putting the child up for adoption. Not if she is using birth control. Nothing.

    I see no reason whatsoever to give women any information about their husbands. What is good for the goose is just fine for the gander.

  2. Eh, that’s the point SMFS.

    It’s not much of a point though:

    Lawmaker Challenges Men To Accept Health Restrictions Like They Propose For Women

    What it would it look like if the law imposed as many restrictions on men’s access to healthcare as it does women’s? One state lawmaker is hoping to start just such a conversation.

    Conservative legislators in Kentucky, emboldened by the election of Gov. Matt Bevin (R), are moving swiftly to pass numerous new restrictions on women’s access to abortion. Bevin has already signed into law a stricter “informed consent” bill that requires a face-to-face consultation with a healthcare provider, while a forced ultrasound bill sailed easily through a Senate committee this week. (Jezebel notes that though women would be required to receive an ultrasound before an abortion, the bill does allow them to avert their eyes.)
    One lawmaker, however, is trying to turn all of these restrictions on women back on men.

    Rep. Mary Lou Marzian (D) has filed a new bill (HB 396) creating numerous restrictions for men to access medication for erectile dysfunction, such as Viagra or Cialis.

    Few things to note:

    * Mary Lou Martian looks exactly how you’d expect.

    * The correct response to this is “yes, Mary Lou Who, we will make sure the laws on abortion apply equally to any men who may get pregnant.” End of conversation.

    * I’m not a doctor or nothin, but we’re told nobody takes abortion lightly or does it on a whim. So I can’t see the harm in having a chat with a doctor and ultrasounding the little tyke before you flush him out of the womb and sell his broken tiny dead body for medical research.

    Seems only polite.

  3. That link appears to be rather generic and will change over time – should it be http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/02/13/3749443/abortion-erectile-dysfunction-kentucky/ ?

    “He must [also] make a sworn statement on a Bible that he will only use the prescription when having sexual relations with his current spouse.”

    Seems to cover your last para Tim… 😉

    > Men do not have the right to know anything about the state of their wives internal organs.

    This is a tongue-in-cheek bill that won’t go anywhere.

    “[…] but she hopes it will help raise awareness among lawmakers about the way abortion laws intrude on a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body”

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    Steve – “Eh, that’s the point SMFS.”

    Dammit.

    “Rep. Mary Lou Marzian (D) has filed a new bill (HB 396) creating numerous restrictions for men to access medication for erectile dysfunction, such as Viagra or Cialis.”

    It is already said to be normal practice for American doctors refuse a vasectomy without written permission from the wife. So it is not that unusual.

  5. She would have a point if she was talking about contraception, for example. But to use abortion is disengenuous. There are at least two other parties with a stake in abortion – the father and the (to be) child.

    You have to be wilfully deceitful to compare that with erectile distinction. A Progressive, in fact.

  6. She’s smart to target erectile dysfunction, since law-makers (mostly ageing men with delusions of grandeur about their sexual prowess) are likely Viagra users.

  7. This is classic feminist misdirection, equating a private matter for an individual (their own health) with a moral matter due to the presence of more than one person (the woman, the baby, and (to some degree, arguably) the father).

  8. PJH: “This is a tongue-in-cheek bill that won’t go anywhere.”

    You’d be surprised.. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster started out on a similar line of inquiry…

    And this one would get some votes from the ultra-conservatives, simply because it would open up the possibility to seriously curtail more Fun in the Bedroom, the source of Sin..
    Never underestimate the power of the law of unintended consequences… especially where pollytickians are involved.

    Which reminds me… Must hunt for a new colander.

  9. @Rob

    You have to be wilfully deceitful to compare that with erectile distinction. A Progressive, in fact.

    MrsBud would be delighted if I had erectile distinction.

  10. “Steve
    February 15, 2016 at 1:07 pm

    I’m not a doctor or nothin, but we’re told nobody takes abortion lightly or does it on a whim. So I can’t see the harm in having a chat with a doctor and ultrasounding the little tyke . . .”

    Well, that stuff ain’t *free* after all. And, ultimately, what does it bring to the table? What purpose does this serve that the mother should bear the cost of paying for a doctor’s consultation and an ultrasound?

    Because it sounds more like its just a way to backdoor abortion restrictions in with no medical benefit at all.

  11. Agammamon – I dunno, but would imagine it’s to give the baby the benefit of the slight chance that mummy might change her mind after medical consultation.

    Theoretically it might be possible to avoid doctors entirely and create automated aborti-vending machines. But you’d hope most folks would treat the decision to snuff out an embryonic human life with a little bit more care and thought.

    its just a way to backdoor abortion restrictions in with no medical benefit at all.

    Not much of a restriction though. There’s a lot more paperwork and hassle involved in getting your first passport.

  12. In Kentucky (as in the UK) a medical consultation is already required before an abortion can be legally permitted. In many cases the doctor just goes through the motions.

    The ultrasound serves no purpose except to scare the unwilling mother.

    Having worked in the NHS for a while, I will say that most women coming for an abortion find the decision very difficult to make, and they do need and want some counselling whether it is legally required or not.

    There are a few “selfish” ones who like the feeling of unprotected sex or forgot to take their pill or something, and couldn’t care less about whether abortion is murder or not, but they are the exception. A consultation or ultrasound won’t sway them.

    The rest of them are what we call ‘vulnerable adults’.

  13. IanB: I happen to know a smith who can make them on order.

    Mine’s a tricked out job that can double as a chapel-de-fer at re-enactment events. 😉

  14. Given how many dumb laws we have on the books this is actually rather tame.

    Consider that Kentucky has a law stating one may not dye a duck blue and offer it for sale unless you are selling more than 6.

    We’ve already been given 3 reasons why erectile dysfunction medication regulations are a good thing. I’m struggling to come up with one that justifies duck dyeing restrictions. Would any readers who are experts in the duck dyeing industry please explain what problems this solves?

  15. ” KRS 436.600

    No person shall sell, exchange, offer to sell or exchange, display, or possess living baby chicks, ducklings, or other fowl or rabbits which have been dyed or colored; nor dye or color any baby chicks, ducklings, or other fowl or rabbits; nor sell, exchange, offer to sell or exchange or to give away baby chicks, ducklings or other fowl or rabbits, under two (2) months of age in any quantity less than six (6), except that any rabbit weighing three (3) pounds or more may be sold at an age of six (6) weeks. Any person who violates this section shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500.

    History: Amended 1972 Ky. Acts ch 374, sec 1. –Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 215, sec. 5 ”

    If I remember correctly from what my granpa told me, it was common for chicks etc to be offered for sale at farmers’ markets in a pen, and future owners could mark the ones they wanted with “their” colours , so they could pick them up later.

    So this law to prevent animal cruelty ( the novelty selling of coloured chicks at fairs etc. ) would have to make an allowance for an age-old market practice.
    And 6 is just about the number of a normal clutch of chicks/ducklings.

  16. Thank you Grikath. I knew there was a reason for it.

    Is there any exception for someone selling an animal dyed in a non-toxic manner?

  17. “Talking of which, does anyone want to buy a tartan cat?”

    Nope, but I’ll take a can of tartan dye though…

  18. So bizzarely, a law about duck-dyeing, a law that would surely make a eurocrat blush, has some sense to it.

  19. Evidently Rep. Marizan is of the opinion that all women favor abortion on demand and all men oppose it. Because gender. It’s simple-minded stereotyping, but that appears to be what brought her to the notice of feminists, Jezebel and Think Progress in the first place.

    For those who are unaware of it, Kentucky is the sort of place were Arnald would be considered only slightly below average.

    Let that sink in for a moment…

  20. But, of course, the mentioned drugs *don’t* give a you a raging hard-on for the next four hours.

    So that’s all fixed, then

  21. When Christianity first started, it was in competition with religions that were for the most part pretty bloody permissive when it came to sex and people having fun in general.

    And yet Christianity (later to be joined by an another Abrahamic faith) still won and drove the pagan religions into extinction.

    How the fuck did it happen? Was it by stealth? Viral marketing? Complacency?

    This story is the legacy of the failure of the pagan faiths to deal with Christianity. It does make me wonder where humanity would be now if Christianity had remained a curious little desert blood cult.

  22. “I decided to take Viagra”

    “Are you sure? It can be dangerous, you know!”

    “Well, if she dies, she dies…”

  23. “How the fuck did it happen? ”

    If you’ve paid attention to history: sharp pointy bits.
    Either applied directly, or because the Boss switched sides, and sharp pointy bits were in the near future if you didn’t follow, at least publicly.

  24. Why was Christianity so successful?
    Because it promises the illusion of equality. Doesn’t matter how high up the Christian tree they rise. Bishops, cardinals, popes. They still tell you they’re humble & your servant. So you’d better do as you’re told. Because you’re not as humble as they are.
    Much the same as socialism. They’re only leading socialists because they’re more dedicated to the good of the people than the people are.
    Not easy, but if you can make people believe poverty & suffering are virtuous, you’ve cracked it. The harder it gets, the happier they are.

  25. It is already said to be normal practice for American doctors refuse a vasectomy without written permission from the wife. So it is not that unusual.

    I came across this problem when organising a vasectomy in Penang, Malaysia. I simply lied and told them that I was not married. I mean how were they going to prove otherwise?

    On the wider matter of spousal approval how’s about “My body, my choice”? After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *