AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Viagra actually has some other uses besides treating erectile dysfunction.

Erectile dysfunction causes infertility, which is a serious issue that people deserve to get treated for imo (don't think that is what you were saying, but just stating it for the record). Both birth control and viagra should be covered my medical plans.

I think the reason birth control isn't covered by US medical plans and viagra is, is because people (religious extremists in particular) think sex for pleasure is a bad thing. Viagra doesn't necessarily indicate sex for pleasure, so there isn't that much protest against it. Though I'm sure you can find people who think it's the devil's candy or something. I don't think this is a case of double standard. From what I can tell of preliminary searching, infertility in women has a lot of different causes and most aren't easily cured by a single pill, but the medicin that does help with it seems like it should be covered by US medical plans. Also, I don't think birth control for men is covered by US medical plans either.

Basically it's a pro-life thing, and viagra helps create life so they're ok with it I guess? Though obviously this issue crosses over into sexism, I don't think sexism is the main reason birth control still isn't covered by US medical plans.

Oooooh I didn't know that it was effective for that.

Just to clear up the bit about Viagra. Apparently Viagra can be used as blood pressure medication. The main thing is it...isn't. Chances are the government pays for it under the guise of "Blood pressure medication is necessary for living."

Source: Girlfriend works as a Pharm Tech

EDIT: Or what Syobon said. I'll be here for emotional support/confirmation.

Remember when the previous pope visited African countries with the highest prevalence of AIDS and told people to stop using condoms?

Also it might be helped by the double standard. Men are expected to be sexually liberated, but not women. So for the people in power it's okay to pay for viagra because what is a man without sex, but all women will become whores if you grant them access to free birth control.

Also conservative people are very protective of the traditional nuclear family, and they are afraid that gay people are going to destroy the very concept of family just by existing/marrying/adopting, so obviously the whole society will collapse once women start taking birth control or having their own jobs and managing their own cheddar.

Isn't it odd that violence isn't viewed with the same disgust as sex? I find it really odd considering that sex is more or less natural while people don't have to be violent. Think about it; harming someone is less taboo than a normal biological function. It's rather silly that we consider sex taboo. It's crippling our ability to have constructive dialogue about it and circulate effective solutions to common problems. This collective decision not to talk about sex doesn't make it go away. It only increases ignorance and exacerbates already existing problems. I probably sound like a broken record here, but I'm sad that we don't have a more healthy outlook and better education on these topics.

The double standards and attitude towards gays is also ridiculous. I wish people would just have a little empathy for other people and understand where they're coming from.

Violence is pretty natural, though. Not saying it's a good thing, but interspecies competition isn't uncommon among most animals. It's especially easy to become used to it when it's against people you're told are bad.

Isn't...

Isn't sex also natural?

Wasn't saying it's not, just saying that he seemed to think one is and the other is not.

You're quite right, of course. I think the difference is that humans don't need to be violent, whereas reproduction and everything associated with it is necessary.

Moving back to the feminism topic, can we just re-instate the term feminazi to separate the extremists and people who want to complain about everything from actual supporters of equality?

At some point "Femi-Nazi" just became a derogatory term for feminism in general, but we need a way to push extremists and trouble-makers to the side so that real discussion can be made about real topics, instead of turning a shirt into a national headline.

Why not just extremists? Femi-nazi is a ridiculous term that's still being used by many to criticize feminism in general. It's derogatory and it's a pretty disgusting word.

Extremist feminism is bad, but associating it with the most hated and evil group in history is a bit immature and disrespectful towards that historical tragedy.

Like Great Handsome Oppressor said, calling them extremists is fine and makes it clear you're not lumping them together with the good feminists.

As for that list I linked, yeah, I don't see a problem with statefunded birth control pills, since apparently you can get free condoms from the health clinic (never went to one, since I'd be too embarrassed to get condoms), but the rest of it, yeah.

As for the extreme feminists, maybe call them gyno-supremecists?

And as for people getting squeamish about sex in general, it's probably rooted in a desire to prove that humans are much better than animals than we actually are. The phrase "what separates man from the animals" comes to mind.

Main issue is it'd be 10x easier if there was some term they were already calling themselves so that we could just refer to them as that. Calling them anything other than what they "want" themselves to be called will just feed into the issue. Going back to the PETA example, PETA had already been distinguishing themselves from the rest of the animal rights groups by calling themselves "PETA". They're simply calling themselves "Feminists".

"SJW" might work, but last I heard there was some "apparent, obvious difference between the two".