Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 02:52 PM
Original message |
Something struck me yesterday |
|
and I found myself wondering. Was there ANY outrage by the religious right at the release of "erectile disfunction" medication? I don't remember any. Isn't it a little disingenuous of them to freak out about medication to prevent cervical cancer because it may promote "promiscuity" when one can easily argue that viagra could do the same thing?
I know that they hold different standards for the sexual behavior of (heterosexual) men and women, but isn't this going just a little far, even for them? It's blatant hypocrisy and I think they should be publicly called on it.
Just a notion.
|
madinmaryland
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:00 PM
Response to Original message |
1. More hypocracy from the Religious reich! |
MissB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:01 PM
Response to Original message |
PetraPooh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:11 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I would say WAYYYY more easily, viagra promotes sex directly; |
|
promiscuous or otherwise. There seems no other purpose for it, whereas medications that may prevent cervical cancer (I'm guessing you're talking about the pill and related medication) also prevent: cramps, mood swings, may prevent cervical cancer, excessive bleeding and hemoraging during periods, and I'm sure more than that. It may stop pregnancy, but it is a "go have sex" advertised drug the way ED medications are.
|
acmejack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:21 PM
Response to Original message |
4. They absolutely should be called. |
|
Those lewd ads are beyond offensive as well. I was discomfited the first time I saw one of those ads and I consider myself broad minded, most consider me outright hedonistic.
Something like the cervical cancer medication is a potentially lifesaving medication, which places it in an entirely different classification of drugs than an ED drug.
|
Mythsaje
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
There's just something wrong with the whole mindset if this is how it operates. Blatantly wrong.
|
TNOE
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:30 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Last weeks episode of the Sopranos |
|
brought this issue to light - it was pretty good.
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:32 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I Find Boner-pill Advertising Utterly Tastless |
|
I do not give a royal shit about the morality of it, I just find it utterly tastless to be advertising boner-pills or rubbers on the TV.
|
DaveJ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Actually a lot of ads are tasteless these days... |
|
Most ads seem to instill fear to persuade people to buy. In my experience the ads weren't nearly as bad after we get satellite TV. Broadcasters know that people would not pay to be talked down to all the time.
|
caledesi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-14-06 03:36 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Forced erections - good. Birth control - bad. nt |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:03 AM
Response to Original message |