Does Viagra play a part in unintended pregnancies, child rape?
3/13, 9:10a: The italicized section on page 2 was my quote of the day yesterday. The author, a pro-abort liberal feminist, was trying to make the case that 1) contraceptives should be more widely available, and 2) men should take greater responsibility to preclude unwanted pregnancies.
But along the way she inadvertently made two key points, that 1) male enhancement medications may further exploit women sexually, and 2) male enhancement medications may exacerbate child rape. Because she also wrote:
But regardless of contraception and male enhancement there is an even bigger issue that we need to seriously confront. When we discuss teenage pregnancy, to assume that a female teen’s male counterpart is also a teen is often drastically incorrect. Studies have shown that 2/3rds of children born to teen mothers are fathered by adult men that are 20 years old or older. This clearly suggests a correlation between teen mothers and older men. Are teen girls more likely to become pregnant if they are being intimate with an older man rather than someone their own age?
According to studies out of CA, men older than high school age fathered 77% of all births to girls between 16 and 18 years of age. What is worse, men over 20 years of age fathered five times as many children of JUNIOR HIGH school girls than did junior high school boys. Shouldn’t we begin to have a dialogue on the issues of statutory rape and the enforcement of these laws? It is obvious that we need to focus on studies regarding the men responsible for these pregnancies. Where is the outrage of these abuses? Why are we focusing our attention on abortion when there are clearly urgent issues closer to the root of the problem?
Obviously male enhancement medications allow older men to have sex when they otherwise couldn’t due to their petering biological clock, pardon the pun. In our hyper-sexed environment it makes sense to deduce that Viagra, et al, enables sexual perpetrators to prey on girls when they otherwise couldn’t.
3/12, 11:51a:
March 12 Quote of the Day
In order to investigate ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies we must examine the men who impregnate these women. Part of that examination needs to look at the other side of contraception, specifically male enhancements like Viagra….
With Pfizer claiming that they market specifically to men 44 years and older with erectile dysfunction, these statistics support the suggestion that men are buying Viagra as an enhancer instead of as a solution to erectile dysfunction.
So the question that needs to be posed is why are we making contraception more difficult for women to get when we are making things like Viagra more accessible to young men? Does anyone else see the relationship?
~ Huffington Post contributor Michealene Cristini Risley, in her March 11 piece, “The ‘abortion’ debate needs to include men who impregnate women”
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“We” aren’t making viagra more acceptable. “We” pro-lifers would like people to know and realize the basics: sex is how babies are made. I have never thought it alright that some insurance companies dole out viagra like it’s nothing and then refuse to cover fertility treatments for women. I don’t know who the author means by “we,” but “we” ain’t me.
The abortion debate should include men who don’t want their children murdered. What about them? Half the child’s DNA is his, but a woman can abort a child without his knowledge or consent. All the abortion fans can cry is “pregnancy is slavery!” Yes, well, abortion fans are slaves to their own faulty logic and irrational comparisons.
I’m not sure what Risley is arguing here. Based on the title of her piece, I would agree with her that men have to be included. But I’m not sure what she’s trying to say with regards to Viagra.
Um, if Viagra is being used as an “enhancement,” is it not just enhancing an experience two people were already going to share anyway? That’s like blaming the nuts of top of the hot fudge sundae for obesity. The nuts might improve the experience for some, but plenty of people enjoy their sundaes without nuts. And I doubt whether lack of nuts has ever detered anyone away from consuming a sundae, though I could be wrong.
Marcie,
I have often wondered if viagra/cialis were recreational drugs and/or performance enhancing drugs.
Regardless even with viagra/cialis it would difficult more me to enjoy sex without ‘nuts’.
Don’t women also take these ED drugs to enhance their ‘experience’?
I have never required drugs or batteries or costumes to find satisfaction in canoodling with my wife.
I just like to dance with the girl that brung me and implement the equipment that God gave me.
If I sufferred from ED I might have a different attitude.
I am pleased that those men who need pharmacological assistance to come to attention are able to get the help they need and I suspect most of their wives are thankful as well.
I am relieved that the federal government has ceased providind viagra/cialis to know sexual predators.
Viagra is available at vending machine-like locations similar to Planned Parenthood? Who knew?
Viagra does not increase a man’s desire for sex. It will also not cause an erection in the absence of the impetus or desire. It is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with specific action that allows for the relaxation of vascular smooth muscle. This physically improves the ability of the male penis to be engorged with blood and stand at attention. It’s JUST a matter of PLUMBING. Viagra does not supply the source of attraction, the attraction itself, or the male orgasm that is needed for impregnation.
The moot question about viagra and relationship to unwanted pregnancies is either posed out of utter ignorance by the pro-abort, or as a diversionary tactic.
That being said, a guy who cannot afford to pay for his own Viagra, or is too cheap to do so, should not be considered eligible for sexual contact. Such a guy could not afford any of the possible consequences of sex.
Nor should there be any third parties paying for female sex enhancement of any kind.
In all of the animal kingdom, subsidized sex is an anomaly, not the norm.
Sex is not a human right. Treating it as such is maladaptive for the human species. Sex is an “earned” privilege.
So this liberal pro-abort feminist author is on board with holding PP responsible for not reporting statutory rape when they were supposed to, right?
This is nonsense. First of all, Viagra as an “enhancer” is an urban legend. If you don’t need Viagra, it doesn’t work. It works by relaxing blood vessels that are constricted. If your blood vessels are already relaxed, you won’t notice a difference. Also, no reputable doctor would ever prescribe it to 20-something men; they certainly don’t give it out as an “enhancer.”
And to say that making it easier for men to get erections leads to child rape is typical anti-sex thinking. Being turned on does not cause child rape. Pedophiles cause child rape. The idea that Viagra will turn a man into a pervert who preys on children is a bit of a stretch.
Ashley, read the HuffPo piece:
While Viagra was originally intended for men suffering from erectile dysfunction, it has become popular with a much younger population as a sexual stamina booster. A study published in the International Journal of Impotence Research showed that Viagra use increased 312% in men between 18 and 45 years of age (Melville, Kate. “Big Rise In Young Men Using Viagra.” Science News, Research And Discussion. Science A Gogo, 6 Aug. 2004. Web. 10 Mar. 2011). With Pfizer claiming that they market specifically to men 44 years and older with erectile dysfunction, these statistics support the suggestion that men are buying Viagra as an enhancer instead of as a solution to erectile dysfunction.
And I didn’t say Viagra would “turn a man into a pervent.” Viagra would enable
perverts to keep raping when they otherwise would physically lose the ability. One plus one is in the article.
HuffPo publishes a lot of sensationalistic crap.
I’ve also heard that if you don’t really need Viagra, any added “stamina” is all in your head.
There was some controversy over whether registered sex offenders should be allowed to take Viagra, so maybe that’s where the real controversy is. (I say they shouldn’t, depending on how severe the crime was. There are a lot of harmless exhibitionists and “flashers” who are now being registered as sex offenders. They’re gross, yes, but I wouldn’t say flashing people makes you a sex offender.)
Ashley, the writer sourced her material. Your saying you’ve “heard” this or that is meaningless. Your point on sex offenders not being allowed to get Viagra makes my point. I seriously think you sometimes type just to type – just to argue for the fun of arguing – without thinking.
Jill,
I see the point you are making about enabling ED-stricken rapists to keep raping, and I suspect that’s true for those using penile penetration as the preferred method. However, I also wonder if the frustration and rage associated with ED in rapists might not drive aggressive use of oral and object sodomy on victims in the absence of erectile capability? Have you seen any data on this? I haven’t.
As for viagra being a performance enhancer, I can see the physiological basis for this. There is also the very real possibility of a placebo effect in younger men (along the lines of shark fins and ground rhinoceros horns being aphrodisiacs).
On a lighter note, “Big Rise In Young Men Using Viagra,” seems a most unfortunate title.
Well, if Viagra is so easily accessible, my husband would like to know about it. He has only been able to get it through his doctor, and even with his insurance, the pills are $25 apiece!
I think the trouble here is nothing to do with Viagra. That really strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. The trouble is that we still do not hold men, culturally, to the high standards we hold women to. For the longest time our culture has treated women who are sexually active as if they’re doing something wrong, but encouraged and reinforced men who are sexually active. Heck, even within the Christian community some people still expect prospective boyfriends to ask a father’s permission to date a girl (removing her decision-making power entirely and placing it into the hands of two men!!!) but do not expect prospective girlfriends to ask a mother’s permission to date her son (thus sending the message that it’s only okay to be active in wanting a relationship with someone if you are a man). Either sexuality isn’t that big a deal or it is. But we’ve held this double-standard that it isn’t for men but it is for women for centuries, and one of the results is the prevalence of rape and rape culture, whether the victims are children or not.
There are signs that we’re finally starting to hold men, in general, to better standards. This Slate article covers some of it. But until this change is made more comprehensive and permanent, we’re going to continue to see men who simply don’t care about women of any age, because they are being reinforced by society and their peers. Fiddling around with Viagra really won’t change anything since, I believe, it has nothing to do with the problem in the first place.
Jer – you have a point. Except the statutory rape I’m thinking of isn’t necessarily the violent sort. It’s merely older sicko men preying on young girls, as the HuffPo author (and I have in the past, too) corroborated with links to studies.
I”m also thinking of sex tourism to foreign countries undoubtedly taken by these same sorts of men.
Our heightened sex culture coinciding with men gaining the ability to have sex more frequently and later in life than is biologically natural undoubtedly leads to additional exploitation and unintended impregnation of girls and women.
I understand that Viagra, if nothing else, has in fact been responsible for some heart attacks and untimely deaths. Come on guys, your brains and hearts need all the help they can get after a certain point in life, and that includes an uninterrupted blood supply!
Hi Jill,
“Our heightened sex culture coinciding with men gaining the ablity to have sex more frequently and later in life than is biologically natural undoubtedly leads to additional exploitation and unintended impregnation of girls and women”
Not to mention the gals who are overjoyed when the old bucks have to call it quits.
I read some pretty hilarious accounts of women who were overjoyed their husbands could no longer perform and cursed the makers of Viagra.
“Shouldn’t we begin to have a dialogue on the issues of statutory rape and the enforcement of these laws? Where is the outrage of these abuses?”
Apparently Risley hasn’t heard about Planned Parenthood’s penchant for covering up statutory rape, enabling child prostitution, rape, etc. Has she been under a rock lately and not heard of Lila Rose? Or is it only acceptable to be outraged about child rape if you’re directing your feminist anger at men and their sex drugs? (But don’t you dare go near our abortion clinics!!) Risley should address her question personally to Cecile Richards and see how far she gets.
Alice, I’m with you. I’m so tired of society just telling girls to keep their legs closed, but at the same time “boys will be boys”. Uh, hello, it takes two!! And usually the girl is happy to keep her legs closed, but boys put such pressure on them! That is one point I’m making sure my son understands.
Viagra is also responsible for women being physically damaged by men who become sexually aggressive. This is both in married and single women and not the result of “perverts”. These were normal men without problems and with problems who were using the medication to prolong the entire “experience”. I remember reading an article about 2 years after Viagra first came on the market where gynecologists stated that they were seeing an INCREASE in the number of women coming into their practices who were physically damaged by husbands who would essentially be aroused for HOURS.
Good heavens. What are we coming too? :(
I think the trouble here is nothing to do with Viagra. That really strikes me as barking up the wrong tree. The trouble is that we still do not hold men, culturally, to the high standards we hold women to. For the longest time our culture has treated women who are sexually active as if they’re doing something wrong, but encouraged and reinforced men who are sexually active.
True dat, as they say on The Wire.
Sorry, I think anti-Viagra sentiment is just more anti-sex thinking, the idea being that sexuality is dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.
In fact, Viagra does not increase libido or put sexual thoughts in your head that weren’t there before. It will not make a man want sex more than before he took it. It simply makes it easier to get an erection when he is aroused.
The comparison between Viagra and abortion rights is stupid. By making that comparison, you’re basically implying that abortion is some kind of titillating sexual experience for women. It’s not. I had one, and abortion is extremely invasive and traumatic. First of all, you can’t say “no” once it starts, and it causes horrible physical pain, at least for me. (They told me I would either feel nothing, or just “light tugging.” It felt more like having my uterus ripped out.) Vaginal ultrasounds are difficult for me, because having a doctor put an instrument in there makes me feel like I’m going to get vacuumed out again, even if I know I’m not. Comparing that to men taking Viagra to get erections is insulting.
I read some pretty hilarious accounts of women who were overjoyed their husbands could no longer perform and cursed the makers of Viagra.
LOL. I can imagine that being the case.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Off topic, but,
Why is alcohol abuse, especially among teens, rarely talked about as playing a role in unintended pregnancies?
I’ve been wondering for a long time….
Ironically I am reminded of two hollywood productions. There is an classic film, I think the title is ‘guess whose coming to dinner’, where a young man makes an impassioned defense for being allowed to mary to his and his intended’s parents, which includes references to how the fathers are old, past the age of passion. Contrast that to a recent episode of ‘Castle’ where an eldery gentleman, in reference to sex, says ’78 isn’t outside the realm of possibility, ya know!’
At one time it was, rightly, assumed men of a certain age had passed their sexual lives, with rare exceptions and infrequent interludes, this appropriately mimics, age wise, closely to when most women have ended menopause and their bodies are no longer physologically conducive to a robust sex life. It’s not that men, or women for that matter, no longer get mentally arroused, or lose the mental want for sex, but that their bodies were no longer abiding and helping those mental desires. Now, we have ‘the little blue pill’. No, it isn’t meant to (off lable abuse aside) CAUSE arrousal, but it does allow for a man to ACT on that arrousal. There are some creams and lubrications that can help a woman’s body be more conducive to sex, but on the whole older women still have the same biological issue they’ve always had, while men now have a chemical ‘fix’ for it. Leaving men (the wrong sorts of men) to act out on urges they would otherwise leave dormit, be that cheating on their wife with a younger (but legal) woman, or going after an easly manipulated ‘jailbate’. Either way, it treats men’s declining physical ability as a disease to be fixed, as opposed to the very normal sundown to a man’s sexual lifecycle, made to coincide (more or less) with his mates sundown on her sexual lifecycle.
Sex is not some mystical right we inherit at birth and mantain until death, it is part of our fertility and reproductive lifecycles (that happens to be quite pleasant) which comes and goes naturaly as we come and go, just like permanent teeth, wrinkles, hair changes, skin changes, and any other portion of our lifecycles. Sex is PART of life, not the whole of life. This foolish ‘sexual revolution’ seeks to make sex and life synonomous, which is something they were never meant to be and cheapens love, which IS a part of life from birth to death, by trying to define it by a fleeting physical act.
Ashley said: Sorry, I think anti-Viagra sentiment is just more anti-sex thinking, the idea being that sexuality is dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.
Ashley – sexuality needs to be carefully controlled. I really don’t think you want to witness or be subjected to, uncontrolled sexuality of either sex, at any age.
It’s reasonable to suggest the correlation between the use of Viagra and statutory rape seems implausible unless there is a large number of young girls who are in the sex trade providing services for much, much older men. I would imagine most normally active men wouldn’t encounter a need for Viagra until their late sixties or seventies. That said – it’s quite possible older, wealthier men would pay for under-aged sexual services and such drugs would be part of the bill.
I keep wondering why Planned Parenthood did not report the statutory rapes in Kansas when they could have – unless they were covering up child prostitution rings that were servicing certain government protectors of Planned Parenthood. It’s not too difficult to imagine a sleaze-ball like Eliot Spitzer desiring/accepting a sexual security payment via under-aged gifts. Who would ever find out? Quite ugly.
Sorry, I think anti-Viagra sentiment is just more anti-sex thinking, the idea being that sexuality is dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.
If you think our society isn’t suffering because of our LACK of desire to reign in our sexuality, think again. A whole host of societal problems that we have today didn’t exist 50 years ago. And we have become freer and freer in our attitudes toward sex – anytime, anyplace, with anyone we want. Sexuality is POWERFUL, a force to be reckoned with. It’s not something we were ever meant to just throw around or pass out like candy. Sex joins people – forever, whether you like it or not – and has the potential to bring about new human life. I’d say that’s an incredibly powerful thing. Sex isn’t bad – it’s GOOD – but in the wrong context it can cause immeasurable pain, suffering, and unintended consequences.
Ashley says: March 13, 2011 at 7:28 pm
“Sorry, I think anti-Viagra sentiment is just more anti-sex thinking, the idea being that sexuality is dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.”
==============================================================
There you go again telling us what you think instead of what you know.
I do not know a single person who professes a faith in GOD that believes ‘sexuality is dangerous’ or a sin or needs to be controlled.
But if that comports with the bigoted caricature in your narrow mind then so be it unto you.
Gee, it would be a lot easier to have frank discussions about child abuse if we weren’t so overeager to cover it up by providing abortions to teen mothers without reporting the abuse to her parents OR legal authorities. If perhaps we responded to finding out that an organization was aiding and abetting child sex trafficking by stripping that organization of funding….
;)
Sorry, I think anti-Viagra sentiment is just more anti-sex thinking, the idea being that sexuality is dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.
I think it’s funny how obsessively certain groups of people hyper-focus on sex while constantly informing us that we’re trying to be over-controlling of it. I think people should have LOTS of sex. I think sex is FANTASTIC! I just think that the only sex worth having is sex between a married couple where you can be secure in your relationship, secure in your openness to life, secure in God’s blessing, and where you can dialogue and give to one another the gift of yourself! Having done the premarital sex thing and having done the married sex thing, I can honestly say that I would rather I’d saved myself for marriage (and I actually married my one and only!), because the entire dynamic shifted when we received the Sacrament of Marriage! There just is no such thing as truly great sex outside of a loving marriage! I hope that you find that joy someday, Ashley!
Sex is PART of life, not the whole of life. This foolish ‘sexual revolution’ seeks to make sex and life synonomous, which is something they were never meant to be and cheapens love, which IS a part of life from birth to death, by trying to define it by a fleeting physical act.
THIS.
There just is no such thing as truly great sex outside of a loving marriage!
Really? Because I’ve found that not to be true. I’m planning on marrying the guy who got me pregnant, but I don’t have any illusions that the sex is going to suddenly be so much better because we have a piece of paper that says we’re married. Since I’m a realist, I predict it will be basically the same.
This “you have to be married to have good sex” stuff is nonsense, just in my experience. Some of the most fun I’ve had was with one-night stands and flings. The worst sex was with the guy I had the abortion with, and we were together for four and a half years.
And the claims about how awful premarital sex is and how everyone should be a virgin til marriage usually come from people who openly admit to not abstaining, and who seem just fine.
Risley’s position is one that the pro-abortion side has itself created. She is demanding that men, especially those getting teenage girls pregnant, ought to be included in the continuing debate on abortion.
But as I recall, since the late 60s, the clarion call was for men to STFU when the discussion turned to womens’ reproductive rights. Keep your laws off my body ring a bell anybody? Bueller, Bueller?? Gloria Steinem’s broken analogy seems particularly poignant here. And unless I am quite mistaken, conservatives are still being stymied trying to root out and persecute rapists and pedophiles.
We already have plenty of criminal codes on the books. But all too frequently abortion providers are sheltered from the laws intended to protect children who have gotten in trouble. Phil Kline and Kermit Gosnell are our two poster children.
So now, Ms Risley draws a parallel between rape/rape and a medication meant to help adults get it on? And she attempts to argue from this that the abortion debate would somehow be enhanced by allowing minors to continue to get abortions without parental consent, because we know that the baby papa was on the little blue pill?
The easy availability of ED meds is not any kind of issue here. An adult male (Not a man, in my book) who is going to look on a child that way is going to find a way to consummate his desires, with or without chemical aids. If we were prosecuting the law as intended, these characters would already be in the criminal justice system. Instead we have PA where some 15-plus years ago the governor ordered the state regulatory regime to sit on its hands, even when it received bad news. And we have a DA up on ethics charges in KS for doing his legally mandated job of trying to find the pervs who were assaulting minors.
Ashley, a few things, if I may.
Please let me say how sorry I am about your abortion. Even if you are not, it seems to me that some part of you realizes it was not exactly what they promised you. And I do hope it has not compromised your fertility or sensuality. And I think I may speak for the conservative/religious commenters here when I say that sex is a good thing, in the right place.
I completely agree with you about the irrelevance of Viagra in this discussion. I’m not certain that anyone is comparing abortion to taking Viagra. But the implied connection is indeed an insult, even if unintended.
I believe your statement;
Sorry, I think anti-Viagra sentiment is just more anti-sex thinking, the idea being that sexuality is dangerous and needs to be carefully controlled.
In fact, Viagra does not increase libido or put sexual thoughts in your head that weren’t there before. It will not make a man want sex more than before he took it. It simply makes it easier to get an erection when he is aroused.
disproves itself. I too agree that Viagra does not induce a man to want sex. I’m pretty sure the commercials make that point. But the problem is that a hard-on is not sexuality. And thinking that who, and when, one dips his wick should be controlled is not the same thing as thinking that sex is a horrible evil. We have laws making public nudity a crime. Public fornication is a worse crime. And sex with children a much worse crime. Such things should definitely be controlled, if not by the individual himself, then by society; morals/ethics are like that, if I cannot control myself, then I must be controlled.
As an easy example, many Muslims demand that women hide themselves in public because they are temptresses; the men cannot control themselves, like dogs who smell a bitch in heat. Christians believe it is the man’s duty to control himself, for the sake of the womenfolk, and for his own sake. Not everyone does. The man who assaults a woman is justly punished. Whether he likes her, or whether she turns him on is utterly irrelevant. And so it is with Viagra, and minors who get pregnant in these statutory situations.
-Kevin
Yes, Ashley, I made a mistake, which is how I am able to confidently say it was a mistake, I wish I had abstained. I was unusually lucky, however, in that my then-boyfriend and I are now married.
Some of the most fun I’ve had was with one-night stands and flings. The worst sex was with the guy I had the abortion with, and we were together for four and a half years.
Like I said, I hope that someday you are able to experience what I have been privileged to enjoy. Sex without the burden of society’s expectation, sex that exemplifies our love and the love of the Father. Sex that gives of the self. Sex that is accepted for its true nature. Sex without the barrier of fear: fear of pregnancy, of pain, of loss. Someday, I hope that you experience that sex.
Ashley – it may be possible to have great sex outside of a committed marriage, but it’s not the same as making love within that committed marriage. Yes, there is a qualitative difference. It’s not really an arguable point, because if it’s something you’ve never experienced, you can’t speak to it. Those who know the difference know what I’m talking about. It’s not purely about physical either. It has to do with completely open and honest intimacy.
You’ll know when that intimacy is really there, and I sincerely pray that you and your fiance find it, but I can guarantee, it will take some long, honest and very revealing, and perhaps very painful, talks.
It is really wrong-headed to leave males out of the discussion about preventing problem pregnancies. Boys and men are usually the ones who seek sexual intercourse in the first place.
We also need to consider marriage more as a way to decrease abortion. When I heard about porn actress Kacey Jordan aborting a pregnancy that might have been sired by either Charlie Sheen “or another A-list celebrity,” I couldn’t help but think that everyone involved had missed the chance for a truly happy ending. Kacey should have found out which man sired the pregnancy. Then she and the man should have gotten married. Kacey should have carried to term and a son or daughter been born to a prosperous married couple. The husband might be pleased with his wife as she has some of the major characteristics a man might want in a wife: sexually skilled, attractive, extroverted, and friendly.
This “you have to be married to have good sex” stuff is nonsense, just in my experience. Some of the most fun I’ve had was with one-night stands and flings. The worst sex was with the guy I had the abortion with, and we were together for four and a half years.
Actually Ashley, recent research has shown that the best sex is in fact had by couples in monogamous long term marriages. For one thing to have great sex there needs to be an openness and vulnerability to the other spouse – in other words, a great deal of trust. Fear kills arousal. People who indicated the highest levels of satisfaction were those couples committed to the marriage and committed to one another.