Question About Christian Sexual Politics?

Question

Has anyone out there ever seen the church take a stand against Viagra, Cialis or any of the male sexual enhancement therapies?

The fundies have succeeded in blocking the FDA from releasing both the abortion pill and the morning after pill. The church is opposed to contraception and abortions. The fundies have succeeded in blocking a vaccine for young girls that will stop them from developing cervical cancer later in their lives because the fundies believe it will encourage sexual intercourse. Under the Bush Administration, they have reinstituted the Global Gag Rule that keeps NGOs from planned parenthood activities around the world and the NYT's reported resulted in over 70,000 deaths of women each year from lack of reproductive medical care.

Why have I not heard anything about the FDA releasing male sexual enhancement therapies being protested or blocked for supporting illicit sexual intercourse activities?

Answer 1

Just a thought, why would the church block something intended and generally perscribed only for older men? Most of the protests are supposedly meant to keep from encouragng young girls from sex, but the male enhancments dont affect young boys, so I would guess thats why there would be a diffrence.

Answer 2

The only pill that I would say is not good would be an abortion pill.

I would agree though that if a Church or denomination is going to say birth control is wrong or even the HPV vaccination is wrong it would make sense that that would say it is wrong to use the other pills except that the man pills help to create more babies and the birth control does not but the HPV vaccination also can help make more babies because if you get cervical cancer you cannot have them.

So I would say the biggest issue here is the double standard about the illicit sex. because it cannot be the function of the pills because they do different things.

So if we want to talk about the idea that these denominations are saying it is OK for men to have sex outside of marriage but not women the argument against that would be most men who have to use these drugs are old and therefore less likely to be engaging in the premarital sex, but to be using them to have sex inside a marriage.

Of course you are always going to have those who have sex when where and why they want no matter the age so we might as well do all we can to prevent disease and accidental pregnancy in these people. I also know Dr's who won't prescribe male enhancement drugs to men who are not married.

Answer 3

It is amazing how they think things like "Our daughter will never get HPV, so she doesn't need the immunization for it." Worse yet they might even think that on a whole: "no good christian girl will ever get HPV...blah blah"

The sad truth is that they people do get HPV and it is now preventable. If a guy gets it, hey no big deal other than maybe having to change his ways a little. But a girl gets it and has a much much greater risk of dying from cervical cancer. I have a feeling views of these preventative drugs would be different if religion were more female oriented.

Answer 4

I would imagine that, in theory, viagra and the like would be seen by those groups as a tool that could be used to help people in a marriage have sexual relations and procreate. I mean, look at the Viagra ads. Most of them I have seen always note that the guy who takes the stuff has 'a very happy misses'... aka a happy wife at home.

Answer 5

Christianity has a history of forbidding any type of sex that doesn't result in procreation. For example, a treatise was written in the Middle Ages that said that incest was better than masturbation because then the woman could get pregnant!

I think the religious groups have realized they have failed at controlling people through the churches, so they are trying to control everyone (even non-Christians) via government.

Answer 6

If you want to look at it from a "Christian" point of view then it should be banned because in a moral way of looking at it sex is for "reproduction" and not pleasure. So, if "God doesn't allow you to have sex anymore" whether from old age or from erectile dysfunction then so be it. No more babies, no more sex.

Not that i believe that, but that might be a "Christian" way of seeing it, and that's why it may (in some people's eyes) be looked at as a candidate for being banned.

But, if they banned that then people would want to ban anything having to do with sexual pleasure; sex stores, pornography, sex toys, condoms, etc. Then if everything sexually oriented or sexually inviting was banned then what would advertisers do? Sex is money. Like it or not.

Answer 7

All I know is if your erection lasts more than 4 hours you need to seek medical attention.
I have worked in a hospital for 3 years and no-one has ever come in with that particular malady!

Answer 8

Because those things are for men. If the products were for women maybe they would be protested. Men think they are entitled to an active sex life, but that women are not.

Answer 9

My church hasn't taken a stand on it, but then again, I've never heard a rapist say...hey woman, you'll have to wait a few minutes to get raped, so my Viagra can kick in.

Answer 10

not a question, that is very well thought out.
where is the proof that these drugs are used excusively for "illicit" sex?
I use Viagra for sex with my marriage mate. It is a Godsend for all us men who are suffering from the pressures of life, yet want to have relations within our bond of marriage.
While I agree that abortion pills treat the symptom of unprotected sex, the solution should, for thinking people, be to avoid the unwanted pregnancy instead of killing the fetus.
Abortion is for those people who are to irresponsible to prevent pregnancy, or to ignorant.