Hard Up

The conflicting signals I’ve been getting from the contentious birth control debates of the past few weeks have left me a dazed and confused. Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and a “prostitute” for testifying that birth control ought to be covered by insurance companies. He suggested that her parents shouldn’t be proud of her and that she should stream videos of her sexual encounters on the internet, reasoning that if our tax dollars are going to pay for her sluttiness, the least we should get as a return on our investment is some amount of voyeuristic pleasure. He was not alone in his criticism. Famous for playing Deborah, Ray’s long-suffering wife on “Everybody Loves Raymond,” Patricia Heaton fired off a series of tweets condemning Fluke. Ann Coulter didn’t take long to weigh in either.

The truth is that Ms. Fluke was neither referring to contraception as birth control nor was she even talking about herself. And her testimony had nothing whatsoever to do with having “taxpayers pay her to have sex,” as Rush would have us believe. She was talking about birth control coverage by private insurance companies for the purpose of treating ovarian cysts. But Rush has never been particularly moved by facts. A professional peddler of inaccuracies, Rush bridled at the mere thought that a woman would stand up and demand affordable contraception as part of her overall healthcare. It was enough to render the facts, which proved no match for the ease with which one can mischaracterize a woman, utterly pointless. She’s clearly just a slut.

On the other hand, I’ve never heard a peep about the fact that Viagra is covered by insurance. Nary a single voice raised in anger. No Capital Hill testimony. None of the usual scrubbed, coiffed, cufflinked Beltway punditry leapfrogging the Sunday morning talk-show circuit debating differing views while sitting around impossibly fingerprint-free, glass-topped tables. Nothing. And I’ve never heard of a man being criticized, lied about or generally degraded for using the drug. Quite the contrary. Men get called names for not being able to have sex, not for having too much of it. Is there even a word, derogatory or not, for a heterosexual man who has too much sex ~ a word other than "lucky"?

Trying to disentangle this thicket of double standards has given me an ice-cream headache and has led me to the conclusion that birth control for women is bad, because women are not supposed to have sex, but medication that makes men more able to have sex is good, because men are.

Interesting. And confusing.

I can’t figure out what it is exactly that red-blooded, healthy American male men are supposed to do with their co-pay'd, 12 hour Super Erections if women aren't supposed to have sex with them. In layman's terms: Who are these men supposed to be fucking?

For weeks I have been trying to make sense of these contradictory messages and I just. Can't. Do it. All I can come up with is that our legislators ~ those fierce protectors of female morality yet strong proponents of male virility ~ surely have other possible uses in mind for medically induced hard-ons ~ uses that have nothing whatsoever to do with women. I’ve been brainstorming my own list and I have to tell you, there just aren't that many options. This is what I've come up with so far:

• Coat rack.

• Masturbation. Awesome. But I find it difficult to believe that private insurance companies would cover, and therefore (world according to Rush) use tax dollars to fund organ solos. Seriously, we’d be bankrupt in a matter of weeks and every man in the country would resemble a fiddler crab.

•Mano y mano sex. Hot! But the proponents of the Ladies, Put a Penny Between Your Knees movement tend to be the same folks who aren’t so keen on man-on-man action. I think that more of a stink would have been made over coverage which helps ensure that gay guys go at it better, harder and longer.

Wait. This can’t be right. Penises are for vaginas. Always. Sex is exclusively for procreative purposes, right? I get it! Insurance subsidized Viagra must be meant for use solely for the singularly correct, government condoned, Biblically approved purpose of heterosexual, penile/vaginal procreative sex that exists strictly within the confines of marriage.

Interesting. And confusing.

Where are the regulations?

There is a law currently making its way through the Arizona legislature that, if passed, would force a woman to explain to her employer why she wants birth control. Health reasons are acceptable. Slutty reasons, not so much. (I’m not making this up. Click here to read about it.)

All things being equal, men should have to provide a whole heap of information to their employers before they get that prescription filled, no?

• The patient should be forced prove his heterosexuality. Of course, this could be difficult, considering he's seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction.

• He must prove his marital status and that he will never use the Viagra to bone his wife's best friend, his secretary, an intern or any other woman capable of easing his transition into mid-life.

• He must get his sperm tested. Again, could be difficult considering his situation, but this is government money we're talking about. No Viagra if you're shootin' blanks.

Also,

• A government official must surely witness the conception to ensure that no fun was had during intercourse. This is not about fun. This is about procreation. You want it covered? Then it had better be a somber and austere event.

• A hefty fine should be levied against each Viagra'd act of love making that doesn't result in a pregnancy.

But where are these regulations? Where is the name calling? Where are they purveyors of male morality? Where is the outrage?

Why the silence?

Interesting. And confusing.