Obligatory disclaimer which literally nobody will ever read, or will read, say "uh huh" and then completely ignore this specific definition. By "Feminist" I am not referring to anyone who believes in the equality of men and women and/or wishes to fight for the rights of women. I am referring to the "problematic glasses" brigade who do nothing but tilt at windmills because they hate men, and sow discord and problems between both genders, oppressing them both.
Viagra is an interesting case, because it is often cited by feminists as an example of "what's wrong with society", especially medically.
For example, women complained until Obama created Obamacare and along with it free birth control for every woman who wants it that health insurance wasn't obligated to pay the bulk of the cost for birth control pills. Because insurance pays for free birth control for men! Right, because condoms have no deductible, right? Insurance TOTALLY covers the cost of that, correct?
Agh, gotta switch gears. Thank God for the little blue pill! Because with Viagra, they argued "if a man wants an erection, that's something insurance will cover, but if it's what a woman wants, they won't. OPPRESSION! OPPRESSION!" This became a trope, because it fit beautifully into their built-up worldview. Old, white, angry (probably Republican) men, wanting to control women's bodies, getting free boner pills while women have to scrape together to buy birth control.
There's only one tiny problem with that. Insurance doesn't, and never has covered Viagra for recreational purposes.
Remember when you were 15 and tried convincing your dad it wasn't that you needed birth control because of your new boyfriend, but because of painful periods and what have you, because the pill has other uses besides contraception?
Viagra, believe it or not - also has more than one medical use - though it's been primarily marketed for erectile dysfunction it was discovered while trying to treat high blood pressure. They were surprised, but not as much as their research guinea pigs, to find out that what was supposed to lower their systolic and diastolic numbers gave them an absolutely raging throbber.
It's used to treat pulmonary hypertension, gastroparesis, preventing heart failure while doing chemotherapy for prostate cancer, altitude sickness and so forth. Here's a skill testing quiz that annoys people who prefer to deal in histrionics and dressing up like human reproductive organs rather than facts - guess what conditions insurance is going to pick up the tab for a pill that costs $10 a dose? In conditions where they're trying to prevent heart failure from killing you while you get your prostate cancer treated, or you have a bona fide diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Not because you finally have a chance with that hot bartender (in your own mind).
One official, man-bashing myth debunked. Let's move on?
Speaking of birth control, the other trope that goes around is that men don't want a birth control pill because well, first of all, they love making everything a woman's problem, and second of all the male pills might have side effects and no man would risk side effects nor do we ever make drugs for men that have side effects, including death or cancer.
It couldn't possibly be because there's a natural, in-built fertility killer in women that happens during pregnancy that we can mimic that gets rid of ONE gamete, versus the attempt to go against nature and suppress literally billions of male gametes, right? That we've tried long and hard to get rid of certain endocrine pathways to spermatogenesis but as Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park "Nature finds a way".
No, it absolutely HAS to be because MEN HATE WOMEN.
This also ignores, by the way, that if you poke your head into the morass of actual misogyny and extreme lunacy called the men's rights activist movement they're all literally paranoid of being "spermjacked" and forced to pay 70% of their income to a woman who tricks them into a relationship. They'd remove their own testicles to prevent that, if they didn't literally worship them. I'm reasonably sure these guys would scarf that kind of product down like Tic-Tacs. The literal woman-haters are those who would happily take them four times a day.
And I'll give you one prediction right now, the moment they come up with this the first ones complaining would BE those feminists, because "it removes a woman's agency to get pregnant whenever she chooses, regardless of how the man feels about it". There's already one high profile third waver who has publicly said DNA tests to prove paternity are sexist and oppress women because it prevents a woman from choosing the father of her child. Have fun with hunky Chad, but he doesn't make that money, so on to Sappy Larry with the good job and benefits to "make an honest woman" of her and pay for all her expenses. That is literally what she is arguing women WANTED to do, but for that awful Maury Povich and his "you are not the father". And again, this is yet another reason why these people make me cringe. That's probably one of the most sexist, woman-hating comments I've ever seen, presenting women as conniving, mercenary and lying - said with a straight face by someone I'm supposed to root for, or I hate women. Got it.
By the way, did you know Viagra causes cancer?
They've just realized it causes melanoma, which will kill your ass dead real fast. It can also cause sudden blindness and sudden hearing loss. But hey, I thought we didn't sell drugs that could hurt men, I'm confused.
The bone I have to pick with Viagra is the way some of this community have decided it should work.
Human sexuality is an ugly, nasty, horrible thing. On a primitive level, it turns the reptilian hindbrain of the male into a predator. There's a reason a lot of women get attacked while jogging. It looks like prey running away to the structures of the brain that evolved many, many hundreds of thousands of years ago. It makes that evolutionary knob of brain stem hiding underneath the two successive layers of brain look for markers of reproductive fitness in those around it.
It turns women into objects, and ornaments, and gives the male of the species a God-tier drive to insert himself into the other half of the species that wants nothing to do with it, except in extenuating circumstances. And that is outright wrong, and oppressive, and I totally understand why women would object to being dehumanized and being objectified.
That being said, I find it curious that male sexuality, as designed by a female, is something that's entirely a tool at her disposal. I'm not talking about the woman that lectured me that women are not ornaments or sex objects and there's nothing to be gained from dehumanizing a woman by finding her attractive and paused when she saw blue and red flashing lights in her rearview and proceeded to unbutton her blouse partially and perk up the girls and pretend she'd just lost 50 IQ points to get out of a ticket.
We could talk about choreplay, in which she wants those gutters cleaned and that lawn mowed and a new couch purchased, and then she might consider a discussion on the subject of when the couple will have sex next. But I'm not talking about that. Or the "cutting him off" ploy to win an argument or get something you want.
I'm talking about the feminist literature that states that men should literally be "culled" to 10% of the population and used for menial labor, or in the case of the "femtheist", DNA editing would give women the choice of 10% of the population of Brad Pitts and Chad Thundercock types who would be basically pleasure bots and jar openers. Some women have started selecting away male children.
Or simply the response to why the sex has disappeared in a relationship. If it disappears because she's not interested, well, there's more to life than sex, clearly the man isn't "doing it" for her, and he'd better not stray from that relationship or... well, she gets the societal sympathy, and house and alimony.
When she has a headache, well, you need to respect that. (And honestly, you should). But disturbingly, when he has a headache or has lost interest, well, she has "rights". If, on the other hand, he has no interest in her anymore, well, that's a problem. Like, a real problem. He's probably gay. Or cheating. Or needs to see a doctor right away.
Why right away? Because when she wants it, for a lot of women, "no" isn't a word she wants to hear. Ask any man who's been raped by a woman, and there's more out there than you think. Whereas men aggress, certainly, for women it's a case of "I want this, and I'm entitled to it, and I'm taking it".
And she doesn't want to work for it, a lot of the time. One of the things I've found, lurking in the "Ask Men" forums in places, is women getting offended or horrified to find out that their boyfriend of 8 years isn't going to want her as passionately 8 years in as he did the very first time. Having grown up with the idea that all men want sex all the time and that she is the gatekeeper, the idea of having to seduce a man or put some effort into getting sex was literally humiliating, and a referendum on her attractiveness and worth - like she wasn't somehow innately pretty enough or sexy enough that he would want her again. Dig a bit deeper and you find out their sex life is basically he does all the work and she lies there like a starfish, and he's just lost his job and is stressed out about bills - but apparently the problem is still or should be all on his side.
The penis, apart from being a barometer of general health, is also pretty much a good indicator of a guy's interest or commitment to someone if he's young and healthy. Age, endocrine problems or things like diabetes can jack up even the most willing of would-be lovers, as can whiskey. But a young man who's normally tumescent 15 times a day and 10 at night losing it completely when confronted with a woman who's a right unholy terror is a sign. A really big, neon-red, NOPE DON'T DO THIS MAN sign. And I hate to say this, but artificial lubrication exists if she's not into it but for some reason, meh, I could get something out of the encounter, but if he's not into it, you aren't shooting pool with a rope.
I know of at least two men who were basically ordered by their girlfriends to go get Viagra, (never mind some of the women in the paragraph above who thought that a solution as well). Because they'd lost interest in them sexually (one girl had gained 85lb and he was supposed to still find her sexy no matter what, because "societal body oppression" and "fat and fierce" or whatever). For them, Viagra was the perfect relationship, an on-off switch for sex. Like that buzzing Hitachi you plug into the wall and then put in the Tupperware container under the bed when done, available on demand, immediately, ready to go, no questions asked, but when not needed, hibernating quietly under the bed.
Man as beast of burden, with a sexuality that's pushbutton convenient. Like, 10% of the society, performing all the chores when fingers are snapped. Reducing MEN to an object with no agency. Something that feminism (that is apparently about equality with the sexes and is all about helping men too, they say with a straight face somehow) in theory objects to.
To the woman in the Reddit conversation, she was devastated to find out that Viagra isn't "Spanish Fly" or a love potion, all it does is create an erection. And if he doesn't want one in the first place, you are so not going to convince him to go out and spend $10 to get one.
I don't have any idea how to end this, anyone who's followed it up to now has either nothing but pure hatred and a "letter to the editor" in mind or found it thoughtful. But you can't deny that a little blue pill whose side effect is tumescence hasn't kicked up some rocks and found some hissing serpents thereunder.