December 17, 2003

Virginia Lawmaker Not Getting Any

State Representative Robert Marshall of Virginia told the panel that 'playboys and adolescent males would be the major beneficiaries' of a move to over-the-counter status, because they would buy the drug to encourage women to have sex with them.
(See Sell next-day pill over the counter, FDA panels say in today's Boston Globe)

Okay, some observations about what this fellow is saying. Firstly, he obviously has an awfully low opinion of women. The primary effect of this drug is that it will help men cloud the minds of women and convince them to have sex with men they wouldn't otherwise? What the hell is this guy's sexual history if he thinks that the way to get a woman into bed is through coercion involving discussions about birth control? Give women a little credit.

I could understand concerns that there might be a drop in condom use, but... for a lawmaker to worry that other guys might get more sex? The only conclusion I can come to is that this guy ain't gettin' any.

I'm going to momentarily put aside the much more important issue of a womans ability to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The benefits to women should be obvious and are paramount. And I'm sure excellent arguments along reasoned lines of logic are being made elsewhere.

However, let's take a purely male point of view. (And Patti, you'll have to forgive the penis-centric approach, but sometimes to communicate with people you have to speak in their language)

If men are going to get more sex because of this drug's availability, then who cares if some playboys get still more sex than you do? Are you only going to back a measure if it allows guys like you to get more sex, but somehow bars playboys from benefiting from the same? Loosen up, sir. I suspect that this guy is bitter because he knows that even with the availability of an over-the-counter version of this drug, his prospects are still poor.

Why is it that when some lawmakers approach the topic of sex, they come off as jilted, bitter, jealous prudes?

BTW - a little free advice for Rep. Marshall. One effective way to stop a woman from going to bed with you is to be an uptight, paleo-conservative busybody wanker. Unless you're shooting for Ann Coulter. And, I'm sorry, but I don't think you have a chance there.

Posted by James at December 17, 2003 8:56 PM
Create Social Bookmark Links
Comments

I suspect that they are a bunch of homophobic closet cases. That's why they can't relate to anyone who thinks that sex is something that people should be able to do.

Of course, there is also a confusing double-message that comes out of the prudes' approach to sex in general:

1. Sex is a bad and shameful act; animals do it only because they don't know any better.
2. You should only do this bad and shameful thing with someone you really love.

Posted by: julie at December 18, 2003 9:34 AM

Hey, for some people, shaming is a turn on--just read the personals in the Phoenix.

Oops, don't tell Rep. Marshall.

I discussed this blog bit with one of my sisters yesterday (we'd been chatting about this story since it was printed), and she said the Republicans aren't getting any, so they don't want anyone else to get any, either. I think she has a point.

She also agreed that discussing birth control was _not_ a turn-on.

Posted by: Patti M. at December 19, 2003 10:40 AM

Copyright © 1999-2007 James P. Burke. All Rights Reserved