Middle Aged Woman Talking: Satire
Today In Men's Reproductive Health: Anti-Jerk Versus Pro-Jerk
As the battle continues to rage between Anti-Jerk and Pro-Jerk factions, three Male Masturbation clinics closed today, victims of the latest legislation that is slowly but surely eroding the legal right for men to masturbate.
Anti-Jerks hold true that life begins at erection and masturbation is nothing short of murder. Pro-Jerks don’t think it’s any of the government’s (or anybody else’s) business what they do with their penis. Male masturbation is still not against the law but, because of the remarkably well- organized Anti-Jerks for Jesus, and the fundraising prowess of Tim Tebow, state legislatures are slowly but surely eroding the right.
As per the latest ruling, men have to undergo a ball cup and cough by two different doctors to determine if they’re healthy enough for ejaculation. The wait for results can take up to two weeks. Florida has new legislation on the books that requires not just the ball cup and cough but an anal probe. As Florida goes so goes Ohio, Georgia, Alabama, and Texas.
Earlier this year the Supreme Court did away with buffer zones around masturbation clinics. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling has absolved men in the 1% from all anti-masturbation legislation
"Where is the outrage?” Bill Beilfan, President of Pro-Jerk America, asks in his latest change.org video. Beilfan will be debating David Karolu, President of Anti-Jerks For Jesus this Sunday on Fox News.
Live loud, love fierce, and suffer no fools.
Katherine Manaan MAWT
1st posted 7/15/14
Art by AnthonyRB1
Today In Men's Reproductive Health: Should The Partner Of The Viagra User Be Insured?
If erectile dysfunction is to be defined (and it is) as a medical condition deserving of coverage what is actually being said is that a man’s inability to achieve tumescence is as harmful to his health and quality of life as say asthma or high blood pressure. Thus Viagra is to ED what an inhaler is to an asthmatic, and blood thinners and beta blockers are to the heart patient. Theoretically treatment allows the patient to enjoy the same quality of life they knew before the disease (medical condition) or so the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, and the ads tell us. By taking the prescribed drug, the asthmatic can breathe freely, the heart patient can stave off a heart attack and/or open-heart surgery, and the ED patient can have sexual congress.
By defining ED as a medical condition you are stating unequivocally that a man’s ability to engorge and engage in sexual congress is as important as his need to breathe and his ability to avoid a heart attack. Most of the sane and insane men we love beyond all reason agree have spelled out for us in no uncertain terms that it is the completion of the sex act that is key to a man’s health and quality of life. Interestingly enough the medical community concurs with this man-on-the-street opinion.
As the ability to engorge and have sexual congress (release) is vital to a man’s health and well-being, then whoever (female, male, or trans-gendered) is having sex with a man on Viagra is actually performing a valuable medical service; a life-saving, life-prolonging, life-enhancing service, comparable to the Heimlich Maneuver. The question that begs to be asked is: should the service provided by the partner of the man taking viagra, be covered by medical insurance, as it is as intrinsic to successful treatment of ED as the “exhale” is to breathing.
One of the men on Viagra with whom we spoke said he would have no problem paying premiums for his wife’s services. He was a little worried about the deductible though and the number of visits the insurance companies would allow. Yet another man we know on Viagra, an unmarried Republican lobbyist, told us he already spent close to $5000 a month on escorts and massages and wondered what the difference would be between his current expenditures and the monthly premium and the co-pay. Still another man we know, gay and a political activist in a long-term committed relationship, (both he and his partner are taking Viagra) said what’s needed is an “Association and/or Union” for people who are having sex with men on Viagra, that way the partner can get a better price on the insurance. The lobbyist agreed.
As Viagra is a men’s issue, no women were interviewed.
Live loud, love fierce, and suffer no fools.
(1st posted 3/8/12)
If erectile dysfunction is to be defined (and it is) as a medical condition deserving of coverage what is actually being said is that a man’s inability to achieve tumescence is as harmful to his health and quality of life as say asthma or high blood pressure. Thus Viagra is to ED what an inhaler is to an asthmatic, and blood thinners and beta blockers are to the heart patient. Theoretically treatment allows the patient to enjoy the same quality of life they knew before the disease (medical condition) or so the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the AMA, and the ads tell us. By taking the prescribed drug, the asthmatic can breathe freely, the heart patient can stave off a heart attack and/or open-heart surgery, and the ED patient can have sexual congress.
By defining ED as a medical condition you are stating unequivocally that a man’s ability to engorge and engage in sexual congress is as important as his need to breathe and his ability to avoid a heart attack. Most of the sane and insane men we love beyond all reason agree have spelled out for us in no uncertain terms that it is the completion of the sex act that is key to a man’s health and quality of life. Interestingly enough the medical community concurs with this man-on-the-street opinion.
As the ability to engorge and have sexual congress (release) is vital to a man’s health and well-being, then whoever (female, male, or trans-gendered) is having sex with a man on Viagra is actually performing a valuable medical service; a life-saving, life-prolonging, life-enhancing service, comparable to the Heimlich Maneuver. The question that begs to be asked is: should the service provided by the partner of the man taking viagra, be covered by medical insurance, as it is as intrinsic to successful treatment of ED as the “exhale” is to breathing.
One of the men on Viagra with whom we spoke said he would have no problem paying premiums for his wife’s services. He was a little worried about the deductible though and the number of visits the insurance companies would allow. Yet another man we know on Viagra, an unmarried Republican lobbyist, told us he already spent close to $5000 a month on escorts and massages and wondered what the difference would be between his current expenditures and the monthly premium and the co-pay. Still another man we know, gay and a political activist in a long-term committed relationship, (both he and his partner are taking Viagra) said what’s needed is an “Association and/or Union” for people who are having sex with men on Viagra, that way the partner can get a better price on the insurance. The lobbyist agreed.
As Viagra is a men’s issue, no women were interviewed.
Live loud, love fierce, and suffer no fools.
(1st posted 3/8/12)