First of all, let me state that I am 100% in agreement with insurance companies paying for both Viagra and birth control pills.

But... I think an important detail in what CTMorling said a while ago was ignored. S/he said that, for many people (s/he not being one of them), O'Reilly's argument would make sense because Viagra "restores a man to a 'normal' condition" (having an erection), while BC actually "changes a woman's 'normal' condition" (being able to conceive). Note that, as far as I can see, s/he did not mean 'normal' to be 'as expected by society', but simply 'as is to be expected from the biology of men/women'. Barring unusual situations, women can conceive; BC stops that. Barring unusual situations (age, disease, etc.), men can have erections; when they can't, Viagra solves the problem.

Juliebird mentioned a number of diseases that BC also helps control. But CTMorling had already mentioned that: s/he had said that a compromise would be accepting insurance companies to pay for BC if these diseases were involved. Would that be satisfactory?

In my opinion, no, it wouldn't, and this has nothing to do with how many diseases BC pills actually help control. As was pointed out above, it is simply not true that most cases of Viagra are used to correct EDs; it's more usually a 'safety net' for men who might not be able to perform adequately. And BC is much more often used to avoid pregnancy than for any other health issue. So, despite possible medical uses, both drugs are basically used for recreational sex, and pretending this isn't the case (as O'Reilly did) is where it all goes wrong. It is simply not true that Viagra, though it does help with EDs, is being used only, or even mostly, for that.

I don't know if O'Reilly would be so consistent as to say that, since he's against BC because it is 'disturbing the normal situation', then he's also against Viagra when its use is mainly recreational sex. Would he demand that men give extensive proof of actual EDs before having their Viagra pescriptions covered? I find it hard to imagine that he would.

"Why would anyone trust an artist, thinker or philosopher with no knowledge of roughage, bills, garbage disposal or noise, whether married or single?"

Indeed, why? Interesting question.

This would suggest, of course, that we know what makes someone a wonderful artist or philosopher. Why it is that someone has Something To Say. Or a passion for putting it on paper.

It doesn't always have to be the case that artists and philosophers are "somewhat crazy" or "lost in their passion for their work" to make them bad spouses or parents -- but it happens surprisingly often. Yes, surprisingly often -- though I hasten to add: not always -- is it the case that the person with Something To Say keeps obsessing about it all the time, has the narcissistic belief that what s/he Has To Say is more important than anything else, and won't put up with the small things of everyday life. In these cases, they're also poor spouses, often living in their own world and not paying attention to their partners and their needs. Sufficiently often they don't even pay attention to their own needs, despising money and risking bankruptcy. Nietzsche, Kirkegaard, Solov'yov, Dostoyevsky, Mozart, Rimbaud...

Why should we trust them? We shouldn't, of course. We shouldn't necessarily trust anyone. But we should read them, because, despite their personal and practical shortcomings, sometimes, by reading them, we're hit by such astonishing revelations of beauty and insight -- certain things become visible, others start to make sense -- that we may end up agreeing with them and appreciating their work. It's difficult to say how they could sound so "right" with little or no knowledge of the "roughage, bills, garbage disposal or noise" of life, or of matrimony; in fact, it's part of the mystery. It's their effect on us, the readers -- who do have experience with the roughage of life -- that justifies them. We don't know how they got the knowledge they show, but when we feel that they're right or that they have created beauty, we are so astonished by it that their apparent lack of experience with reality is, in a sense, only a minor problem.

I think the idea is that, of course, virginity should not be seen as something desirable if it stems from the old chauvinistic view that 'women should be virgins before marriage' or something like that. I suppose that at least some, and probably most, potential buyers will be trying to please those men who still believe some version of this old-fashioned claim.

That being said, I wonder how many would be using it for reasons other than pleasing those men. In fact, what reasons could those be?

I also tend to think, like the first poster, that the reference to "disinfectant and deodorant" is not per se anti-vagina; it is simply part of this 'anti-septic culture' we're now living, in which bodily odors of any kind and in any body parts are immediately assumed to reveal 'dirt' (microbes! disease!) and need to be dealt with. Personally, I'm a great fan of unadulterated vaginas.