“Lorrie, while I fully support women’s right to contraception and approve women’s right to use such means as necessary to control their fertility, Arizona House Bill 2625 does not prohibit any such means.  It does not “control our bodies and choices” as you assert in your Morning News article.  What it does do is prohibit women from forcing others to pay for their choices.  If the person or organization your work for does not support your choices don’t work for them! You have the right to make your own moral choices.  Do not prohibit others from making theirs!”

ALRIGHTY then: here’s my response…….

Hello Mr. Moron,

Thanks for reading and writing to me about my article.

I have a hard time comprehending why companies/insurance have universally covered viagra for sexual dysfunctionality (which isn’t fatal), but balk at covering BC. What makes one more acceptable than the other, esp. when intercourse isn’t a necessity to live, but women’s BC is prescribed for a variety of proven various physical issues that women typically cannot control otherwise?

IMO, if these opposing organizations don’t mind refunding the money that we women have paid to ‘sponsor’ viagra since 1995, they would have a valid point—-otherwise, allowing one-sided and self-serving ‘beliefs’ ring hollow and snack of hypocrisy. How many of these faith-based organizations required that the men who took the viagra they covered were married and actively attempting to father a child? (If they’ve also rejected coverage for the same reason since the drug became widely available as they object to covering women’s BC, I stand corrected) . What about people who, like myself, don’t want their tax dollars subsidizing multiple wars?

Again, thank you for reading and have a good weekend 🙂

IMBECILE #2 (person didn’t leave details saying if they were a man or a woman and took the strange “I, Robot” route and references me in 3rd person[?])

“I am pretty sure that my views will be considered politically incorrect and not worth airing/publishing.

As she mentions in her column “that it is argued that the intended purpose of the intercourse is baby making, and hey, if women didn’t have their skirts up, they would not need it anyway. Is not abstinence free of charge?”

Also, she mentions that in conceiving, men are active participants. No one in their right mind will deny any of those statements.

The organs engaged in producing the children are called reproductive organs and their basic purpose is progeny and not to satisfy the lust. Even the animals in the wilderness and not home pampered pets, have intercourse only to have babies. If woman is not ready mentally, physically or economically, then refrain from having sex. As she mentions that men are active participants, but who is making the choice of those men and allowing them the liberty. It is pure lust on both sides. When the lower organs take control of the upper organs, mind and intellect, then one has to face the consequences for their actions.

She mentions that the legislators are impacting the ‘morality’ and ‘family values’. There is no feeling of morality and family values in lust.

We should be able to manage our own reproductive health by not engaging in the lustful actions. If one feels that the husband is abusing their bodies, minds and souls, then one made a wrong choice of picking such a husband it was purely due to lust. And most of the times when lust is in control one falls from frying-pan into the fire.

If we control our behavior then there is no need for the regulation/legislation to enforce it through restrictions.”

*blinking, blank stare, crickets*

Below is my response….

Hello Krishna Kreepo,

thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my recent article. In my response to the points you listed, I’ll expound on a couple of them to elaborate on my stance…..

I have a hard time comprehending why companies/insurance have universally covered Viagra for sexual dysfunctionality (which isn’t fatal) for nearly 20 years now without much protest, but balk at covering BC. What makes one more acceptable than the other, esp. when intercourse isn’t a necessity to live, but women’s BC is prescribed for a variety of proven various physical issues that women typically cannot control otherwise?

IMO, if these opposing organizations don’t mind refunding the money that we women have paid to ‘sponsor’ Viagra (or its other generic-type drugs), they would have a valid point—-otherwise, allowing one-sided and self-serving coverage and then spouting off about ‘beliefs’ ring hollow and snack of hypocrisy. For example, how many of these governmental or faith-based organizations required that the millions of men who were prescribed the drug by their doctors and covered were married and only taking it to actively attempt to father a child? (If they’ve also rejected coverage for the same reason since the drug became widely available as they object to covering women’s BC, I stand corrected). What about people who, like myself, don’t want their tax dollars subsidizing multiple wars?

And if you want to say that sex is only for procreation by comparing us to the function of animals, feel free to do so, but the fact that women can have intercourse without ‘going into heat’ and even when they’re no longer able to bear children speaks to the fact that the act exists for more than reproductive purposes. Furthermore, if you want to go into the males in the animal kingdom, some require a bony-type reinforcement of the sex organ to procreate, but male humans have to desire their mate and get an erection to do the same, so desire, or as you refer to it, ‘lust,’ is a mutual and necessary component: (I’m quoting from “You Being Beautiful” in case you need the exact source) “Biologically, men’s sexual organs are much different than those of other species. For one, a man’s penis doesn’t have a bone, unlike those of other species. Why? The bone makes for fast and easy access for males in the animal kingdom [to inseminate their partners quickly]. The evolutionary implications: One, men use the penis as a tool of attraction…and two, the lack of bone implies that men do equate emotions with sex since they must be aroused for an erection.”

Even the Bible states that sex is to multiply and to re-affirm the covenant of the bond between man and woman, so do you mean to state that only men should feel ‘lust’ and that women should only participate in intercourse to create a child?

As for your other assertion (that women pick poor partners because of lust), you must be one of those rare clairvoyants who can always predict human behavior or sense when a man is running game on a vunerable female to get her caught up before turning into an abuser….good for you, because millions of women of all educational backgrounds, ages and environments get caught up every year and you should take your skills and help them to improve their situations in life.

Again, thank you for reading and have a good weekend 🙂

BOOM.