• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Employers be Forced to Pay for Porn?

Should society pay for porn?

  • Yes, men should have free, risk-free avenues for sexual satisfaction too

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • No, civil rights only apply to minority groups

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • No, the government should not pay, or force others to pay, for sex

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • No, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard because...

    Votes: 13 61.9%

  • Total voters
    21
You'll experience different female ecosystems when you branch out.

LOLO and what would be "branching out"

Its seriously doubtful, maybe once my partner(s) are older and age is a factor
 
LOLO and what would be "branching out"

Its seriously doubtful, maybe once my partner(s) are older and age is a factor

A plethora of women experience dryness...
KY is for female use for instance, and has been on the market since I can remember.
 
A plethora of women experience dryness...
KY is for female use for instance, and has been on the market since I can remember.

uhm thats not KYs only use and typically people use it for ANAL

again like I said, i just must be lucky Have had what some consider a plethora of women and never came across this issue. Nothing that couple strokes, licks or a reposition didnt fix. The vast majority of them left puddles LOL

You dint answer what would branching out be?
 
uhm thats not KYs only use and typically people use it for ANAL

Ky is almost strictly vaginal, its too thin for anal use... anal sex generally prefers astroglide or other brands particularly silicone lubricants.

again like I said, i just must be lucky Have had what some consider a plethora of women and never came across this issue. Nothing that couple strokes, licks or a reposition didnt fix. The vast majority of them left puddles LOL

There are women who are even deterred to strictly shower intercourse over their overproduction of 'puddles', as you say.

You dint answer what would branching out be?

FIGURING OUT KY ISNT FOR ANAL DERP.
try it...
then you're branched out.
 
Ky is almost strictly vaginal, its too thin for anal use... anal sex generally prefers astroglide or other brands particularly silicone lubricants.

dude. this makes me wonder how far you have branched out.
 
Ky is almost strictly vaginal, its too thin for anal use... anal sex generally prefers astroglide or other brands particularly silicone lubricants.



There are women who are even deterred to strictly shower intercourse over their overproduction of 'puddles', as you say.



FIGURING OUT KY ISNT FOR ANAL DERP.
try it...
then you're branched out.

Nice try but thats only your opinion LMAO

and do you realize you are trying to say I need to do more anal to branch out and that will make me experience dry vaginal???? LMAO that makes no sense.

sorry, not buying, I think you need to work on your skills

so again I ask what is your opinion to branching out?
 
Nice try but thats only your opinion LMAO

It wont be opinion when you use KY to put it in her surprise box the first time. :roll:
and do you realize you are trying to say I need to do more anal to branch out and that will make me experience dry vaginal???? LMAO that makes no sense.

No, if you go over the quotes you'll realize my final 'branch out' comment was a throwaway in reference to your lack of experience with lubricants, kiddo.

sorry, not buying, I think you need to work on your skills

There's someone in the bed behind me that begs to differ.

so again I ask what is your opinion to branching out?

Your transitive verb doesnt apply in this situation. Attempt to be less ambiguous to coax an answer our of me you want, and be honest.

Your last post fell out of the convo btw. Hold it together, bro. Kinda sad you didn't answer a single statement directly.
 
It wont be opinion when you use KY to put it in her surprise box the first time. :roll:
no it still will be because that is infact what some people use and I wont be doing that, nice try but again only an opinion


No, if you go over the quotes you'll realize my final 'branch out' comment was a throwaway in reference to your lack of experience with lubricants, kiddo.
you brought it up in post 125 so NO you didnt not bring it up that way LMAO


There's someone in the bed behind me that begs to differ.
is she one of the "dry ones" LMAO if not then I was talking about her was I and how do you know she just donest want to hurt your feelings



Your transitive verb doesnt apply in this situation. Attempt to be less ambiguous to coax an answer our of me you want, and be honest.

Your last post fell out of the convo btw. Hold it together, bro. Kinda sad you didn't answer a single statement directly.

Why do some people do this and think it will work LMAO, you accuse me of not being honest when in fact its YOU not being honest LOL you offered only deflection after deflection instead of answering a questions. nice try but these post arent going anywhere. The fact is YOU still havent directly answer :laughat:

Maybe youll just man up an answer
 
Suddenly it is a civil right for the government to force employers, including religious employers, to provide birth control to their employees. Democrats are making the argument that birth control is prohibitively priced and that women cannot have protected sex unless someone else buys their birth control for them. Kathleen Sebelius has suggested that the mandate for employers to buy their employee's birth control will pay for itself because we won't have as many of those pesky babies to pay for.

So here is the question, if paying so that women can satisfy their sexual desires without consequences is a civil rights issue, what about men's sexual desires? Shouldn't the government make employers buy porn for their male employees? Unlike female employees who may need intimacy and relationship to satisfy them, most men are visually stimulated and can "handle" it themselves. So what do you think? If society should pay for safe, baby free sexual satisfaction for women, shouldn't society pay for it for men too?

News bulletin for the sexually uninformed - while porn may cause some males to become aroused sexually, women are not aroused by the mere act of taking a birth control pill. Your analogy falls flat on its face just inches out of the starting gate.
 
Several insurance companies cover smoke cessation and I believe that is actually government mandated. That is an "elective" medicine. Why aren't you bitching about that? Oh wait I know why because your masters aren't.
 
Why should employers be forced to pay for porn for men when they're already willingly paying for health insurance to provide treatments for erectile dysfunction to men, which is more apt to the analogy you're attempting?

Can you give me some examples of major American religious groups who object to ED treatments on religious grounds? By the way, I don't think the government should force employers to pay for ED treatment either, and I think people should have a choice when choosing insurance companies whether they are going to pay for a plan that covers ED treatment.
 
Several insurance companies cover smoke cessation and I believe that is actually government mandated. That is an "elective" medicine. Why aren't you bitching about that? Oh wait I know why because your masters aren't.

Same question, can you give me some examples of major religious groups who object to smoking cessation drugs on religious grounds? That is why I chose porn and not ED or other elective drugs. Although again, I think people should have choices in what insurance plans they get and what those plans cover. For example, I should be able to choose a cheaper plan that doesn't cover smoking cessation drugs because I don't smoke. But maybe wanting personal freedom is just a selfish preference for me.
 
All the posts here except one by SmokeAndMirrors completely ignore the fact that insurance companies have to cover the costs of pregnancy and childbirth as well as postnatal care. The reason insurance companies so quickly agreed to Obama's proposal is that the costs of pregnancy and childbirth are very high relative to the costs of hormonal birth control. The average childbirth (assuming some minimal prenatal care, too) is about $10,000. If birth control cost even $500 per year, one childbirth is equal to 20 years of birth control coverage. FYI, it is disgusting for anyone to expect an insurance company to cover more than three childbirths for one woman, assuming one replacement each for woman and man and one accident. People who do not use birth control for religious reasons or whatever and produce 5, 6, 7, or more children per couple are causing everyone's insurance costs to be very high. The insurance industry loves Obama for suggesting that the companies offer free birth control. The people who produce too many children are the irresponsible ones. If the Catholic church thinks it's so important for people not to use birth control, it should pay for all these extra births itself instead of saddling insurance companies with the cost.
 
All the posts here except one by SmokeAndMirrors completely ignore the fact that insurance companies have to cover the costs of pregnancy and childbirth as well as postnatal care. The reason insurance companies so quickly agreed to Obama's proposal is that the costs of pregnancy and childbirth are very high relative to the costs of hormonal birth control. The average childbirth (assuming some minimal prenatal care, too) is about $10,000. If birth control cost even $500 per year, one childbirth is equal to 20 years of birth control coverage. FYI, it is disgusting for anyone to expect an insurance company to cover more than three childbirths for one woman, assuming one replacement each for woman and man and one accident. People who do not use birth control for religious reasons or whatever and produce 5, 6, 7, or more children per couple are causing everyone's insurance costs to be very high. The insurance industry loves Obama for suggesting that the companies offer free birth control. The people who produce too many children are the irresponsible ones. If the Catholic church thinks it's so important for people not to use birth control, it should pay for all these extra births itself instead of saddling insurance companies with the cost.

Insurance companies don't have to cover prenatal care and pregnancy. Many do, but not all. Personal insurance plans rarely do. I wish mine didn't because it would be cheaper.
 
Same question, can you give me some examples of major religious groups who object to smoking cessation drugs on religious grounds? That is why I chose porn and not ED or other elective drugs. Although again, I think people should have choices in what insurance plans they get and what those plans cover. For example, I should be able to choose a cheaper plan that doesn't cover smoking cessation drugs because I don't smoke. But maybe wanting personal freedom is just a selfish preference for me.

Well even the cheapest plan covers smoke cessation drugs now. That is beside the point. The Catholic church and any church be it a charity or not is still a business. If you really wanted to follow the bible then we needn't have any science to help in anyway. Of course, we would go through like 3 popes every 10 years if the Catholics followed that line.
 
I had my gallbladder taken out in 1996 as emergency surgery and I was uninsured. I owed a substantial amount and I got itemized bills from the hospital, surgeon, anesthesiologist etc... the hospital was charging me something like $3.00 per guaze pad. How do suppliers get away with it?

I can understand the pharmaceutical issue to a point. They are regulated very heavily and have to contend with patent limits, research costs, studies, the FDA etc.. etc... but friggin' gauze pads?
They will literally recover every cent possible through increased margins and itemized billing. That's the messed up part of the system, it's set up to the disadvantage of the provider which rolls down to the consumer. A lot of people put faith in the last bill passed, but it actually puts more of a burden on the provider, insurer, and ultimately will roll over the consumer.
 
Well even the cheapest plan covers smoke cessation drugs now. That is beside the point. The Catholic church and any church be it a charity or not is still a business. If you really wanted to follow the bible then we needn't have any science to help in anyway. Of course, we would go through like 3 popes every 10 years if the Catholics followed that line.

Ok, you lost me. How is forcing the church to pay for birth control and morning after abortion pills the same as having science? How is the Bible opposed to science? What does being a business have to do with forfeiting religious liberty? I think you need to take some time explaining that post.
 
"The church" is not paying for birth control in any way. Insurance plans are now required to cover it, as most of them did already. If a church wants to start a business, they need to follow the same rules as everybody else. Their right to discriminate ends when they enter the business world. Simple logic will tell you this is going to save everybody money. Preventative health care is what we should be focused on as it leads to healthier people and saves us all money. Birth control pills costs about $300-$600 a year. One birth in a hospital including anesthesia, stitches, IV medications, possible surgery, and a 2-3 day stay after delivery will be thousands of dollars. The cost of an unplanned child the parents aren't prepared to provide for costs society much more. This isn't hard guys...
 
Last edited:
Suddenly it is a civil right for the government to force employers, including religious employers, to provide birth control to their employees. Democrats are making the argument that birth control is prohibitively priced and that women cannot have protected sex unless someone else buys their birth control for them. Kathleen Sebelius has suggested that the mandate for employers to buy their employee's birth control will pay for itself because we won't have as many of those pesky babies to pay for.

So here is the question, if paying so that women can satisfy their sexual desires without consequences is a civil rights issue, what about men's sexual desires? Shouldn't the government make employers buy porn for their male employees? Unlike female employees who may need intimacy and relationship to satisfy them, most men are visually stimulated and can "handle" it themselves. So what do you think? If society should pay for safe, baby free sexual satisfaction for women, shouldn't society pay for it for men too?
You are looking at this in way the wrong way. Paying for contraception doesn't just benefit the student. It also benefits society because we have more people finishing college and entering the productive workforce. There is no benefit to encouraging a system where women are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and have to drop out of college, do worse in college because they now have to take care of a baby, get less impressive jobs because they are now single mothers, default on their loans, have to take out more loans to pay for their babies, etc. The church policy also discourages women from entering into serious relationships, which has the potentially to hurt these women (and men) as well in the long run, as most serious relationships begin in college.

The policy also helps men because, last time I checked, men run into trouble when they have unwanted children as well.

Porn, on the other hand, discourages students from doing school work, being productive, and being social. Plus, porn is available for free from any computer. The two situations are not similar at all.

At the end of the day, birth control costs < babies. And while students remain dirt poor, the public is going to be paying for either.
 
Last edited:
So here is the question, if paying so that women can satisfy their sexual desires without consequences is a civil rights issue, what about men's sexual desires? Shouldn't the government make employers buy porn for their male employees? Unlike female employees who may need intimacy and relationship to satisfy them, most men are visually stimulated and can "handle" it themselves. So what do you think? If society should pay for safe, baby free sexual satisfaction for women, shouldn't society pay for it for men too?

Who exactly do you think these women with birth control are having sex with? :doh
 
Who says we are. See my post #107 this thread. I'm
All good.

Yes, but he was talking about paying for women to "satisfy their sexual desires" and how that relates to paying for birth control.
 
Back
Top Bottom