Marguerite de Navarre: what crack was she on, and can we have some? And more about sex

[elettaria]

Somewhere between the Pyrenees and the Alps there once lived a nobleman by the name of Thogas. He had a wife, children, a fine house and so much wealth and pleasure that he had every good reason to be content with life. Apart from one thing. He was subject to great pain beneath the roots of his hairs. The pain was so severe that the doctors advised him to stop sleeping with his wife.

Marguerite de Navarre, The Heptameron, Story 54.

We're having quite an interesting discussion about a peculiar TV programme called "Virgin School" in king_laugh's journal here, if anyone wants to jump in. Topics for discussion here in mine, prompted by a variety of sources:

* Prostitution - should it be legalised?
* Sexual surrogacy - useful? creepy? unprofessional? a great idea?
* Virginity - what does it mean, and do we like the concept in the first place?
* Should vibrators be available on the NHS?

Comments

[king-laugh.livejournal.com]

Of course vibrators shouldn't be availible on the NHS, any more than viagra should.
The NHS is there to take care of our medical needs. Not desires. And it's strapped for cash as it is.

Should chocolate be availible on the NHS?

[elettaria.livejournal.com]

It was partly a joky question, but I think your comparison with Viagra is sound. If one's appropriate or not, the other is, and the current set-up has more than a strong whiff of sexism about it. I suppose the question is how far sexual pleasure is something we're entitled to as some sort of a basic human right. For example, I imagine you'll agree that patients are entitled to be dissatisfied with medication that causes sexual problems, such as lowered libido, as a side-effect. If people are having sexual problems, are they entitled to medical help with those? If people just want good sex but don't have a real problem, what about then?

The NHS is of course terribly short-funded, and I for one would far rather less money went on things like Viagra and more on, oh I don't know, appallingly debilitating diseases like M.E., but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, what if it were proven that sexual aids of this nature were cost-effective because they caused a general improvement in health and thus reduced the amount the NHS needed to spend on treating disease? This does of course sound worryingly like the way vibrators were originally used as so-called medical devices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrator_%28sensual%29), but there are strong differences: the consideration of sex as therapeutic is quite different, and I'm not talking about sexual abuse under the guise of medical treatment here.

[elettaria.livejournal.com]

P.S. You know, there have recently been some studies on the therapeutic properties of chocolate...

[sweetrush.livejournal.com]

Why on earth should Viagra not be available? I mean I'm sure it's overprescribed and everything, and that some people use it as just a sex enhancer, but that doesn't mean that no one has a medical need for it - e.g. men with circulation problems or diabetes who cannot normally get erections, which is the group the drug was originally supposed to target.

Unless you don't think sexual health is worth treating, because it is not life threatening?

[king-laugh.livejournal.com]

I see sex as a desire, not a need.
It's a very strong desire, but it's still not a medical need.
And lots of things which aren't life-threatening are medical needs, so maybe I don't think in quite such black-and-white terms as you imply.

[sweetrush.livejournal.com]

I find that a little bit cruel... but I think I place a lot more importance on sex than most people.

If someone couldn't use their arm properly, would you consider that a medical need to get fixed? People can and do, after all, live with only one arm when there is no other option.

If you do consider this to be a medical need, then why not impotence?

[ghost-of-a-flea.livejournal.com]

"If people are having sexual problems, are they entitled to medical help with those?"

Well, yes, really. Especially given the raft of social, physical and mental problems that could easily go alongside that. There's obviously still the condsideration of how you balance that against other illnesses, but initially, yes absolutely, and within that patients within that with clinically diagnosed problems related to sex should of course have access to viagra (if that's an appropriate treatment for their condition). I think you'd need to be careful how you distinguish the use of such treatments for genuine medical need and the sort of titillating tabloid-reports of "VICAR GAVE IT TO ME THREE TIMES A NIGHT AFTER NHS PRESCRIBED WONDER DRUG VIAGRA", and whether the latter is actually an accurate or unprejudiced look at the events. Maybe the Vicar in question wasn't just a randy bugger who wanted constant HARDCORE ACTION all the time but someone who wasn't able to function fully in an important part of his life and which in turn contributed to his frustration, depression and social exclusion...

The reduction ad absurdum of prescribing chocolate falls apart if you were to seriously compare the likelihood of choclate, wonderful thing that it is, being the most powerful, efficient, economical, lacking in side-effects treatment for an illness like depression and being clinically prescribed as such. Viagra, and very possibly other forms of sexual therapy, should be considered precisely on the basis of their fulfilling the demands of real medical need, unless there's a moralistic need to set sex aside from the list of things we expect people to be physically able to do where possible.

Not really looked into the sex surrogacy thing but doesn't sound that iffy - not sure you could really count it under medical need, but then the NHS doesn't run free classes in Tai Chi (so far as I know) for all-comers and you could certainly argue that would improve your health.

I'd be particularly interested in whether this was a service principally taken up by straight males, as the wording of the link suggested, as that would make the whole weighting of this a service a bit more questionable, and it's certainly what I'd initially suspect.

[ghost-of-a-flea.livejournal.com]

From the link:

Prostitution is an entertainment service and provides the payer with instant gratification. It is a device, a way to release sexual energy. The client calls the shots and gets what he pays for. A sexual surrogate on the other hand, has a purpose in mind. A surrogate’s job is to educate the client on how to master or alleviate specific sexual problems. Though the surrogate does the teaching, the therapist—not the client or the surrogate—decides on activities would best treat the client. Therapy usually takes months. Any sexual activity—if a therapist deems it necessary—is secondary to communication, education and healing.

Sex surrogacy is a professional practice in association with psychologists, physicians, urologists, and is always overseen by a sex therapist. Surrogates are there, at the request of a therapist, to teach clients how to overcome sexual problems by education and by physical treatment.

Certainly don't have any initial issue with those two statements. A contrast of entertainment/therapy might be a usefull tool to be thinking about.

[sweetrush.livejournal.com]

I'm in the middle of finals and full of death so this is going to be very brief - feel free to poke for more discussion, I will be very happy to indulge in it tomorrow.

1) ...Is it not legal in Scotland, then? Yes, I'm very much for legalising or at least decriminalising sex work in general.

2) Very useful, no creepier than any other sex work, although obvoiusly a complicated matter that deserves tons of discussion in terms of what is appropriate for individual cases. You may find this to be interesting reading.

3) Whatever you want it to, within reason (I use risk of pregnancy or STI transmission as my benchmark) - or absolutely anything you want it to so long as you add your definition to any statements of your virgin (or not) status. And no I don't like the concept it's loaded and stupid.

4) Cock rings are, actually, but I think I'd go with no on this one. Although I guess they could make a profit selling £3 bullet vibes for the £6 prescription charge! However, I would be all for doctors recommending specific sex toys or brands when appropriate.

[sweetrush.livejournal.com]

The bit about the cock rings I'm not entirely sure about, btw - someone told me they were, but a brief google hasn't turned up anything. I'll ask her about it and get back to you.

[sweetrush.livejournal.com]

Aha! Cock rings and penis pumps available on the NHS if you have a medical condition causing impotence.

I go bed now.