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?