I know we can debate anything here on Hatrack. So I’m anxious to hear this one. Should be interesting. I’m wondering how you can have the nerve to bring up a bill like this, much less vote for it!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will point out that I doubt a lot of condoms are going to be used in prison - rape, particularly in a prison setting, is more about power than two men having a consentual and mutually enjoyable sexual encounter.
Take a guess in which encounter a condom is more likely to be used.
I suspect the condoms will be used, but not for the intended purposes.
posted
Unless this is a new case, these weren't inmates, these were ex-cons who had paid their dues. The article doesn't mention them being inmates.
Also, the notion of sex offender has a wide range; some of these people may be dangerous, enabled with viagra. Others may have been 19 with a 17 year old girlfriend (in a place with a AOC of 18). I don't see why those last people, when they have erectile disfunction, should be prevented from having a normal sex life.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, If I read the brief mention of that correctly, the situation is not at all like you interpreted it and Jay tried to present it. The viagra thing had nothing to do with inmates. It was a Medicaid issue and one I'm willing to bet came down to beauracratic incompetence and/or poor planning and not an effort to get Viagra to sex offenders. Sure, I'd be upset too, but because of the stupidity and inefficiency evidenced, as it is evidenced in so many other places.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going from trial records, the people in charge may not have the information to make the special distinction between "voluntary" statutory rape and "involuntary" statutory rape.
posted
I'm not saying they should be able to, but I'm also in favor of providing health care where medical caregivers deem it necessary -- and since these people have paid their time, and there're plenty of circumstances where even a "sex offender" could have a legitimate need for viagra, I say give 'em viagra if they get a prescription and have health care, state or otherwise, that would normally cover it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, there is no distinction at all made in that article-- just "registered sex offenders". Okay, first of all, a good many of them may have made one mistake, like sleeping with an underage girl, consentually, and be required to register even though they will never do it again. (Laws on this kind of thing can be really stupid.) They may be trying to have normal relationships with their wives. How do we know, and why do people get so worked up about this without all the facts? I'd hesitate to make any kind of judgement until I knew details.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will point out that I doubt a lot of condoms are going to be used in prison - rape, particularly in a prison setting, is more about power than two men having a consentual and mutually enjoyable sexual encounter.
Despite sterotypes, I would wager that far more consentual homosexual sex is happening in prison than rape.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Condoms are important in preventing not only the spread of HIV/AIDS, but also Hepatitis C. A lot of drug users that go into the prison system come out Hep C positive, and not through using.
Having condoms available is better than no condoms at all, and hopefully can help prevent the continuing spread of HIV.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
edit: It should be mentioned that the condom issue is about allowing non-profit organizations to distribute condoms in prisions, not paying for it out of taxpayer money, as seems to be implied by the way Jay couched it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even in cases of rape, I would think inmates might be scared enough of HIV/AIDS to use a condom if they were available.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
trevor, Where are you getting the idea that condom use has increased? Increased from when? It has quite obviously done so over, say, the 80s. As far as I know, it was increasing all the way through the 90s, at least on college campuses.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I seem to recall one study based on counting condoms found in trash and the like which would seem to be a little more factual than an anonymous survey, but I will continue looking.
-Trevor
Edit: This study strongly disagrees with my assessment.
posted
MrSquicky -- that's what I get for not paying closer attention. Let's pretend that I haven't said anything in this thread. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They may be trying to have normal relationships with their wives. How do we know, and why do people get so worked up about this without all the facts? I'd hesitate to make any kind of judgement until I knew details.
If they are trying to have normal relationships with their wives, then no one is saying they can't. They're just saying - not on my dime. Nothing prevents anyone with a prescription for Viagara from obtaining Viagara. They are just objecting to putting something into the hands of a convicted sex offender that might enable him to offend again.
To me, it's like saying that a convicted murderer who murdered with hunting rifles being given a hunting rifle at taxpayer expense. Sure, maybe he was young when he committed the murder and he'll never do it again. Sure, there are legitimate reasons for having a hunting rifle - maybe he wants to go hunt deer. But I'd really rather my tax dollars didn't put that gun in his hand.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, That's the impression that the organization that sent Jaw the talking points email wanted you to get. No worries.
I totally agree with Belle here. There's a huge difference between the state paying for these people to get Viagra and the state not letting them have a normal sexual relationship. I don't see any reason why the state should be obligated to pay for that. It's a a step away from Medicaid funded botox.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's the impression that the organization that sent Jaw the talking points email wanted you to get. No worries.
You just made me feel worse. But I deserve it.
Although I wonder...
I don't know much about sexual crimes and what increases the likelyhood of them, but I wonder if having access to viagra and a normal healthy sex life might make some sex offendors less likely to commit additional sex crimes.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on the offender, the nature of the crime and the motivation behind the offender.
Being aroused naturally or through chemical stimulation does not determine the subject of the person's ardour.
Example: A gay man on Viagra will not stop being attracted to men just because of the erectile dysfunction medication.
-Trevor
Edit: Homosexuality was a bad example to use, pending a definitive answer to the nurture v. nature argument.
An offender's motivations for committing sex crimes will not have changed by introducing erectile dysfunction medication. A habitual sexual offender is driven by pyschological need and until that psychological imperative is altered, removed or outright reprogrammed, the targets of his sexual interest will not change.
A man who believes beating his wife is a form of affection is unlikely to change his behavior because he's sexually aroused and has an erection - in fact, quite the opposite if this man believes this is how affection and sexual behavior is supposed to be manifested.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(DING DING DING! Well, perhaps not Viagra, but more openness and easy access to treatment for sexual disorders of all types. CA's mental health system SUCKS. Thanks, Mr. Regan.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's kind of an interesting idea. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I could imagine that it might actually aid in treating some of the compulsive fetish disorders, like when guys go around stealing women's shoes.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its more like not giving painkillers on a taxpayers dime to someone in pain, who has previously abused painkillers (or, say, prescription drugs in general).
Viagra is medicine; hunting rifles are not.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the government support the idea that a "healthy sex life" is a requisite to good health?
Does the government therefore have an obligation to fund medication to assist in this health issue?
Does the government's financial obligation stop with medication, if we have accepted the idea that a "healthy sex life" is indeed a requisite to good overall health?
posted
Viagara is not a life saving medication, and some insurance plans don't cover it anyway. No former convict is going to die or writhe in excruciating pain because the state didn't pay for his Viagara.
It's not medically necessary, and there is no reason that the state must pay for it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if it's part of his treatment for his sexual disorder to try to have a normal relationship with his wife and this is to facilitate that?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Viagra is only slightly more a medicine than breast augmentation is a surgery. Technically, they both fit that definition, but if you're looking at the use of public funds to ensure basic health services, neither of them come close to making the grade.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What if it's part of his treatment for his sexual disorder to try to have a normal relationship with his wife and this is to facilitate that?
Then he can pay for it himself.
There is big difference between the state saying "You can't have Viagara" and the state saying "We're not going to pay for your Viagara."
No one is being prevented from doing anything here. They are just being forced to pay for something themselves.
And in that case, my example was a poor one - because a convicted felon cannot get a gun permit at all, and in this case the person can certainly have the Viagara, he's just got to bear the cost himself.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would depend on how much effort is put into rehabilitation and not punishment.
The US penal system is based on a "two for the price of one" concept - an offender is punished and in an effort to avoid future punishment, is therefore motivated to rehabilitate himself. [edit] This is based on several assumptions - that the offender is capable of self-rehabilitation and that the offender is interested in self-rehabilitation. The concept of prisonization is at least one strike against the entire institution as offenders become indoctrinated into the legal and prison system as a way of life.[/edit]
Depending on the offender's sexual disorder, I'd have to be convinced he was successfully and completely altered from his previous behavior patterns before supplying chemical enhancements to "cement" his new sexual focus.
posted
I'm going to step back from this discussion now because I'm getting irrationally angry, especially at generalizations. I still like you all, I'm just letting you know I may not post on this thread again. It's not you, it's me; we're touching on a sensitive subject for me here.
See y'all in some other thread. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are we paying for anyone- criminal or not- to get Viagra when there are children with no basic health care?
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Viagra is only slightly more a medicine than breast augmentation is a surgery.
This here is one of my biggest pet peaves. A drug that can make you go from completely impotent to being able to normally have sex is not a medicine? You are saying its a vanity thing?
Only someone who could never concieve of it happening to them can say this. No, it won't save your life. It can, however, bring your quality of life from very low to very high. Imagine never being able to have sex with anyone ever. Impotence is like a vow of celebacy that you didn't want to take. Your signifigant other isn't happy, your self esteem takes a huge plunge, you start to wonder if your signifigant other would be better off with another man... Even getting a signifigant other is almost out of the question, unless you can bear the shame of telling her, and she's okay with never having sex again. You may even consider suicide. One of the central joys in life will never again be yours. Its like never being able to taste food again.
Now along comes a pill that cures all of that. And what happens? It is scorned by people as being vain and unimportant. There was a thread a while back about how we should have spent the research money on something else instead of Viagra, and now someone compared it to breast implants.
No, its not comparable to breast implants. Its comparable to a woman taking a pill that cures her of having her vagina sealed shut.
I have no opinion on whether medicaid should cover viagra to those who are sex offenders. But to millions of men Viagra is a miracle drug. Not to me, yet, but perhaps someday. Maybe you too MrSquicky, if only because God loves to be ironic.
Edit: I won't even go into detail about how you cannot naturally concieve a child when you are impotent. At very LEAST admit its a valuable fertility drug. Or are those comparable to breast implants too?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's a quality of life issue. Much like a woman and the size of her breasts. Or, if she has had a masectomy, breasts at all.
In a culture that places an amazing emphasis on a woman's breasts, every self-esteem issue you listed for impotent men can be applied to women.
It's not just cosmetic.
Of course, it's still a gray area as to life versus quality of life.
-Trevor
Edit: And calling it a fertility drug isn't quite right as it does nothing to improve the man's sperm or the sperm's ability to impregnate a woman.
Viagra does improve the delivery system, which I suppose is more fun than having the sperm withdrawn at needlepoint. Probably cheaper, too.
Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I realized that the condoms are from other then govt. sources, but still. It’s against the rules for them to have sex, but here’s a way for you to do it safely. What’s next? Theft is really against the rules, but he’s a mask so you can do it safely. Here’s an auto glass breaker so you don’t cut you hands when you bust a window to steal the car. He’s some weapons grade nuclear material so you don’t hurt yourself trying to develop it. And I agree with the statement that Viagra should never be paid for by govt. Now castration for sex offends, sure let’s pay for that.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It can, however, bring your quality of life from very low to very high.
I think you are overstating it a little bit. If you are a miserable person without sex, sex won't make you a happy person.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're vastly understimating the power of a woman's insecurities and self image.
She might able to fake having sex, but if she despises herself and her body, is she ever really "in the mood?" Rather a sort of emotional impotence for women, rather than a comparable physical situation.
posted
Sure it's a male fertility drug, Xavier, but I can tell you from experience as can other hatrackers I'm sure - insurance doesn't pay for fertility drugs.
Again, we're back to the same argument - not that Viagara doesn't have intrinsic value and worth as an erectile dysfunction treatment - certainly it does. The question is - should the state be paying for it at all - especially in the case of people who've abused people sexually in the past.
No one is questioning that Viagara is a good treatment for those that need it. Please keep that in mind.
Fertility drugs were a wonderful benefit to me, because of them I have three of my four children - only one was conceived without help. And yet, I paid for everything myself. And I don't mind that, I don't think it's something the state and/or insurance companies should have to pay for.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I very much doubt that there are millions of men who are completely impotent who are helped by this drug. In some cases, this is no doubt true, but in my completely unsupported view, in most cases it's a "sometimes I have problems" and "I want to get an erection now" drug, as well as taken recreationally for the "four hour erections" that they advertise.
Maybe I'm wrong about that and millions of men are saved from biochemically based total impotence. But I highly doubt it.
edit: And I consciously chose the breast augmentation thing for the women's body issues connotations.
There are cases where either is very important for a higher quality of life, but in the majority of cases, I don't think this is so.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insurance certainly seems to have paid for viagra in this case, and will continue to do so for non-sex offenders on the exact same plan.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It can, however, bring your quality of life from very low to very high.
I think you are overstating it a little bit. If you are a miserable person without sex, sex won't make you a happy person.
Since Xavier can't be bothered to pursue his thought, I'll pick up where I think he was headed.
It won't make you happy per se, but it will stave off the feeling of emasculation and the subsequent depression that accompanies the lack of erectile function.
So much of a man is defined by the penis that it isn't difficult to imagine how someone might react to it's inability to function.
How much sweating were you doing at the thought of getting snipped?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
