The Little Blue Pill

Nearly everyday I get a slew of SPAM posts on my blog with links to VIAGRA, littlebluepillwhich (as if you didn’t already know) is the little blue pill used to treat erectile dysfunction (and sometimes impotence) in MEN.

Not only are these posts irritating and unwelcome, they are constant reminders of the potential role they play in the current abortion debate.

(As a refresher … based on the recent (pending) ruling by the Conservative Arm of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is the WOMAN who must pay the price when a man’s virility results in a pregnancy.)

You see, when one considers the never-ending promotion of the Little Blue Pill, it appears that it is far more important for the male to be able to Perform than it is for him to Take Responsibility should his self-induced maleness result in the union of certain cells within a woman’s body.

And to take it a step further, if/when such a union does occur, the aforementioned judges are totally immune to the burden this virile male has put upon the female who may be unprepared, too young, or simply unable to capably or financially raise a child.

Instead, their End Goal is to force ALL women to accept their pregnancy — no matter how it was caused or how it could affect and/or alter their entire life’s plan — while they totally absolve the male and his role.

And they choose to do this based entirely on a religiously-derived construct.

46 thoughts on “The Little Blue Pill

  1. But ….. if that male’s virility (together with certain female chemistry) results in a pregnancy and that pregnancy is carried to full term, is it not the shared responsibility (both ethically and legally) of both male and female to care for the subsequent little human? And does it not follow then, that the male and female should share, to some degree, the original decisions relating to the future of that pregnancy?
    As for the little blue pill advertising …. I find it very insulting that the spammers have given up on me in that regard – I would seem to be a lost cause.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Of course it should be shared responsibility! But for far too many, the thought of taking on the care and feeding of an offspring is far from their thoughts when in the throes of passion.

      As to your lament … don’t fret. They may find you yet!

      Like

      • Well here’s hoping!
        I know it is a rather unpopular viewpoint, and I’m not entirely comfortable with it myself, but the idea that a woman has total rights over her own body, whilst seemingly a matter of common sense, does bring up some uncomfortable ethical issues in terms of male rights. If the original shared experiemce was a mistake (and who of us can not lay claim to a sexual encounter or two that was not a mistake, for one reason or another?) then both parties must face the consequences and subsequently share the decisions in terms of dealing with those consequences.
        If the female favours the abortion option and the male does not it then I suppose one might give the casting vote to the female.
        But the idea that “I’M terminating OUR pregnancy whether YOU like it or not” leaves me feeling a bit uneasy.
        Anyway … as long as I can keep thise viagra merchants at bay its unlikely a dilemna that I will have to deal with personally again.

        Liked by 2 people

        • In what I would call a “planned joint experience,” I agree the male should definitely be consulted and share in the decision-making. But unfortunately, the way our legal system is currently set up, the male “contributor” often gets off scott-free. And to add insult to injury, “he” then turns around and tries to tell the woman what she should do about the pregnancy!

          Liked by 1 person

        • Yeah. I know. I carry not only the guilt of my own mistakes but also those of my gender who, let’s face it, are frequently responsible for the imbalances in the legal system

          Liked by 1 person

        • I have to disagree with uou entirely, sir. THE ONLY TIME I would see the male having any say in the choice a woman makes is if the male and female had intercourse SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPREGNATION. And even then, if the pregnancy in any way threatens the well-being of either the woman OR the fetus, the woman’s decision must be primary.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Hmmm …. I don’t think that you are disagreeing with me entirely, in fact. I do think that any veto vote belongs in the hands of the woman – though even that is difficult to justify philosophically.
          And I would question your wording …. for the purposes of the argument should not the wording be ‘the choice that is made’ rather than ‘the choice a woman makes’? Or have you provided an answer before even considering the question?

          You seem to be proposing 4 possibilities (more if you bring the notion of consent into the argument).
          1. They both engage in intercourse for the purpose of impregnating.
          2. She does, he doesn’t
          3. He does, she doesn’t
          4. Neither of them do

          Are you sure that all male rights are forfeited in 3 out of 4 of these instances?

          I would like to stress that, as with any right, there also comes responsibility.

          Like

        • Responsibility is the whole thrust of my comment, though I did not address it because it is a strawman in most ways. Promises of responsibility do not make one responsible when the need for it arises. In a stable relationship where a family is being built, there are seldom heeds for abortions. A woman is not about to wake up one morning and decide to get an abortion without extenuating factors.
          When the question of abortion arises it is mostly situational. There is no expected commitment from the male, but commitment is choiceless for the female. There are many things to think about, because that promise of male
          responsibilty is not there in many many cases. How many relationships break up over pregnancies? The man can walk away, but the woman cannot. Her whole future will be affected, HIS WILL NOT unless he chooses to be responsible. But if that responsibility is only monetary, it can fail at any time, including through death of the male. A man could set up a trust fund for his “baby”, but how many men can afford to do that. Most of us are living cheque to cheque. And when or if we lose our job, we tske care of our own survival first. The baby, and its mother, become secondary.
          I have seen too many men walk away from thrir promised “responsibilities” to ever trust that they will keep promises made in the heat of passion.

          You talk about male rights? What right does a male have in the first place? Absolutely none! One out of millions of his sperm succeeds in fertilixing an egg. Big deal. That does not give him ownership of that womb. If he chooses to be part of the whole experience, and she is willing to have him there, well and good. But from where do we get the idea a rapist’s progeny must be brought to term? Or a teenage girl must screw up her whole life to please some idiotic religious belief. I have known men who disowned daughters for getting pregnant. How does that help anyone. For a woman to have sex with a man is not a promise of a shared lifetime just because he impregnates her.
          No, I don’t care sbout any of your four possibilities. Babies are not Divine Creations, they are accidents of nature! The woman is enburdened in some way, shape or form. The man is only enburdened by choice. Men have no rights when it comes to pregnancies. But they do have responsibilities, if they choose to honour them.

          Liked by 4 people

        • Gee …. I think I am painting myself badly here. I really agree with most of what you say, in principle, and even more so in practical terms …. and what you say remains valid for the majority of cases. But in this world we need to consider the minority as well – even if 80% of males might fail to fulfil their obligations we still need to consider the remaining 20%. I don’t think I need to explain the dangers of making rules that exclude the minorities.
          As a staunch atheist I have no belief in ‘God-given rights’ and therefore any intrinsic rights at all, but I do believe that each of us should have rights over our own bodies – but here we are talking about a right that extends beyond that.
          I have no answers, and I don’t really think that there are any black and white answers, I just think all of this requires a great deal of thought.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Black and white answers do not exist, or are very few and very far between. But on this topic I just cannot give male humans much leeway in the “womb” debate. I was the male in a aborted pregnancy, way back before abortions were legalized. The woman involved never had a real choice either, her parents did not want their reputations to be put into question by their daughter having a baby less than 9 months after marriage. We wanted to get married, and have a family, but they threatened to disown her, and she was brought up to believe family was more important than anything. She chose the abortion.
          At first I was pissed off to have been given no say i the matter. But I had a lot of time to think about it. Exactly how much of a right did I have as the father of the fetus?
          This was not an easy time for me. This was still in the days when men were brought up to own women so that made the self-discussion even worse. I had never considered a woman even had a choice. But that did not stop me from being honest with myself. After arguing both sides, the side of me that argued for choice won. The other side of me lost, completely. Pregnancies change the female body, but do absolutely nothing to the male body. Obviously we never intended the pregnancy, we were young and having fun. That we got caught was a surprise to both of us. But everything fell on her. My only job was to support her through her pregnancy, and support her and the child after birth, which I was more than willing to do. However, her parents interfered, so it was up to me to understand how she allowed them to convince her to have the abortion. Were we ready for marriage? No. It was definitely our intention, but we were not mature enough at the time to be parents. Honestly speaking, abortion was the best option for her. Once I realized that, it was only a short step to understand I had
          no investment in the pregnancy. I may have provided the sperm, but that was all I had done. A baby is a part of a woman. It is only a part of a man in that half the DNA is his, but NOTHING ELSE. We cannot, as males, take part in growing the baby, going through all the bodily changes or the mental changes, or going through the birthing process. Even if the woman wants us there, we were never part of the work the woman has to do. So, for me, the decision was made, and I have believed this ever since. Only the woman has a right to own her own body and what happens inside of it. And so it goes…

          Liked by 2 people

    • Far too often, the guy waves and says, “It’s been fun … thanks!” as he rides off to his next conquest. The woman, however, cannot exactly do that. Mother Nature is perversely a male-chauvinist.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I know thats true, Jill. Unfortunately the only reason that we have to legislate things is because nobody can be trusted to do the right thing (or, in some cases, even recognise the right thing). And yes, the male of the species seems to have been better equiped to duck responsibility, but I wonder how much of this is due to mother nature and how much due to a long history of enforced gender imbalance

        Liked by 2 people

        • You are so right. I have a friend who thinks there should be no government, nobody telling people what they must do or must not do. Admittedly, that sounds wonderful, but when you get to the bare bones of the matter, humans are greedy and will not voluntarily always do the right thing, or even agree on what is the right thing to do. In answer to where the blame lies for the male ducking responsibility, I think it’s likely a combination of both Mother Nature and centuries of misogyny. I am a non-believer, but I do know that most religions, including Christianity, relegate women to a lower status than men, as do today’s societies. I doubt it will ever change, but … we’ll keep fighting anyway.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Oh yes … we must all keep fighting. It’s a very divisive issue to be sure. I seem to be getting myself in hot water here by merely suggesting that maybe men should have some say in this (though not nearly as much as they have historically insisted upon)

          Like

        • Fair enough Richmond Road… But I think you might be missing an opportunity to scratch some ground in the garden and see what sprouts. I too feel less than erudite in matters of bodily autonomy, was brought up in conservative Baptist patriarchy and taught from the beginning that God is number one and I am worthless garbage without that God. And nobody questioned. When I was a kid in the fifties in Ontario, Canada, the wildest cultural thing in my memory was the appearance of the Beatles…. I entirely missed the precursors, excepting perhaps a bit of Elvis on the car radio. My preacher dad said I should not bother with that stuff and that the Beatles sounded exactly like the lids of metal garbage bins being smashed together. It’s been a long waking for me and at 70 years old in a few days, I feel quite humbled at how little I know after surviviing this long. I wish you life and peace sir even if we have a slightly different view of things. And I will attempt to remain willing to discuss ‘it’.

          Like

        • Hey thanks Brian! I appreciate that. My own upbringing was, perhaps, a little wilder but I remain none the wiser. The biblical concept of God appeared to me to be patently ludicrous from about the age of 12, but the fact is that a lot of seemingly clever people see otherwise (or claim to, anyway). So when it comes to matters of right and wrong the lines are always blurred for me and always open to debate.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Your points are spot on RR. Yes, it should be the responsibility of BOTH parents, and the male should be COMPELLED to contribute to the child’s upbringing if he “chooses” not to. Of course the woman won’t be able to “choose” not to have the baby if the male is a deadbeat but SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care about that!

    If the Fallopian tubes were on the other foot (as it were) and men were carrying the babies abortion would not only be legal but you’d be able to get one at any participating 7/11, WalMart or CVS in the country. Bet on it!

    Liked by 3 people

    • But looking at it from another perspective …. if the female elects to continue with the pregnancy against the wishes of the male should she also forgo any right to support from him? And this is all before we even consider the rights of the child. Geeez …. it’s complicated. Let’s all just give up sex and play cards or something

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Of course, Nan, I agree with your assessment of the problem, its blatant unfairness, and your implied solution. I doubt if we will stop anyone from having sex, but we do know how to prevent pregnancy. Given the plethora of dead beat dads running around, I am not optimistic for cooperation from many men.

    As for the pill, not so fast Nan. I’ve read now that the little pecker packer prevents Alzheimer’s Disease. Now they tell me. :-).

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I’m with you, Nan … it is disgusting and reprehensible that the spammers throw that crappola on our blogs. Luckily, I don’t get those on my blog anymore at all … Akismet does a great job, but I don’t even get more than 4-5 spams a week on my blog. My email, however, is another story. These days I get between 200-300 per day. Luckily, the spam filter picks out 99% of them, but it’s still annoying to have some idiot I don’t even know trying to sell me Viagra, or sex, or teach me how to be a better mate in bed, or tell me how to make an organ I don’t possess (wouldn’t you think my name would be a clue?) bigger. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. And funny thing, but I checked Amazon the other day for a certain product, and the next day there were no less than 14 spam emails about that very product. Hmmmm 🤔

    Liked by 2 people

    • I don’t get an avalanche of SPAM, but over a period of 2-3 days, there’s usually about 20 posts in my blog SPAM folder. Fortunately, I rarely get SPAM emails. And Google recognizes them really well.

      You’re on Twitter, aren’t you? Essentially, I’m not, in that I may read, but never comment. In any case, I tend to think a lot of SPAM comes from there … but I could be wrong.

      Like

      • AOL does a good job of sending the spam to the spam folder, but I still have to glance through it to make sure they didn’t accidentally spam something that wasn’t spam. And just toady, I had 175 by noon, and another 75 or so throughout the day. I’m not signing any more bloomin’ petitions … every time I do, the volume of spam increases!

        Yes, I’m on Twitter, at least for now. You may be right about that being the source of some of the spam. You’d think people could find an honest way to earn a living. 🙄

        Liked by 1 person

      • I find that interesting. I get so little spam in the comments on my blog that I don’t even bother checking the spam folder for the comments section. I just looked now after something like six months, and found only 4 in there. Unfortunately one wasn’t spam so I suppose I need to check that more often. Maybe that’s because I have a business account with WP? Perhaps they use a better spam filtering system for the commercial accounts so I don’t even see the blatantly obvious spam?

        I don’t see much on my email accounts either, maybe one or two a day on the two email accounts I use.

        But then I’m a bit paranoid about the internet. I run my web browser with a rather strict ad blocker and with a lot of websites I have javascript turned off by default.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. I think you give “the little blue pill” too much power, Nan. It can be just as important to the happiness and mental well-being of a female partner as it is to the male partner in a monogamous relationship.
    But when it comes to pregnancies, thst is a whole ‘nother matter. I fully support women in having total control of what happens inside her body (except possibly as I mentioned above.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, the “little blue pill” can be a “godsend” for some men in that it increases their ability for sexual alliances. However, my point is that when it’s a casual “encounter” (that has been helped along by the “little blue pill”) and it happens to result in a woman getting pregnant, SHE is the one who bears all the after-effects. He has had his pleasure and then moves on … taking his “little blue pill” with him.

      Like

      • I have never used “the blue pill” but it is my understanding it takes more than just the pill to work properly. It is not something that you just swallow and instant erection. Maybe things have changed, but using the pill for casual encounters is not easy, according to the posted directions.
        But, unfortunately, pregnancy is always a possible result of casual sex, and women willingly have casual sex just like men. It’s nature at work.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Apart from the difficult caveat of dementia or brain dysfunction through misfortune etc., resulting in a legal execution of Power of Attorney for Personal Care, I do not support any perspective that gives any decision-making responsibility regarding one’s body to another. This most certainly includes no ‘rights’ for an impregnating male when a zygote results. A woman’s body is hers alone and coitus does not change that at all. Neither am I willing or able to paint bipeds with the broad stroke of greedy or evil or ‘fallen’ in any manner whatsoever. I see government as necessary because we are legion and we need a way to act collegially, particularly in matters of medical care/availability and in the provision of education. Governmenrt has no business in the bedroom and religion oversteps its bounds by insisting God said! The only God I see in churches is a bully dick.
    There are myriad situations where this general perspective will be varied to some extent but for the most part, when you suggest male rights regarding the female, you start down the road to Gilead. I am a seventy year old man, brought up in the manner commonly referred to as Independent Baptist, the Fellowship version in Ontario, Canada. I will not live in Gilead and that is where we turn when giving up any control of a woman’s body to anyone but that woman.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. I do not get Viagra advertizing spam, instead I have recently recieved a number of attempts to contact me apparently by lonely mostly Russian ladies. Now, I do not much care what comes to my spam box, but I get the point. I wonder, if these attempts seem almost exclusively from females because the algorythm has somehow guessed my gender right, or because it knows, that men are much more voulnerable to such messages and cons.

    There are so many cultural just-so assumptions, that people accept never even giving a thought, but as they also often present injustice they are sometimes challenged. Any challenge is however also met by recistance, because to some people the injustce provides a priviledge, but also because to insecure people (conservatives) such assumptions, prejudices and bias represent a form of security – or even more so, any change, even when it is for the better, represents a potential hazard. A hazard met with agression.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. This whole fiasco/dispute/argument whatever you want to call it misses the most important point of the debate. which is, or at least should be in my view. “At what point does a fertilized egg become a human being.” I have heard it suggested that 15 weeks should be the benchmark which sounds reasonable to me, but there must be a point when terminating the pregnancy should be allowed, and a point when it really is tantamount to killing an unborn child. We just need to be reasonable about what that cutoff date is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, a generalized cutoff date could be set, but there are so many factors involved related to a woman’s pregnancy, that even that could become contentious. One example are tubal pregnancies, which often don’t reveal themselves until later in the pregnancy. Further, the fetus itself may have irreparable abnormalities that are not discovered until past the “cut-off” date.

      IMO, there’s just no getting around the fact that how a woman handles her pregnancy should NOT be decided upon by politicians. It’s totally a decision that rests with the woman — the “pro-life” advocates notwithstanding.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. Given the religious nature of why restrictions on abortions are happening, I see no reason why somebody couldn’t make the a religious argument against Viagra. Clearly these men did something to anger Priapus, otherwise they would be able to get and sustain erections.

    This is the fundamental problem with religious based laws. Anything can be justified for any arbitrary reason. “You shouldn’t be allowed to do X because my religion says so” leads to a society where potentially everything is disallowed.

    Liked by 4 people

    • This is a great point! The religious are all about forcing the natural consequences of sex yet interfere with the natural course of impotence.
      The one thing that troubles me most is how quickly they dismiss the mental health of the woman—like it is separate from her physical well being. It is not.

      Liked by 4 people

  10. This is why, when I become Emperor of ‘Murica, I plan on castrating any man who impregnates a woman and then tries to skip out on his financial and moral responsibility to her afterwards. I have a feeling, once my plan becomes law, the ads for blue pills may slow down quite a bit because, well, because the number of men running around without their family jewels will greatly increase and their need for such things will greatly decrease. Snip, snip, snip gentlemen! Don’cha feel it’s time for the responsibility of pregnancy be put onto YOUR body, too?! I do, and I’m comin’ fer ya!!! Chop! Chop! Chop! (Keep it in yer goddamn pants, guys!)

    Liked by 5 people

  11. Hmm… I think you’re being unfair…
    1. These adverts are from spammers, who may not actually have anything to sell – they just want the opportunity to clear out your bank account.
    2. They’re preying on one of a set of pressures our society places on men; pressures we haven’t chosen but have to suffer regardless (just as women are burdened with their own set of pressures).
    3. Doesn’t the father share legal responsibility in the US (always assuming you can catch them!) They do in the UK – even if the couple don’t stay together to bring up baby, the father will have to pay for the child’s upbringing.
    4. It takes two to tango.
    5. Aren’t there just as many female ‘pro-lifers’ as male (and as many pro-choice men as women)?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Hi LL! Thanks for adding your thoughts. I’d like to address a couple of them.

    — I’m well aware of the motivation behind the spammers … my reference to them was primarily as a lead-off to my post.
    — In cases of casual sex or rape, no, the man assumes no responsibility in the U.S. In a committed relationship, generally speaking, the man would be involved in the abortion decision -or- the child’s upbringing. But this doesn’t always happen. It really depends on how the woman wants to handle it after she first discovers she’s pregnant (which can be done without the man’s knowledge). In many cases, she has numerous avenues to consider and may or may not want to involve the man in her decision-making.
    — Certainly it takes “two to tango” and both should be fully aware of any “after-effects” — AND be prepared to face them.
    — Yes, there are “pro-lifers” on both sides of the fence. However, in numerous cases, the motivation behind the male’s support is more about controlling the woman than it is in condemning abortion.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. …but not being clear – what good point? And over whose heads? I hope that wasn’t directed at me. I was attempting to make informed comments by way of balance. We need to keep the debate rational and respectful.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. If men got pregnant? We’d have drive through abortion clinics on every city block. Want to outlaw abortion? Fine… then require all teenage boys to have vasectomies that can only be reversed when signed off by their wives.

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.