It's about time....

I'm just sayin ladies.....

If your guy needs the viagra- it might not be him. It might be you. Try changing it up - get a little wild, try some stuff you used to do when you first met- you know.

We men do get a little tired of the same ol' thing all the time.

BearMtnHIB wrote: I'm just sayin ladies.....

If your guy needs the viagra- it might not be him. It might be you. Try changing it up - get a little wild, try some stuff you used to do when you first met- you know.

We men do get a little tired of the same ol' thing all the time.

rofllol

If you're tired of the same old thing, try switching hands. And please pay for your own viagra.

I can tell your a little obsessed with the viagra thing Kate- I already said I would pay for it myself.

You keep repeating that over and over, see what I mean by the same ol' thing?

Try some new stuff Kate!

If your gal isn't "shaking it up", "getting a little wild", enough for you to, ya know, it might just mean that she's not that into you anymore.

Just sayin'.

That could be too. Sometimes women just let it all go after marriage, stop working out, get fat and start sniping at their "pookiedoodle".

I think many men have to start resorting to viagra and ethanol because of this, it's not really a medical condition. Those same guys often get a newer model, say 20 years younger and all of a sudden that erectile dysfunction is nowhere to be found.

So instead of covering viagra with insurance- they should start selling naggy wife insurance.

It would cover the cost of divorce and replacement of the defective item.

How this went from insurance companies paying for contraception to BearMtnHIB's erectile problems I don't quite understand.

BearMtnHIB wrote: So instead of covering viagra with insurance- they should start selling naggy wife insurance.

It would cover the cost of divorce and replacement of the defective item.

Yeah, I'm all for it. "Those same guys" who think they can solve their problem by trading in for a younger model are going to need it when the younger model, too, discovers what a dud the guy is.

LadyJazzer wrote: In a sense, I agree... Most families DECIDE when to have a baby...That's a voluntary choice... It should NOT be "subsidized" by insurance companies or the federal government, i.e., I should not have to pay for it through my premiums.... You want to breed?..Do it on your own nickel... All that stuff about pre-natal, and well-baby care?...Screw it... They CHOSE to breed... Not my problem.

Yep, a certain amount of logic in that... If you're a sociopath....

Just saying that a carrot can be used in place of a socialist stick. The wannabe national government has no business deciding the contents of insurance coverage since it is a private contract between a company and an individual. If you want a company that provides no cost birth control pills, take out a policy with a company that offers them. It's called voting with your dollars. If it is that important to you then it surely is important enough to forgo the company policy in favor of an individual one that agrees with your social agenda, isn't it?

I don't know... Is breeding a "social agenda"? If it's between the company and the individual, then individuals that want abortion coverage should have no problem, and no interference, from the "wannabe national government", right?

I think breeding would fall under species survival. Think deer, elk, foxes and bacterium have "social agendas"? Now, the prevention of breeding and negative eugenics, championed by such notable birth control activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is most definitively a social agenda, it is nothing except a social agenda.