I'm trying to figure out if this is satire or not. If not, let me 'splain it to you in crude stereotypes: men are typically more fixated on sex than women. Women are more likely than men to bear the expenses, discomfort, and the medical dangers of pregnancy.

No one is saying that sex and pregnancy are the same. Maybe that there is a connection at all is what is confusing you (again, assuming that what you wrote wasn't satire). Imaging that there was no biological connection at all, and maybe then you'll realize that the comparison is between a medical issue that men are more likely to be concerned about and a medical issue that women are more likely to be concerned about. And, even though I am a man, and making any comparisons about what is more serious is often tricky, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that pregnancy is more likely to result in medical emergencies than ED. In fact, where ED does relate to medical problems, Viagra is not the solution but merely covering up the underlying problems. (E.g., blood pressure problems.)

Sorry for not including this www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Planned_Parenthood_Action_Fund_Simple_Question.html

It was featured elsewhere on the site, so I presumed context was understood. My error (that isn't sarcastic, I seriously apologize.). Oh, and ED=erectile disfunction.

Jesus, people choose to be so literal. Of COURSE there is a relationship between sex and pregnancy, but they aren't the same. And note, please dear God, NOTE, I said it is stupid that insurance doesn't cover birth control and help women avoid the downside(s) of unwanted pregnancy. My problem is the with the logical fallacy that states, in essence, because some insurance covers ED drugs but not birth control, insurance companies are discriminating against women.

I am sure they do discriminate on some issues, but not this one. My main point is that groups like Planned Parenthood undermine their proposition that birth control ought to be covered by insurance when they claim too much by insisting that this is a sexual discrimination issue. It simply isn't and it turns off many who agree that birth control should be covered.

Think about it this way. There are obviously some who do think it is a discrimination issue. But those people already agree with Planned Parenthood on the larger issue. Why would you select this argument to try and expand your base of support for the insurance coverage by using an argument that muddies the water and turns off some people? It appears to me, an Obama supporter who has given significant money, that Planned Parenthood's ad isn't intended to sway opinion, but is intended to just rile up the faithful----exactly the kind of slicing and dicing of the electorate Obama would like to see less of.

Don't cloak the issue of birth control coverage in the baggage of sexual politics. It is too important an issue and frankly is logically sound enough to stand on its own without raising the specter of discrimination.

Are you a woman? For a lot of us, popping 'the pill' is as much an absolutely necessary precursor to sex as popping 'the blue pill' is for men.

OK, another whimsical observation:

If Insurance is going to pay for more men having sex, then they shouldn't those Insurance companies have the decency to at least pay for women to purchase some ball catcher protection equipment, and yes I meant that horrible pun.