Um. Meh.

[GinaFordCortina]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/09/half-male-pensioners-frustrated-partner-has-given-sex/amp/

Sex is also more significant to older men than it is to women. 42 per cent of men say it's an important part of their lives, compared to 16 per cent of women.

So many interesting questions not answered by this article whose purpose seems to be solely ri let us know some men are hard done by

My heart bleeds for them.

No, really, it does.

I wonder if that has anything to do with viagra.

They might not be so frustrated if they couldn't get it up anyway ...

I do think this is an interesting thing in light of the arguments to defund fertility treatment. Plenty of people have been saying that IVF isn't a necessary treatment, but I've never seen an argument that viagra is unnecessary. Granted, the costs may be very different, but the argument was about non essentials, which if you really want to save money, you would cut all of.

To be fair the NHS (or at least most ccgs) only fund generic (cheap) versions of viagra in most cases.

If you want the branded item you normally have to self fund.

Although I think the arguement that ivf isn't a necessary treatment is awful.

I wasn't very clear in my post, sorry. I was hearing this argument from people with no connection to the NHS, and no relevant knowledge. It was very much a sort of 'we don't need any more children so we shouldn't put money into it' and also characterised the idea of wanting to carry a child and give birth as frivolous when there are children already born who need families. I've heard these sorts of arguments a lot, where it seems to be a principle for them that IVF is not necessary so shouldn't be funded (even before the possibility of it not being funded in the say way was news). I've just never seen anyone make that sort of 'on principle' argument about sex, which is obviously not necessary to stay alive.