It would seem that the drug, which already (so I read: not speaking from any personal knowledge here) is only sold for fake purposes under the counter at sex shops ("video head cleaner" used to be one of them, but then the VCR died out) is primarily used by gay men who find it useful to relax a certain sphincter during certain forms of sexual activity, as well as giving them a temporary high. (And a flushed face, possible fainting, nausea and a variety of other potential and more serious side effects.)
I don't really understand drug categorisation and whether this article is exaggerating the potential for criminal action against someone in possession. The TGA report linked to in the article certainly indicates there are hospitalisations in Australia (perhaps 20 a year in a recent decade) arising from its use - although its easy to find many sex advice health websites that appear to make light of the potential health risks. (Have you seen what other things they make light of in terms of safe sex? Instead of "why in God's name anyone would actually want to do such an obviously unnatural and bizarre stretching of an orifice is beyond us. Honestly - do yourself a favour and just get more within the range of normal, hey?")
This is one of those topics where I wish there was a widespread revival of the Golden mean, and in my application of it the common sense suggestion would be "if you need a potentially dangerous drug to enjoy the sex, you need to try a different form of sex". And/or "if you are finding your average ordinary orgasm is not enjoyable enough without being aided by the addition of a drug - you are being too hedonistic. Perhaps try having fewer so that you enjoy the ones you have more?"
As for the TGA proposal - I would have thought a heavier crackdown on its sale and distribution would be what is deserved. I don't really understand why it has been so commonly available so easily for so long.
No comments:
Post a Comment