Oh, sorry, I didn’t make that clear: I’m not suggesting that sex=disease, zOMG(indeed, that’s mostly an engineering problem); I was thinking in terms of @enso’s “Clearly a technology problem that we need to solve for the good of mankind”: as ‘problems dragging down the good of mankind’ go, I think that better treatments for assorted ghastly diseases(most of them not STIs at all) are higher priority than better treatments for erectile dysfunction; because, say, dying of bone cancer is vastly more unpleasant than erectile problems are.
The idea was not ‘facilitating sex is bad because disease’ but ‘as health problems go, erectile dysfunction is far, far, less ghastly than a wide variety of others, which makes treatments for those higher priority’(though, of course, since we already have the treatment for erectile dysfunction; while treatments for some of the hard cases are either unavailable, seriously imperfect, or wildly costly, being low priority doesn’t mean that production is a bad value for money. My understanding is that, at least once you are off patent, it’s not a terribly expensive compound; and if a drug is cheap enough and has a good enough safety profile, it’s a great idea for even the most minor of things.)
