This seems like an uncharitable reading of the passages that you give as examples.
I read it as more saying that "normal" sex shouldn't be limited to ones that are reproductive, involve penetration or require orgasm.
It's not saying reproduction is bad, penetration is bad, or orgasm is bad. It's saying that a model of sex that pathologizes everything that doesn't involve around a hard penis, is limiting and reductionist.
If you have actual evidence of anywhere in the article where they say "reproduction is bad, penetration is bad and male orgasm is bad" please share them. Because what you shared says nothing of the kind and seems more to be a projection against an argument that is not actually being made.
I have NEVER in all my extensive time with feminists, seen the argument made that "male orgasm is bad" or "penetrative sex is bad" (except by fringe second wave feminists that aren't taken seriously in the mainstream of feminism such as Andrea Dworkin) or even "reproduction is bad".
The argument instead is always instead that good sex includes more than a hard penis, and shouldn't be limited to P in V, reproductive, penetrative sex. That people with ED can still experience pleasure and give pleasure, that people who don't orgasm can still experience pleasure and give pleasure, that people who don't have penetrative sex can still experience pleasure and give pleasure.
As someone who champions "more sexual choices" you should agree with that argument rather than project something you're giving no evidence for.
You make a lot of claims about the Potts articles, when actually reading them myself they do not claim that "reproduction is bad, penetration is bad, male orgasm is bad" at ALL.
The first one you list specifically says (emphasis mine) "We argue that the existence of a range of Viagra 'stories' disrupts a simplistic mechanistic portrayal of the male body, male sexuality and 'erectile disorder'."
In the abstract itself they specifically say that they are trying to disrupt a "simplistic mechanistic portrayal of the male body, male sexuality and erectile disorder" and that they are including a "range" of stories to achieve such an aim. A "range" means they are trying to show a broad spectrum of experiences, not purely positive but not purely negative either.
They then say " In some cases, the experiences and perspectives of those affected by erectile difficulties directly challenge the reductionist model of sexuality and sexual experience espoused by medicine." Again, not making any reductionist claim like "male orgasm bad, penetration bad" but more including some negative experiences AMONG OTHER EXPERIENCES to provide a range that is AGAINST reductionist claims.
They later say "while the narratives of some participants were firmly positioned within a medical framework, and accepting of the portrayal of erectile difficulties as part of a ‘disease process’ or ‘disorder’ of the male body, others did not subscribe strongly to this perspective; some men and women explicitly resisted the idea that erectile difficulties were ‘abnormal’ or ‘dysfunctional’. So again, portraying a RANGE of views and perspectives rather than a reductionist positive OR negative perspective.
For you to take an article that is specifically AGAINST reductionism and make an unfair claim that is it doing the opposite and is making reductionist negative claims, is bad science reporting. You should know better.
For someone who rails against "feminist ideologues" I think you in fact are blinded by your own negative perceptions of feminism that you project upon an article that isn't specifically feminist, so you can make claims about what the study says to further your own argument that "feminists think male pleasure is bad" which nobody seriously thinks in the mainstream of feminism. The Potts article isn't "feminist ideology" and doesn't state the things you claim it does. And yet you use it to make such broad sweeping statements about how feminists hate Viagra? OK...
The second Potts article specifically states that it is designed to address a gap in the research about the possible negative experiences of female sexual partners of people who use Viagra. They specifically state that they are making the article because "much is known about the efficacy and safety of sexuopharmaceuticals used by men for the treatment of erectile difficulties" but " few studies have focused on the possible detrimental effects for women of Viagra use ".
Again, in no way claiming that these women represent the majority of those who are partnered with those who take Viagra. Presumably the author feels that the positives of Viagra have been exhaustively covered by other scientists so is trying to find a way to add something to the discussion by focusing on some of the downsides.
They state (emphasis mine):
"We argue that while previous medically-oriented research in this area has generally assumed an unproblematic link between Viagra use and the resumption of penetrative sex within heterosexual relationships, more attention needs to be paid to partners' perspectives and desires, and to the specific dynamics of any given relationship. Moreover, while the publicity surrounding Viagra may potentially facilitate more positive attitudes to sexuality in older age, it may also produce a societal expectation that 'healthy' and 'normal' life for older people requires the continuation of 'youthful' (energetic) sex lives focused on penetrative intercourse."
Again, they are clearly referencing the positives of Viagra even in their abstract. All they're saying is that there are some potential downsides FOR SOME PEOPLE. Why is that so bad?
