In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

FDA Wants YOU! to Have Sexual Satisfaction

frau sally benz

Thank you, FDA, for caring about my sexual satisfaction!

Today, I learned that the FDA is apparently “skeptical” about female viagra. My initial reaction was “well POO ON YOU, FDA, for denying me sexual pleasure!” But it seems they are actually looking out for it.

The agency reviewed data involving about 2,400 women who took either flibanserin or a placebo for 6 months, finding only a slight increase in sexually “satisfying” encounters.

I’m not entirely sure exactly what that means in terms of numbers, but I’m glad the FDA’s got my back.

…Unless they are merely using this as an excuse to deny me sexual pleasure!

Oh crap, we’ll never know. Well, until they meet and decide whether or not they’re approving this sucker.

Posted in Sex

41 thoughts on FDA Wants YOU! to Have Sexual Satisfaction

  1. Err, 2 things:

    1) The “female” viagra is a little bit of a misnomer, the male viagra works by upregulation of penile bloodflow, not through regulation of neurotransmitter levels.

    and

    2) I think this is targeted at woman who report decreased libido, not for satisfied women who want more pleasure.

  2. I’m not sure, was this post sarcastic? I don’t think the FDA wants to deny women sexual satisfaction. I would rather be sexually satisfied without drugs. That’s my personal opinion though. As a general rule, I think the FDA is genuinely concerned with safety and efficacy of this drug.

  3. The problem with “female Viagra” is that there are so many reasons why women might have a poor sexual experience that are not biological.

    For example, if you gave a man Viagra, and then had him engage in a sexual activity where his testicles were vigorously rubbed but if anyone touched his penis it was by accident, it is unlikely he would achieve orgasm. Some men could come that way; most probably couldn’t. If you then put down the failure to orgasm as a failure in the *drug*, that would be a mistake. The problem would have been a sexual activity that is not optimally stimulating for the men being tested.

    Penis-in-vagina sex is not sufficient to bring, I believe, 70% of women to orgasm. It may be great fun, but 70% of women need something more. And 100% of women have been raised in a patriarchal culture that tells them that specifically asking for their sexual needs to be met makes them a bad person (specifically, a “slut” or “dirty”.) Not all women buy into this meme, but many do. Not all men (the vast majority of whom have been exposed to the same meme) buy into it, either, but enough do that even women who have gotten the courage to ask for their sexual needs to be met might have run into resistance from men who thought that the very fact that a woman was asking for something sexual meant that she was a slut and so what she wanted could be ignored. So while there are also cultural pressures telling men to be good lovers and telling women to demand good sex, they are strongly counterbalanced by the “sex is dirty if you’re female” thing, and that inhibits women from asking.

    As a result, a *large* number of women are probably having unsatisfying sex in most of their sexual encounters, not because there is anything wrong biologically but because their partners are pressing the wrong button. If this goes on long enough, of course a woman’s libido (or willingness to expend her libido in partnered sex) might decrease out of frustration. Female Viagra won’t solve either of these problems.

    The ideal group to test female Viagra in would be a group of women who have previously had satisfying sex lives and libidos they were comfortable with, who have experienced a loss of libido or a lack of satisfying sex with the same partner as before or in the same manner as before, who have not suffered any sexually related psychological trauma, have not recently become pregnant or given birth, and have not had major life changes. But finding such a pool of women might be really hard.

    Personally, I’ve found that medications which control my exhaustion and help me to feel awake and alert improve *my* libido and rate of satisfying sexual encounters considerably. Maybe instead of trying to create a female Viagra, they should market modafinil to overtired women as a sex aid. 🙂

  4. I suppose it would be too much to ask for a world where normal female responses aren’t medicalized.

    There are a number of assumptions that occur with “female viagra.” Those would be 1) not wanting sex is bad and low libido is a problem that should be treated, 2) sex only occurs through penetration, 3) low libido is a physical problem.

    Well, none of those assuptions are correct.

    It occurs to me that a rather depressing dystopian story could be written about this. Woman doesn’t want to have sex with man. Man sends her to doctor. Woman suddenly wants to have sex physically, but is mentally unready. Emotional health is effed up. Welcome to the new slavery. Fin.

    To end the sarcasm and speak seriously, I have a question that I hope one of you can answer. Would the drug work only through penetration. Or does clitoral stiumlation “activate” this drug too?

    Sarah
    donotyield.blogspot.com

  5. Yeah, how about a drug that makes it okay to say “touch me here, this way, with this much pressure, for this long” without having some asshat that gets to come every time tell me that “barking orders” isn’t very sexy?

    I won’t hold my breath.

  6. I’m a bit concerned about the drive behind this drug. If you look at current information about women experiencing low arousal/desire, it’s full of sensible ideas like “talk to the woman about how she is feeling” and “maybe ur doin it rong”.
    Going back to the days where we called lack of interest in sex frigidity, and blamed the individual woman’s biological chemistry doesn’t seem very progressive to me.
    Sexual backlash?

    @Personal failure: I noticed that “men don’t like being told what to do by women” followed very hard and fast on “tell him what you like”. The idea of women as active sexual agents is really not popular in some spheres. Funny that.

  7. The drug is an antidepressant.

    In short, if a woman doesn’t want a penis in her vagina it MUST be because she has an undiagnosed mental illness.

    Pardon me while I vomit into a condom.

  8. “In short, if a woman doesn’t want a penis in her vagina it MUST be because she has an undiagnosed mental illness.”
    I think you’re misinterpreting it, iirc that was just what it was originally developed to be…

  9. There are a number of assumptions that occur with “female viagra.” Those would be 1) not wanting sex is bad and low libido is a problem that should be treated, 2) sex only occurs through penetration, 3) low libido is a physical problem.

    Well, none of those assuptions are correct.

    No. Only the second of those assumptions is always incorrect.

    I personally WOULD really like a drug to treat my crappy libido, and not wanting sex feels bad to me both physically and emotionally. Low libido CAN be a physical problem for many women, and I suspect it may be so for me.

    Research into this field has a long way to go, the methodology might suck donkey balls, and advocating treating all women with a condition (no matter what that is) with one drug (no matter what that is) is pretty ill-advised, but women who have problems achieving the kind of sexual satisfaction they want to have, those women’s experiences are legit, and aren’t just because they are sitting there waiting for someone else to satisfy them. I know where my clitoris is, thanks. My partner is competent as hell and places no demands on me. I’m healthy, I don’t have emotional problems with sex. I would just like to be able to come in less than half an hour. It’s also not diet, exercise, or any of the other blah blah blah things I’ve been told I should change about myself to fix a problem that is not my fault or under my control.

    So, commenters, please don’t belittle the experiences of women who have libido issues. I don’t want to see drugs given to women to substitute for their partners giving a fuck about their pleasure, no, but if a woman has libido problems that are distressing her, yeah, a little help might be useful. Drugs are not the enemy. There is nothing superior about a person who does not take or does not need to take drugs. I already take three drugs so that I can live a healthy happy life. Why should I flinch at taking an “antidepressant” for another condition if it’s safe for me and works? Using a drug developed for depression to treat another problem doesn’t mean or even imply that it’s all in my head! It means it probably acts on one or more neurotransmitters that are also implicated in depression. Which is also not a problem that’s all in someone’s head.

    One would hope that the research into drugs used to treat female libido issues would be conducted with integrity and with great care. This probably is not the case, as it is not the case with many or even most drugs. That doesn’t mean it’s a problem the medical community invented so that it could sell drugs to women who don’t really need them.

  10. Not wanting to belittle women’s experiences at all. I’m totally for trusting women in regards to their own bodies. I question how often women’s loss of interest in sex is unexpected and unwanted, and whether a pill would be helpful in dealing with the problem, seeing as how chemical imbalances are tricky to fix.

    My understanding is women experience loss of interest in sex because of stress, tiredness, hormonal fluctuations due to pregnancy and menopause, past abuse, repeated unsatisfying encounters, and being unable to name and explore what gives them sexual pleasure.
    Women who experience lack of arousal may be affected by any of the factors above: and sometimes it’s nerve damage. Women who experience pain during intercourse may suffer from conditions like vaginismus.

    I agree that lack of interest/arousal/orgasm is distressing. But terrifying? Is it healthy to have so much invested in our sexual identity? How much of that thinking is behind this pill?

  11. P.S. Women also experience loss of sexual arousal when on medication for diabetes and depression.

  12. I’m calling myself Sarah_S now because there are too many Sarahs running around.

    Your dystopian proposition shows that you’re quite able to accept that a division between the body wanting sex and the mind/emotions wanting sex, and that a misalignment here could cause significant distress. Why do you propose that that could only go one way, and ignore the fact that a woman who WANTS sex but cannot become aroused might be suffering similar emotional distress?

    I’m not denying that women might want sex but are unable to “perform.” That’s not the issue with this drug. The fact is that they are pushing it hard, and they are hoping that it’s popular. Viagra is over diagnosed, everyone knows that. My issue is that women who have low libidos are going to feel like they are not “female” enough, just as men who cannot perform feel as though it makes them less of a man. Low libido is not a disease. Depression is a disease. Anxiety is a disease. They are diseases that have side effects, one of them might be low libido. But it is not low libido that is an issue. Not to mention, a natural part of aging is not a disease either.

    The fact is that this seems like a very convenient way of regulating female sexual responses in a way that makes men happy. Not to mention, a woman who WANTS to have sex but can’t is going to suffer if she keeps evading her emotional problems.

    I focus on not wanting to have sex because our society seems to insist that life is better with a high libido. Sexual freedom means being able to say no, just as much as it means to say yes. If you want to have sex but can’t, then low libido isn’t your issue. It can be a number of issues. It can be how you’re measuring your libido (as in the belief that the sexual experience must end in orgasm) or ignoring other issues that relate to emotional and mental health.

    I am not trying to belittle women who have an actual problem. I am saying, however, that this drug will be abused, and the motivation for its inception is less than altruistic.

    Sarah_S
    donotyield.blogspot.com

  13. It’s well worth checking out this post for a good look at precisely why approving this drug might not be the best idea ever.

    Essentially, women in trials reported on average less than 1 more “satisfying sexual experience” (whatever that is) a month than those on placebo. You have to take it long term – not just once when you feel like getting it on as you would with a true Viagra alternative – and there’s not enough data on the long term effects. Plus there’s a deeply problematic marketing campaign aimed at selling the drug not at solving the problem.

  14. A couple of health journalism points:

    1) Please cite the source material. Ideally, a link to the article which reported the findings and the original journal in which it was published.

    2) It’s not enough to say “I don’t know what that means in terms of numbers” when you are reporting on health issues. At first glance, critical analysis of journal papers on health issues seems complicated, but it’s really not and it’s a must if you want to achieve unbiased quality journalism. Because you have told me nothing about this study, I cannot form any sort of conclusion as to whether the FDA is making the right or the wrong decision.

  15. I’d be all for a safe way to increase desire, but this drug didn’t sound like much, even if it worked.
    It was only for pre-menopausal women anyway. What about the rest of us? Also, it worked on brain chemistry, which leads me to wonder what the unwanted effects might be.
    Maybe a vacation and some peace and quiet would work.

  16. Blerg. Can they get back to investigating actual ED meds for use in women who’ve lost sexual function for much the same reason dudes on ED meds have lost sexual function? I know that doesn’t let them patent and market a shiny new toy and would only help a portion of the women with self-defined libido/arousal problems, but there are enough women using it off-label (and it’s covered by enough insurance programs) already that it seems like pretty low-hanging fruit.

  17. I didn’t realize “female viagra” would be such a hot topic!

    I’m in the camp that it should exist. I don’t see what’s so wrong about women wanting to have a healthy sexual appetite. As others have indicated, it is an actual concern for some women, and to generalize and say that this is about men telling women how they should and shouldn’t perform sexually is just bogus.

    Now, is this the right pill? From what I’ve read, it probably isn’t. But I hope that they’ll keep refining it until they do find something that works.

    Sex is very important for some people, and I don’t think there should be any shame in that.

  18. You know, if I could take a (low side effect) pill that ensured an easy, no-problems release (yes, even from penetrative sex) every time I wanted one?

    Dude. Where the hell do I sign up? And if that means that I am somehow damaging the cause of feminism by wanting to have sex like a man…I really don’t care.

    That said, this particular drug looks a bit dodgy. I don’t see why women require a neurological drug for what in men was essentially a cardiac drug. Smacks of “its all in her head.”

  19. I would also sign up for something that worked. Wanting to get off and not being able to? It is distressing for me.

    Also, in my case, I’m pretty sure it is a brain issue, related to drugs I need to take. Although, consider men I’ve talked to on the same drugs have the same issue, is does seem a bit suspect to see this only marketed to women.

    I understand all too well the way women’s sexual desires are controlled, but this is something that would actaully be helpful to some people and I think there are better ways to fight sexism in medicine than making fun of the idea of Viagra for women.

  20. Eilish: I agree that lack of interest/arousal/orgasm is distressing. But terrifying? Is it healthy to have so much invested in our sexual identity? How much of that thinking is behind this pill?

    I don’t know. Has it happened to you? How did you feel about it?

    I’m a highly sexual person. I think about it all the time, write about it, and do it as much as I can. Experiencing a drop in libido is a big, big problem because it fucks up a big chunk of my life.

    Do I have “too much” invested in my sexual identity? I mean, seriously? Our identities are what they are. I didn’t choose to be a very sexually engaged person. I’ve been that way since I can remember, since I was in the early single digits. Anything that negatively affects one of the areas that make up a big part of us is a problem. We chronically invest too much in other people’s approval, people often shake their heads at investment in a vivid fantasy life, we throw ourselves into work self-destructively. Comparatively speaking, having a large chunk of my personality in the box labeled “sex” is WAY less problematic. It’s just less culturally acceptable, because OMG, SEX.

    Some people are healthy and happy with mild to moderate sex drives. Some are healthy and happy with none at all. And some are healthy and happy with strong sex drives. If changes occur that disrupt that happiness, the problem is not that I was too happy and too interested in sex to begin with.

    Of course root causes for lack of/drop in sex drive should be looked at. As you so eloquently point out, there are loads of potential causes for this, many of which are problematic on their own and should be worked on. But if a cause is found that is not treatable (such as not being able to go off the antidepressant that is causing it, that’s a common one right there), it would be great if there was something available to restore what has gone missing.

    After being put on Prozac for depression (turns out I am bipolar and SSRIs don’t work on me) I went from being able to have orgasms pretty easily to not being able to do it easily at all. And that? YES. That was terrifying. Oh my god! Something that was supposed to help me reached into my brain and scrambled the chemistry so bad that it took me years to recover. YEARS. Even though I was only on the shit for six months. (And nobody ever advised me that this was a potential side effect because I was 17 and female and presumably having orgasms was somewhere between collecting ceramic cats and reading Judy Blume novels on my list of things that should interest me.) Dear god in heaven, if I could have taken a drug to even temporarily undo what had been done to me, I would have been shoveling them in like candy corn.

    The presence of a readily identifiable external cause does not necessarily negate the necessity for treatment of the resultant problem or side effect.

  21. If a drug you are currently taking is affecting your body in unplanned and undesirable ways, taking another one to counter-effect it is a really bad idea. Drugs affect human biology in different ways. The more of them you take, the greater the opportunity to really spectacularly bugger up your system. Throw in drug companies who release drugs like Vioxx, and you have a really risky situation.

    The questions here are : is this drug going to be good for women’s health? Will a pill fix a woman’s loss of libido? I think it’s unlikely, given that sexual arousal in women is complex, and that drugs do not affect one specific part of the brain and body. I am also aware of the ill-effects for women when wonder drugs were prescribed willy-nilly for their problems.

    Naamah: I’m not comfortable sharing intimate details of my life here as yet. I try to base my opinions on more than my personal experience, but I am aware of the way it colours my views. My comment about sexual identity was not meant to convey a negative attitude to that important element of our lives and identities: but to say when we over- invest in any aspect of our lives, it causes problems. Balance, and all that. I also wonder how much sexual anxiety is a result of hyper-sexual imaging in our media. Being comfortable in and with your body is bad for sales.

    This is what I know about sexual desire: it changes through your life. There are many non-medical ways to revive one’s libido, including lubricants, bigger and better and prettier vibrators and sex toys, changing the time of day you have sex, going away for a night/ weekend, reducing stress, dress-ups, porn. What gets your rocks off changes. You can rebuild it. Betty Dodson is a fantastic example of a woman with a high sex drive who has enjoyed sex all her life and won’t be stopping any time soon.

  22. That said, this particular drug looks a bit dodgy. I don’t see why women require a neurological drug for what in men was essentially a cardiac drug. Smacks of “its all in her head.”

    That’s because Viagra doesn’t increase libido, it produces an erection. Erections are essential for men to have sex. There are plenty of men who take Viagra, especially in countries where it is OTC, just to have more sex because the erections last long.

  24. “That said, this particular drug looks a bit dodgy. I don’t see why women require a neurological drug for what in men was essentially a cardiac drug. Smacks of “its all in her head.””

    It’s two different sets of problems, basically. This drug seems to be meant to treat a condition in which women (for now) have a low sex drive. Physical responsiveness may or may not be an issue.

    Viagra and other ED drugs that work on the circulatory system are for men (for now) who want to have sex but whose bodies can’t manage to regulate genital blood flow in such a way as to allow them a satisfactory experience. Women experiencing a similar problem (generally post-menopausal women or women suffering ill-health or unwanted medication side-effects) have used Viagra off-label quite successfully to restore sexual function.

    So Viagra for women suffering from the sort of problems Viagra treats appears to be…Viagra. The companies distributing it just need to give enough of a shit about older women as a market to go through the FDA approval process.

  25. @sonia
    Eh….first of all, I don’t know that all men would agree with that idea, although the construction of masculinity has certainly made it seem that way (vis: erections are necessary for men to have sex).

    Second of all, my point was that Viagra is addressing a clear-cut biological problem in men. Why is it that we can’t try to do the same for women? The whole “oh, but the female orgasm is *elusive*!” line to me just says “oh, but we do not wish to throw our research grants at it!” It might not be the SAME problem (i.e., the “female viagra” probably wouldn’t be a cardiac drug), or might even be a host or network of issues tied together– but still.

  26. I’m with Astrid … Is this post meant to be sarcastic? What do you mean by “This sucker?”

    Frau Sally Benz, you said you did not know a discussion of female Viagra would be a hot topic. Before you wrote up this post, did you talk to anyone who has experienced the thing this drug is supposed to target? That is, low libido to the point of dysfunction? Because I have a different form of sexual dysfunction (yes it really IS terrrifying, interferes with my life and yes I have required quite a lot of medicine/benefitted from medicalization) and I would not have framed the start of a conversation in this way. Because as it is right now I’m probably not safe talking about much else here.

  27. I’m in the ‘this is not a really good idea’ camp. The problem ISN’T physical as a rule- it’s that we live in a shitty society with shitty prospective/ current partners and far too many rapists around.

  28. Look, you just can’t ignore that sometimes women can’t get their rocks off due to purely physical causes. And that they would like to get that fixed. And that doing so may require drugs.

    Seriously, I would be totally cool with increasing my libido. It’s fun and relaxing to masturbate but often I’m not really up to it — I’ll get in the mood and then nothing will come* of it. And, unless my right hand (with whom I’ve had a long and loving relationship) has somehow because an insensitive asshole or controlling spouse, I suspect that the quality of the sex is not the reason my libido and sexual satisfaction are not as high as I might like.

    Also please, please don’t say stupid stuff like “using an antidepressant means they think it’s all in women’s heads OMG” because that is just fucking ridiculous. D’you know where nerves and neurotransmitters are, besides in your head? EVERYWHERE. You honestly can’t even avoid them. I mean, hell, even that topical stuff they have to sensitize (or whatever) would be interacting with the nervous system, and hopefully no one on here would be dumb enough to argue that making your lady bits tingly is “all in your head OMG.”

    Please don’t fall into that godawful trap of assuming that scientists and drug companies are all evil woman-hating pushers. It’s anti-science, in practice it’s often anti-woman (HPV vaccine paranoia, anyone?) and it’s just plain ignorant. (Sarah, in particular, before you go wildly speculating about drugged up sex slaves maybe you should google viagra. Fer real.)

    It’s obnoxious to have otherwise reasonable people go off on wild tangents about the evil FDA taking cruel advantage of undersexed lasses, and it’s not helpful to the undersexed lasses either. (The right to self-define and all that: I’m “undersexed” because I would like more sex. Simple.)

    *yeah, you see what I did there.

  29. ADTMI: Do you really think that pharmaceutical companies have our best interests at heart? Because, yeah, vaccines are great, and I’ve taken anti-depressants and have a friend that might not be alive without them, but let’s not pretend that there aren’t such things as side effects. Most of them are survivable, but there’s always gonna be someone who really suffers.

    Anything that can be used, can be abused. Like the actual Viagra, there’s more demand for this drug then there is a need for it.

    In this case, there’s also a very real fear that these drugs will just turn into another source of oppression. It’d be nice if we could guarantee that it’d only go to women who would want/need it, but that’s not the kind of world we happen to live in.

  30. @ Politicalguineapig – Ok hold the phone. Are you suggesting then, that women who have HSDD believe that Big Pharma really is watching out for their own best interests? Are you operating under the impression that women with HSDD believe medicine is always best and never hurts anybody? Are you suggesting that women with HSDD have exclusively that one problem and have no experience with other chronic conditions, and so have never run the gauntlet of modern medicine before and so are blissfully ignorant of the abuses of big pharma? Are you suggesting that the real suffering of women with sexual problems is unimportant compared to the suffering of women who have side effects from drugs?

    You say you have used antidepressants, and yet in the next paragraph you say that in this case you’re worried about side effects broadly. Do you have the same worries about the antidepressants you were given? Why is it okay for antidepressants to be used but not a drug to treat sexual problems?

    The drug isn’t the root of the problem in that case, it’s medicine & abusive doctors & partners at large. The drug would be used as a tool, by bad people. Just as with any other drug. Like antidepressants.

    Yet some people still really need the tool. And would benefit from it.

    I am continually frustrated with conversations about HSDD and FSD in general that do not center women who have the experience of interest.

  31. K:In this particular case, the women who have HSDD and FSD seem to be saying ‘Full speed ahead and d*mn the side effects.’ Secondly, yes, I have experienced a wide range of side effects from anti-depressants. And from other meds, to, so you can be sure that with any med I’m taking, I will ask about the side effects, and raise my concerns about them.
    And the reason I favor anti-depressant over libido enhancements is simple: anti-depressants keep people from killing themselves, libido enhancers just add an extra thrill to life.
    Just out of curiousity how the h*ll can anti-depressants be abused? I’ve never heard of a black market in prozac, although I’ve heard of black markets in ritalin and other ADHD drugs.
    One last thing: Is the wide-spead abuse of a libido enhancer an acceptable risk if this drug goes on the market? ‘Cause the way I’m seeing it, this is the next date-rape drug.

    1. One last thing: Is the wide-spead abuse of a libido enhancer an acceptable risk if this drug goes on the market? ‘Cause the way I’m seeing it, this is the next date-rape drug.

      How in the world do you see it that way? That a libido-enhancing drug will make women so out of control that they won’t be able to say no to sex even though they want to? Come on now.

  32. No, that women who don’t want to have sex might be given it so that their body responds during rape. Mix it in with a GHB cocktail, and it’d be every rapist’s dream come true.

    1. No, that women who don’t want to have sex might be given it so that their body responds during rape. Mix it in with a GHB cocktail, and it’d be every rapist’s dream come true.

      But what does that even mean, “her body responds”? Her vagina lubricates? That happens in a lot of rapes anyway; even where it doesn’t, I don’t really see how it matters at all. It’s not like you can’t rape an unaroused woman.

  33. “And the reason I favor anti-depressant over libido enhancements is simple: anti-depressants keep people from killing themselves, libido enhancers just add an extra thrill to life.”

    Dude, seriously? An “extra thrill”? How about saving your relationship with your partner, drastically improving your quality of life, helping to ease your depression (for some people, not all), restoring a part of yourself you were afraid you’d lost forever?

    And did you really, SERIOUSLY, just have the utter abelism to rank the deservedness of disabled patients access to drugs in terms of whether or not the medication SAVES THEIR LIVES?

    Look, it is possible I misread you. But if not, what??

  34. “But what does that even mean, “her body responds”?”

    I can actually see where Politicalguineapig is going with that. That isn’t to say that I agree that research shouldn’t be done to help find a drug to help women with genuine physically-related low libido. But I can definitely see the potential of it being used as a date-rape drug if the effects are instantaneous and major. If a man slips a drug in a woman’s drink that makes her so aroused she has sex with him when she otherwise wouldn’t, you’re talking about rape. You’re talking about men using a woman’s body and arousal against her for his own purposes.

    1. If a man slips a drug in a woman’s drink that makes her so aroused she has sex with him when she otherwise wouldn’t, you’re talking about rape. You’re talking about men using a woman’s body and arousal against her for his own purposes.

      Well sure. But we aren’t talking about mind-altering drugs here, or drugs that make women so aroused that they must have sex when they otherwise wouldn’t. We’re just talking about drugs that help to boost low libido.

      That’s like saying that Viagra is a rape drug because it makes men just have to have sex. It doesn’t do that. These arguments are science-fiction stuff.

  35. “That’s like saying that Viagra is a rape drug because it makes men just have to have sex.”

    I didn’t say that anything about women just having to have sex. I said that a strong enough drug could potentially result in a woman having sex with a person that she wouldn’t have sex with otherwise. A person who DRUGGED her against her will. I appreciate that this drug doesn’t do that. But is it possible that a drug could be invented that would do that? Particularly if combined with alcohol? Sure it is. Absolutely.

    And with men they are taking Viagra WILLINGLY. I’m talking about the potential for women to ingest the drug without consent. Because some rapist slipped the drug in her drink just like a Rohypnol.

  36. @ Politicalguineapig, “Yes,” in response to what… everything I said? What th… seriously, I need clarification because I am balking over here. Did you just say among other things that the very real suffering of women with sexual dysfunctions is unimportant compared to the suffering of women experiencing side effects from drugs?
    Because like, there’s room for everyone to be important! This doesn’t have to be an either/or thing!

    I suspect that antidepressants and other treatments for mental illness can be abused in much the same way that you fear a potential libido booster can be abused: It can be forced on someone who does not need or want it, at the urging of a doctor or other person in a strong position of authority like a caregiver.
    I understand that a concern with a potential libido booster is that it could be forced on someone by their partner, but, that is based on the assumption that 1. the person has a partner 1a. who is more interested in sex than our hypothetical person 1b. who is inclined to abuse their partner and 2. the medication works more like a strong sedative or an aphorodiasiac.

    In this case, filbanserin may have depressant effects, but as far as the libido boosting goes, it won’t work immediately. It will require time to build up, and so would not work as an instant aphrodisiac.
    Also, for the record, I’d just like to say that some women with sexual dysfunction in the pain category do use antidepressants, off-label, for pain management. I’m talking about tricyclic antidepressants here, and in a low dose. And guess what, they can cause sedative effects in some people.
    But it’s used off-label, so, which means not as intended. So, you tell me, would you call that an abuse of antidepressants too? Or is it okay because it’s for pain management? If it’s okay for sexual pain, then why is it ok?
    And this just came to my mind: If tricyclic antidepressants can cause sedative effects in some patients, then couldn’t they likewise be used as a date rape drug? if so, then why is it still available for prescription?

    Furthermore, if someone has sexual dysfunction, then it means that they are personally distressed by what they are going through.
    Keep in mind: I HAVE FSD. THIS IS REAL. I THINK ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS. TO EVERYTHING I DO. Including medication and alternatives. I am capable of independent thought! Having gone through what I went through, I see no reason why a woman with HSDD is not also capable of the same independent thought and analysis.

    I don’t have HSDD, no, I have sexual pain. But you know what? This personal distress – all the rhetoric in the world isn’t making it go away. It’s not disappearing in a puff of social construction. In fact I think this resistance to FSD in general is making it worse.

    And that personal distress is genuinely interfering with my life. I see no reason that another woman’s feelings of distress are worth less than mine.

  37. K: I thought you were asking if I personally have experienced side effects. I know most of the side effects from ADD and anti-depressant drugs, from personal experience.
    Chava: Personally, I think a lot of meds are overprescribed and overrated. Taking meds is not my thing- did it when I had to and hated every second I was on ’em. Including the one that might as well have been a sugar pill.
    I’m very skeptical about the good of any drug- which includes anti-depressants, ritalin clones, and-well-fliberansin. If they help you or anyone you know then good for you and them. But when the pharm companies go: “Ooh, look at the new shiny thing we made to help you” it sets off my snark meter like whoa.
    Faith: Thank you. That was exactly what I was thinking: that it could be abused like GHB currently is. Also I think I remember a post where a woman slipped a man Viagra in order to get him to perform. Who’s to say it couldn’t happen the other way around?
    Eesh, big wall o’ text. Apologies.

  38. Pingback: Interesting posts, weekend of … missed weekends « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction

Comments are currently closed.