• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues May/June   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! Our theme this time was "ace connections".  May/June
Vestal

Deleted

59 posts in this topic

Deleted

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we take away this medication marketed for females, then we also need to take away similar medication marketed for males.

If we have medications on the market for low sexual desire, then we also need medications on the market for high sexual desire.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone is against flibanserin. I don't really see the point of this petition... It's meant to treat a low libido, I don't see how it's a threat to asexuals ?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell the FDA: Disinterest in Sex Shouldn’t Be Treated With A Pill

"We are writing on behalf of the asexual, grey-a and demisexual community to urge you NOT to approve flibanserin, a repurposed antidepressant currently being considered as a treatment for distress due to low sexual desire..."

The reality is that the other antidepressants out there probably do the same thing, which is to numb or dull down the emotions. The pharmaceutical companies try to make more profits by repositioning the same drugs that they are already feeding to us. This is probably just another version of Prozac or Paxil, but it is being promoted as a cure for sexual shame and its resulting anxiety.

The anxiety and distress of sexual shame is a severe issue for many people, including me. It is something that should be discussed in more depth. I agree that this drug should not be marketed, but I doubt that a petition will stop this. Many drugs should not be on the market, but big business usually determines what is marketed to consumers, not ethics, morality, or the psychological and spiritual health of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we take away this medication marketed for females, then we also need to take away similar medication marketed for males.

If we have medications on the market for low sexual desire, then we also need medications on the market for high sexual desire.

When I first read this thread, I thought it was a drug to increase sexual desire. However, it is a drug for reducing the distress or social anxiety of having low sexual desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we take away this medication marketed for females, then we also need to take away similar medication marketed for males.

If we have medications on the market for low sexual desire, then we also need medications on the market for high sexual desire.

When I first read this thread, I thought it was a drug to increase sexual desire. However, it is a drug for reducing the distress or social anxiety of having low sexual desire.

If we have medications on the market for distress due to low sexual desire, then we also need medications on the market for distress due to high sexual desire.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone is against flibanserin. I don't really see the point of this petition... It's meant to treat a low libido, I don't see how it's a threat to asexuals ?

^^This. If people are distressed by low sexual desire, why the hell shouldn't they have access to a drug which might help them? Trying to stop something that could help others just because for some incomprehensible reason some asexuals are threatened by a drug which has nothing to do with us, is just as bad as people telling asexuals that there is something wrong with them and they should go to a doctor for it. In fact, it's much worse. While I am dubious about this drug because of the noted side effects etc., protesting against it based on some overly defensive people perceiving it as some sort of threat to their orientation really annoys me! :angry:

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we have medications on the market for distress due to low sexual desire, then we also need medications on the market for distress due to high sexual desire.

There is probably a drug for every nuance of anxiety. I'm sure they have one for the distress of sexual addiction. The likely deception is that most of these drugs probably do the same thing.

I'm amazed when I go shopping for toothpaste. I often buy the kind of toothpaste that is supposed to reduce sensitivity. I won't name the brand, but one company markets several versions of this toothpaste, with each different version supposedly including an additional benefit of some kind, such as whitening, enamel strengthening, gum line treatment, etc. Yet, the ingredients listed on the box of each different version are exactly the same. There is absolutely no difference in content, except for the stated benefits on the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^This. If people are distressed by low sexual desire, why the hell shouldn't they have access to a drug which might help them?

This drug is possibly a huge deception. If the petition is correct, the claim of the drug manufacturer is that this medication can somehow treat feelings of sexual shame and the fear of abandonment because of low sex drive.

First of all, in my opinion, this is a bunch of hot air and nothing else. Nobody knows exactly how or where these particular emotions emerge, just like depression can have many different origins and manifestations. Most of these drugs use the comprehensive approach, which is to dull many emotions in the brain, instead of targeting the precise location of a specific emotion.

Second, it is the attitude of society and partners that helps trigger the fear that we will be unloved or abandoned if we are not able to provide sexual satisfaction to others or to a partner. This is not something that needs a pharmaceutical intervention. It is a fear that is based on a real threat! It is not an irrational fear! So, do we start medicating away fears that are based on real threats? Imagine the unintended consequences of that!

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we have medications on the market for distress due to low sexual desire, then we also need medications on the market for distress due to high sexual desire.

Chemical castration is used to treat excessive libido and hypersexuality in general. Of course it isn't always used for castration, it can be used at lower doses to reduce a high libido to a more average level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^This. If people are distressed by low sexual desire, why the hell shouldn't they have access to a drug which might help them?

This drug is possibly a huge deception. If the petition is correct, the claim of the drug manufacturer is that this medication can somehow treat feelings of sexual shame and the fear of abandonment because of low sex drive.

First of all, in my opinion, this is a bunch of hot air and nothing else. Nobody knows exactly how or where these particular emotions emerge, just like depression can have many different origins and manifestations. Most of these drugs use the comprehensive approach, which is to dull many emotions in the brain, instead of targeting the precise location of a specific emotion.

Second, it is the attitude of society and partners that helps trigger the fear that we will be unloved or abandoned if we are not able to provide sexual satisfaction to others or to a partner. This is not something that needs a pharmaceutical intervention. It is a fear that is based on a real threat! It is not an irrational fear! So, do we start medicating away fears that are based on real threats? Imagine the unintended consequences of that!

Another thing that can treat feelings of shame due to a low sex drive? Sex therapy. Not in a "this will cure you" way but more of a "hey, let's find something that works for you" way. I mention this a lot but I want to be a sex therapist and I know I'd rather talk out the issues with my patients and have them feel comfortable in regards to their sexuality than prescribe them medication.

Obviously in some cases medication might need to be used for some couples (viagra exists for a reason), but this is scary.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I signed because I thought it was for asexuals and other orientations that were being pressured to use this pill, not the pill itself. If not I'll have to delete my signature.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing that can treat feelings of shame due to a low sex drive? Sex therapy. Not in a "this will cure you" way but more of a "hey, let's find something that works for you" way. I mention this a lot but I want to be a sex therapist and I know I'd rather talk out the issues with my patients and have them feel comfortable in regards to their sexuality than prescribe them medication.

This is definitely a positive way to go about it. It is important to help them accept the cold realities of the world, while at the same time feel positive about their sexuality. This is a difficult thing to do, but it is not impossible.

Personally, I've always wanted someone to talk with about my feelings of shame regarding my sexuality. I've tried with girlfriends, who were compassionate about it, until my issues frustrated them or made them feel rejected. Friends generally give a canned response, such as: "have you tried Viagra?" or "get some counseling." Yet, the counselors give their canned responses of: "have you tried Viagra," or "lets try some "cognitive behavioral therapy," which does nothing, except cover over the feelings. None of this addresses the feelings of shame. Being listened to and understood with compassion is what helps, not any attempts to bypass the feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you actually read the petition all the way through before you formed an opinion about it? (I'm not saying that to try to scold you or anything, that's a genuine question. I really would like to know.)

The premise of the proposed medication and what it is supposed to treat is fundamentally flawed. And that's not even mentioning the side-effects of said medication. But the reason for the petition that stands out the most to me is that whoever wrote it pointed out (and rightfully so) that marketing this medication would greatly exacerbate preexisting social/societal issues, causing even more problems in an already fraught area of society. Not just for us, but for everyone. The petition wants the drug shot down not just because it would specifically make our lives as people on the asexual spectrum harder, but because it would spread a wealth of misinformation, shame, fear, and just general issues throughout the populace. Yes, we as asexuals have our own issues with something like this drug, but that's not even close to the whole point of the petition.

The women and husbands at the hearing spoke of shame and crumbling relationships due to a lowered sex-drive. Those kinds of emotional issues need to be treated with therapy, not chemicals. If a relationship is crumbling because one person feels they aren't getting something they need, both partners should be attending couples' counselling. If someone feels shamed by something about themselves, the fault is one of society, not the person feeling the shame. Which is not to say that there aren't going to be cases in which medication is not a valid option, there are. But that this approach, this drug, is flawed and would not genuinely be helpful.

11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you actually read the petition all the way through before you formed an opinion about it? (I'm not saying that to try to scold you or anything, that's a genuine question. I really would like to know.)

The premise of the proposed medication and what it is supposed to treat is fundamentally flawed. And that's not even mentioning the side-effects of said medication. But the reason for the petition that stands out the most to me is that whoever wrote it pointed out (and rightfully so) that marketing this medication would greatly exacerbate preexisting social/societal issues, causing even more problems in an already fraught area of society. Not just for us, but for everyone. The petition wants the drug shot down not just because it would specifically make our lives as people on the asexual spectrum harder, but because it would spread a wealth of misinformation, shame, fear, and just general issues throughout the populace. Yes, we as asexuals have our own issues with something like this drug, but that's not even close to the whole point of the petition.

The women and husbands at the hearing spoke of shame and crumbling relationships due to a lowered sex-drive. Those kinds of emotional issues need to be treated with therapy, not chemicals. If a relationship is crumbling because one person feels they aren't getting something they need, both partners should be attending couples' counselling. If someone feels shamed by something about themselves, the fault is one of society, not the person feeling the shame. Which is not to say that there aren't going to be cases in which medication is not a valid option, there are. But that this approach, this drug, is flawed and would not genuinely be helpful.

I read most of it, however, I think this argument can also be made for other medications that are on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you actually read the petition all the way through before you formed an opinion about it? (I'm not saying that to try to scold you or anything, that's a genuine question. I really would like to know.)

The premise of the proposed medication and what it is supposed to treat is fundamentally flawed. And that's not even mentioning the side-effects of said medication. But the reason for the petition that stands out the most to me is that whoever wrote it pointed out (and rightfully so) that marketing this medication would greatly exacerbate preexisting social/societal issues, causing even more problems in an already fraught area of society. Not just for us, but for everyone. The petition wants the drug shot down not just because it would specifically make our lives as people on the asexual spectrum harder, but because it would spread a wealth of misinformation, shame, fear, and just general issues throughout the populace. Yes, we as asexuals have our own issues with something like this drug, but that's not even close to the whole point of the petition.

The women and husbands at the hearing spoke of shame and crumbling relationships due to a lowered sex-drive. Those kinds of emotional issues need to be treated with therapy, not chemicals. If a relationship is crumbling because one person feels they aren't getting something they need, both partners should be attending couples' counselling. If someone feels shamed by something about themselves, the fault is one of society, not the person feeling the shame. Which is not to say that there aren't going to be cases in which medication is not a valid option, there are. But that this approach, this drug, is flawed and would not genuinely be helpful.

I read most of it, however, I think this argument can also be made for other medications that are on the market.

Oh, like those eyelash growth medications that can reduce resistance to infections? Yes, there are plenty of medications on the market for fixing the wrong part of a problem, consequences be darned. This sounds very much like another one.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I signed because I thought it was for asexuals and other orientations that were being pressured to use this pill, not the pill itself. If not I'll have to delete my signature.

I also signed this petition. In general I think the mentioned medicine will be use for impotent people and being impotent is not the same as being asexual. On the other hand it can open the door for doctors who have no idea on asexuality and would like to treat it or just for die-hard conservative ' gay recovering therapy', there are such places and homophobes can just say that this medicine 'will make them heterosexual' or sth like that. The good idea would be the ban of every 'sexual orientation conversion therapies'. I know Brazil has such a law.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^^This. If people are distressed by low sexual desire, why the hell shouldn't they have access to a drug which might help them?

This drug is possibly a huge deception. If the petition is correct, the claim of the drug manufacturer is that this medication can somehow treat feelings of sexual shame and the fear of abandonment because of low sex drive.

First of all, in my opinion, this is a bunch of hot air and nothing else. Nobody knows exactly how or where these particular emotions emerge, just like depression can have many different origins and manifestations. Most of these drugs use the comprehensive approach, which is to dull many emotions in the brain, instead of targeting the precise location of a specific emotion.

Second, it is the attitude of society and partners that helps trigger the fear that we will be unloved or abandoned if we are not able to provide sexual satisfaction to others or to a partner. This is not something that needs a pharmaceutical intervention. It is a fear that is based on a real threat! It is not an irrational fear! So, do we start medicating away fears that are based on real threats? Imagine the unintended consequences of that!

Your first is a good point, however, I firmly believe that these are things for the experts, people who actually completely understand all of these issues to figure out a decide what is the best option. While there are problems regarding whether these people are driven by a desire to help people or make money. Having people who have read a few articles (generally in the media/on random internet sites not actual reputable sources) pretending that they know better than the experts is not helpful.

Another thing that can treat feelings of shame due to a low sex drive? Sex therapy. Not in a "this will cure you" way but more of a "hey, let's find something that works for you" way. I mention this a lot but I want to be a sex therapist and I know I'd rather talk out the issues with my patients and have them feel comfortable in regards to their sexuality than prescribe them medication.

Personally, I've always wanted someone to talk with about my feelings of shame regarding my sexuality. I've tried with girlfriends, who were compassionate about it, until my issues frustrated them or made them feel rejected. Friends generally give a canned response, such as: "have you tried Viagra?" or "get some counseling." Yet, the counselors give their canned responses of: "have you tried Viagra," or "lets try some "cognitive behavioral therapy," which does nothing, except cover over the feelings. None of this addresses the feelings of shame. Being listened to and understood with compassion is what helps, not any attempts to bypass the feelings.

In response to your comment on cognitive behavioural therapy, from personal experience of being treated for severe depression and social anxiety with CBT it really can help. A lot. It can save lives. It saved my life. It didn't just 'cover over the feelings' it completely changed my way of thinking and approaching the world and has allowed me to live depression free for years. I've also got to add that the drugs that many people are so critical of (not flibanserin specifically), such as anti-depressants, also save lives, and allow people to function in day to day life when they would otherwise be lying in bed incapable of finding the motivation to even get up and eat, or cowering in their living too terrified to leave the house (again, speaking from personal experience). Such drugs are not a 'cure' but they give people that initial hand up that allows them to actually begin real treatment.

How many of you actually read the petition all the way through before you formed an opinion about it? (I'm not saying that to try to scold you or anything, that's a genuine question. I really would like to know.)

*raises hand* I did! And I agree with a lot of the points they made. But, as I said above, I think it should be left to people who genuinely understand and have extensive knowledge of the pros and cons of the drug to make decisions, without being pushed by people who potentially only have a very shallow knowledge based off potentially unreliable sources. Also, I think that coming at it with a "we are asexual!!! Oh and by the way did you know that this drug might be bad for asexuals? (even though it's not marketed at us or anything)" attitude is not helpful at all... and it actually comes off as rather egotistical.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In response to your comment on cognitive behavioural therapy, from personal experience of being treated for severe depression and social anxiety with CBT it really can help. A lot. It can save lives. It saved my life. It didn't just 'cover over the feelings' it completely changed my way of thinking and approaching the world and has allowed me to live depression free for years. I've also got to add that the drugs that many people are so critical of (not flibanserin specifically), such as anti-depressants, also save lives, and allow people to function in day to day life when they would otherwise be lying in bed incapable of finding the motivation to even get up and eat, or cowering in their living too terrified to leave the house (again, speaking from personal experience). Such drugs are not a 'cure' but they give people that initial hand up that allows them to actually begin real treatment.

You are right that I should not be so critical of CBT, as it does help many people. My experience with it was not helpful though. I think its success depends on the nature of the problem. My issues are not on a level that is accessible by CBT methods. Also, my personality is not compatible with CBT methods. What upsets me about many psychotherapists is that they have a "one size fits all" approach, meaning that they think CBT is the appropriate approach for everyone, regardless of the source and nature of the distress, and regardless of the personality of the individual. This simply is not true.

As for medication, it did not help me at all. If anything, it caused more problems for me. That was my experience though, which doesn't mean that everyone has the same experience.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your first is a good point, however, I firmly believe that these are things for the experts, people who actually completely understand all of these issues to figure out a decide what is the best option. While there are problems regarding whether these people are driven by a desire to help people or make money. Having people who have read a few articles (generally in the media/on random internet sites not actual reputable sources) pretending that they know better than the experts is not helpful.

Honestly, I think that the experts need to be better observers and better listeners. What they think is best or should work, often contradicts the experiences of the actual people who are suffering. The people in the best position to observe the nature of their struggles and the effects of various treatments, are the patients themselves, not the doctors or so called experts.

The thing that annoys me the most is when a therapist argues with me about what I'm feeling. I've been to therapists who claimed to be in a better position than me to understand my feelings and thoughts. One therapist actually told me what I was thinking and feeling, even though she had no clue. She lectured me that she was the expert and pointed to her degrees on the wall, and so I should accept that she knows better than me, and forget about my experience of myself. This is the "I'm an expert" mentality that permeates much of the psychology, medical, and pharmaceutical industries.

The insurance companies contribute to this mentality, as they cover some therapies and not others, based on their bottom line costs/profits of doing business. The new students of psychology are trained in the most popular and acceptable methods of psychology, which they don't realize or want to realize are influenced by what is most profitable in the industry, and so they get their degrees thinking they are experts about every kind of human distress, when this is not the case. That is my take on this anyway.

Anything that could possibly help me and others like me is not available, or is too expensive because insurance companies will not cover it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read most of it, however, I think this argument can also be made for other medications that are on the market.

I'm not saying it can't. In fact, it probably should be made for some of them. Not necessarily all, but some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that the other antidepressants out there probably do the same thing, which is to numb or dull down the emotions. The pharmaceutical companies try to make more profits by repositioning the same drugs that they are already feeding to us. This is probably just another version of Prozac or Paxil, but it is being promoted as a cure for sexual shame and its resulting anxiety.

Flibanserin was originally designed as an anti-depressant, but it didn't work and was rejected by the FDA. Then they tried to push it as a "cure" for HSDD and failed again. So this time, the pharmacuetical company put together an astroturf campaign that went around talking about how unfair it was that men had all sorts of pills, but women didn't have any (even though the pills are nothing alike). This pill and the marketing push (and subsequent social reaction) will end up creating the distress that it so conveniently can "fix".

If we take away this medication marketed for females, then we also need to take away similar medication marketed for males.

There aren't really any medications designed to treat "low sexual desire" in males. There are ED pills, like Viagra, but those are designed to treat a mechanical problem that prevents desire that is present from being acted upon. Flibanserin is closer to a roofie that lowers inhibition.

While I am dubious about this drug because of the noted side effects etc., protesting against it based on some overly defensive people perceiving it as some sort of threat to their orientation really annoys me! :angry:

*raises hand* I did! And I agree with a lot of the points they made. But, as I said above, I think it should be left to people who genuinely understand and have extensive knowledge of the pros and cons of the drug to make decisions, without being pushed by people who potentially only have a very shallow knowledge based off potentially unreliable sources. Also, I think that coming at it with a "we are asexual!!! Oh and by the way did you know that this drug might be bad for asexuals? (even though it's not marketed at us or anything)" attitude is not helpful at all... and it actually comes off as rather egotistical.

You are aware that this "egotistical", "overly defensive" person you're talking about is David Jay, right? He's one of the main people behind this campaign (It's even an official AVEN backed petition!). I had the good fortune to attend a session at NAAC with David and several of the other organizers of this campaign. They know what they're talking about.

More context about flibanserin:

The drug is designed to treat "Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder", a disorder that is no longer recognized by the American Psychiatric Association, in large part because it had the potential to pathologize asexuality. It was sort of reworked into Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder, which has an explicit exclusion for asexuality that HSDD was lacking.

This pill has a very shady history. It's not really much better than a pack of Skittles for treating HSDD, and it has a very high rate of side effects severe enough to make people stop taking it. Beyond that, they didn't do trials to see how it reacted with common medications, and a large part of the trial was conducted on men. For a drug designed specifically to treat HSDD in women.

To think that this won't affect asexual people is naïve. The marketing already is "You're not interested in sex? This pill will fix you!" That will be all we'll hear if it's approved. "Oh, you're asexual? There's a pill for that now, you know!" Women will be bullied and gaslighted and coerced into taking this drug against their will. (And not just asexual women, either.) The company behind this certainly will try to create the very distress that they'll then promise to cure. We've already seen it with ED pills and related treatments, where the message is "You're just not man enough", no matter how well things downstairs function or how high your interest level is.

This site has more information about the drug and what this is all about and what it means for aces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are writing on behalf of the asexual, grey-a and demisexual community to urge you NOT to approve flibanserin, a repurposed antidepressant currently being considered as a treatment for distress due to low sexual desire.

This is disgusting and you are not writing on my behalf.

Isn't the FDA simply to keep physically-harmful products off the market? The FDA already prevents voluntary transactions between people by making some illegal even if both parties want to accept the risks. To have the FDA make something illegal simply because some people think that it promotes the wrong ideas is even further ridiculous. They aren't the place to carry out this social campaign and prevent people who want this product from being able to buy it.

And, my view is that almost all these drugs are bullshit cures that try to homogenize people and erase experiences, but that's no reason to try to prevent people who believe in them from using them. It's not anyone's place to dictate how someone else addresses their problems.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the FDA simply to keep physically-harmful products off the market?

There's a fairly strong case to be made that flibanserin is physically harmful and ineffective. That's why it's been rejected twice before. Here's what the FDA had to say about it in 2010, when it was rejected last time:

Has the Applicant provided sufficient evidence of overall efficacy for flibanserin for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) compared to placebo?

Yes- 1 No - 10

... The committee raised concerns regarding the number of individuals who dropped out due

to adverse events. ...

Considering the available data on efficacy and safety, has the Applicant demonstrated that the

overall risk/benefit profile of flibanserin for the treatment of HSDD in premenopausal women is

acceptable?

Yes-0 No -11

The Committee felt that that the efficacy of flibanserin was not sufficiently robust to justify

the risks. Overall, the Committee was concerned over the safety signals seen. Concerns

were also raised regarding potential drug interactions with flibanserin. ...

(Source: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/ReproductiveHealthDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM248751.pdf)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. Do you have any idea how much shit sexual women go through when having sexual desire issues? I have known women literally suicidal because they still want to want it, the drive just isn't there, and it is literally destroying them. Thank fuck pharma companies have finally caught on that yeah, many women need to want sex as well to enjoy it (for years the womans pleasure and desire never mattered, because all she has to do is lie there with her legs open.. whereas for a man to have sex he needs to be able to get an erection etc, so yeah, they've been working on drugs for men for decades) ..

Yes there are health concerns with this drug, but that's true for many, many drugs. This is a step in the right direction and if it can help even a few women overcome the extreme stress they experience from low sexual desire, then awesome. Many of the women I have known with this kind of issue would be happy to risk some side effects (even severe ones) to have normal sexual functioning back, and that's their decision to make, no one else's (especially not asexuals, who seem to be up in arms over this shit.. don't you get that lack of sexual desire isn't exactly distressing for you because you're asexual.. lol. This shit can destroy the lives of sexual women, but it means pretty much nothing to asexuals as we don't experience the same kind of distress that sexual people do when we have low sexual desire..)

This is maybe the third thread I have seen expressing anger of this medication on AVEN, and I am quite honestly fucking disgusted. Since when did they say this drug is to treat people who don't want to be treated (ie asexuals) .. It's for people who are experiencing actual distress due to low sexual desire, jesus can't aces just keep their noses out of this shit as they clearly don't understand it. grr.

And seriously, stop going on about how ''women who identify as asexual will be forced to take it'' blah blah.. I have never once met an asexual man here who has been forced to take Viagra.. sure it's been suggested to them, some have even tried it, but no one has literally forced any asexual man I have met to take Viagra, and men are expected to be more sexual than women, that's how society works. If asexual men don't get sex medication rammed down their throats to make them 'normal' then asexual women have nothing to worry about.

Honestly, I just wish the asexual community would but the fuck out of this one. It does not concern you.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an asexual male who can get a hard-on, without a prescription, and without having any urge to 'do' anything with it that it was designed for...PanFicto's right; this thread's not for me. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the FDA simply to keep physically-harmful products off the market?

There's a fairly strong case to be made that flibanserin is physically harmful and ineffective. That's why it's been rejected twice before. Here's what the FDA had to say about it in 2010, when it was rejected last time:

I was critiquing the linked petition (the topic of this thread) which seems to be arguing that the FDA shouldn't approve it because of social effects it might have, which attempts to use the FDA as a political tool rather than an agency that merely ensures that things are not directly physically harmful if consumed. The people supporting this petition are attempting to deny choice to everyone in order to meet their political goals. I find this disgusting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I am dubious about this drug because of the noted side effects etc., protesting against it based on some overly defensive people perceiving it as some sort of threat to their orientation really annoys me! :angry:

*raises hand* I did! And I agree with a lot of the points they made. But, as I said above, I think it should be left to people who genuinely understand and have extensive knowledge of the pros and cons of the drug to make decisions, without being pushed by people who potentially only have a very shallow knowledge based off potentially unreliable sources. Also, I think that coming at it with a "we are asexual!!! Oh and by the way did you know that this drug might be bad for asexuals? (even though it's not marketed at us or anything)" attitude is not helpful at all... and it actually comes off as rather egotistical.

You are aware that this "egotistical", "overly defensive" person you're talking about is David Jay, right? He's one of the main people behind this campaign (It's even an official AVEN backed petition!). I had the good fortune to attend a session at NAAC with David and several of the other organizers of this campaign. They know what they're talking about.

So? David Jay may have set up this site and done a huge amount for asexual awareness etc. but that does not mean he is always right, does not give him the right to try and deny people drugs that might help them, and does not make me any less inclined to think of this as overly defensive or egotistical.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the petition needs to be more clear. It starts off by mentioning this community but then goes on to say how bad this drug is for those women who want to have sex. So I'm confused.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the FDA simply to keep physically-harmful products off the market? The FDA already prevents voluntary transactions between people by making some illegal even if both parties want to accept the risks. To have the FDA make something illegal simply because some people think that it promotes the wrong ideas is even further ridiculous. They aren't the place to carry out this social campaign and prevent people who want this product from being able to buy it.

And, my view is that almost all these drugs are bullshit cures that try to homogenize people and erase experiences, but that's no reason to try to prevent people who believe in them from using them. It's not anyone's place to dictate how someone else addresses their problems.

First of all, after doing some research, I noticed that how the drug is portrayed in the petition and how it is described elsewhere are not exactly the same. The stated purpose of the drug is to restore sexual desire to women who previously had sexual desire, but have lost some or all of that desire, and therefore experience anxiety and distress over how it is potentially or actually affecting their relationship(s) and value to men. The petition is somewhat misleading, in that it gives the impression that the drug is supposed to directly treat the anxiety/distress of having little or no sexual desire and the possible relationship consequences. However, to clarify, the decrease in anxiety/distress is portrayed by the pharmaceutical company as a positive side effect of the restoration of sexual desire, not a direct effect. This is my current understanding of what the drug is supposed to do or what is being claimed that it can do. If I'm wrong, then someone please correct me.

If the above is accurate and I'm no longer misunderstanding the intended purpose of the drug, then if a woman who lost her previously high libido wants to restore it, and this drug does in fact help other women in this situation, then I don't see a problem with it. However, if the claims about this drug are fraudulent, then it could do a lot more harm to women who are already depressed about the changes in their libido levels. Offering false hope to people to make a profit is a crime against humanity in my opinion.

I think the core issue here goes far beyond this drug. The core issue is that a large percentage of the human population rejects potential partners and abandons current partners over sexual performance or the lack of sexual availability.

There is no doubt that it is much more difficult to develop and maintain relationships if sexual activity is not offered on a consistent basis, and/or not in a way that satisfies the other person. I'm living proof of this. In the past, I was rejected for friendship and relationships many times or dumped/abandoned, because I was not able to be a fully functional and fully potent man. Or, I was humiliated through being cheated on, or losing rights to any kind of basic affection, including hugs, just because I was unable to be like "other men." THIS IS THE PROBLEM! The problem is that many people determine the value of other human beings based on their sexual availability and functional ability. The lack of compassion and empathy over this is astounding to me, and yes it is a major source of depression and feelings of shame/humiliation for many people, including myself.

So how do we deal with this issue? Who is at fault? Is it the drug manufacturers who offer cures for something that is part of who we are and not a disease that needs to be healed? Is it the psychologists who claim that relationships are healthy only when there is consistently fulfilling sexual intimacy? Is it the entertainment industry that portrays emotional intimacy as always including lusty, passionate sexual encounters? Is it peer pressure that makes us feel that we are not real men or women, unless we are able to drive someone wild in bed? Is it the religions that place an emphasis on procreation or satisfying a spouse? Who or what is at fault? This is what needs to be explored and confronted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now