Deleted

[Guest]

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.

Yes because asexual men get Viagra shoved down their throats aaaaaaall the time.. they live in hiding as doctors chase them around with blue pills, ready to force it down their throat every time they open their mouths lol. You get that a drug like this is actually for sexual people experiencing distress at having low sexual desire, right? It's not for people who don't give a shit about not having sexual desire.. It's for people actually experiencing distress about their situation.. Why try to deny them the right to treatment based on some flawed, egotistical argument a group of asexuals (who literally do not understand what its like to be sexual but have desire problems) have fabricated. I hope whoever made this petition makes a public statement or something that some asexuals are very against it, I wouldn't want people to think we are all in favor of this ridiculous petition.

[Guest]

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. However, to clarify, the decrease in anxiety/distress is portrayed 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 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 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, 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.

Yes that is what the drug is intended for and yes the petition is very misleading.

But please, please understand, most women don't want their libido back to make their partners happy. They want their libido back because having a healthy libido and sex drive is an integral part of their enjoyment and satisfaction as a human being. Humans aren't 'forcing' this need for sex on each other, it's not that sexual people are shallow, heartless beasts who can't maintain a romantic relationship without sex due to a lack of emotion, it's that the desire for and enjoyment of sex is an integral part of many sexual peoples biological makeup, and it's extremely distressing for many of them to have that taken away due to illness, stress, whatever. They want that back for themselves, to get back some of the pleasure and enjoyment they have in life and in relationships. Men and women feel this way (and thank god the medical industry is finally catching on that yes, women's sexual pleasure actually matters as well. Women's sexual pleasure and satisfaction is something that has been ignored by the medical industry for waaaaaaay too long now.)

Honestly what I see here is asexuals acting like it's almost shameful for a sexual woman to want her sexual desire back, because ''oh she's just conforming to societies standards, she thinks she is expected to drive men wild in bed which is why she wants this drug'' or ''she must be shallow if she thinks it's not possible to have meaningful relationships without sex''... nonono it's not like that. Many women legitimately love sex, and still want to love it even if they lose their desire due to stress or depression or whatever. They aren't being shallow or trying to conform to societal standards, it is literally extremely distressing having something you enjoy and value so much (sexual intimacy) taken away from you due to a condition inside yourself that could possibly be treated with the right medication (I personally don't agree with most medications due to the harmful side-effects they can have, but that doesn't give me the right to take away someone else's choice to try medication if they think it may help them and want to give it a chance)

I wish many in the asexual community could just have a little empathy and try to actually understand this, instead of just being like ''we don't want sex and we are happy, we still enjoy relationships, so what's she complaining about if she all of a sudden doesn't want sex, who cares? whyyyy can't people just learn to be happy without sex like we are?'' ... It doesn't work like that, okay guys? Sex is an integral part of many sexual peoples enjoyment in life and that's okay, and if they are experiencing distress due to a sudden lack of desire, they shouldn't be shamed for it by us lol, they should be allowed to seek treatment that's available, knowing full well it may be ineffective and/or may have side effects, in attempt to get back the desire they once had that helped make their lives so enjoyable for them.

We don't have the right to try and take that away from them, just because so many of us here clearly do not in any way understand what it feels like to be a sexual person experiencing distress due to sudden loss of desire. Okay?!

[Guest]

I actually think AVEN should be humiliated to have it's name on that petition page, and should withdraw its support. Most of the asexual community clearly just has no fucking idea what is up with this.

Look at Viagra, are asexual men forced to take it and shamed for not taking it? on rare occasions, maybe, but that doesn't mean it hasn't helped millions of men worldwide get back some of their enjoyment in the bedroom. How dare the asexual community try to take something that could potentially help women in some of the same ways, away from them, out of misplaced fears as to how the drug might be used. Sure there may be side-effects, it may be ineffective, but women who decide to try this drug know those things. They should be given the opportunity to give it a go if they want to without asexual people who have no fucking idea what said women are going through getting up in arms about it.

As I said, what I am seeing here is asexuals shaming women for wanting some of their sexual desire back, at the end of the day. Get off your high horses! You're happy being ace? fine!! If someone suggests you use this drug, just tell them to fuck off because it's not aimed at you. The medical industry is finally trying to help women treat sexual problems in the same ways men have been able to (ie using medication) for decades, and you're trying to stomp all over it. Fuck that. You want to petition against this, petition against Viagra as well. That's the only way this could be even remotely fair. You want women's chances at more satisfying sex using medication taken away from them? try to take those chances away from men as well. Cut the sexism and get over yourselves.

[Guest]

Not signing...

The drugs to treat low / lack of desire are needed by people who are seriously clinically depressed and distressed by losing it. They lose it due to medications, mental illness, hormonal changes etc and they WANT it back. They have support groups, therapy, etc to deal with the distress of losing it. They LOVED sex and they WANT it, their body just isn't cooperating with their mind. So, yeah, why on earth should we say "Nope, you can't have something you need, because asexuals might have it suggested to them as a "fix" for their orientation"? No way. I'm not supporting trying to block a sexual person having a happy, healthy sex life if they want it.

Should anyone take this due to social pressure? NO. Should doctors push this if people aren't distressed? NO. But, ya know, when THAT starts happening I will happily join petitions and stuff to stop the medical community ignoring the DSM-V (which clearly states asexuals should not fall under HSDD). I'm NOT going to try to block a medication that sexual women have been screaming for though. They want it, they need it, let them have it. The safety concerns need addressed, but all drugs come with side effects (ever looked at the side effects list for even allergy medications?), so the FDA can decide if it's safe or not.

[Guest]

I don't see what any of this has to do with being asexual. I think if someone is distressed about having a low sex drive and they feel like this pill will help then I think they should have that choice and also sex therapy. I think people should have a lot of choices and be able to figure what option works best for them since they know their sex life / sex drive better than anyone else. I also agree with what someone said on the other page that if there is medication for low sex drive there should be medication for distress for high sex drive as well.

[michaeld]

Incidentally, I sometimes get the impression history is cyclical. The following was posted a few years ago (5! 5 years ago) on AVEN.

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/50875-low-sexual-desire-is-not-a-disease-stop-fda-approval-of-flibanserin/

Seems like similar arguments were being made back then as now on both sides. (FWIW I was against the petition back in 2010 as the thread shows. I don't know what my view would be today: it's not a matter I've researched recently or had any opinion on. While as noted, David Jay has played a leading role in the new petition, the PT have not been involved with it.)

[Prairie]

What cycle has occurred since 2010? It seems that this petition now is just a continuation of it being pushed five years ago. Has anything changed? If people on AVEN came to see that they were trying to impose their will on others, but then somehow were convinced to start the petition again, it might be called cyclical.

[AgentKEW]

Yes because asexual men get Viagra shoved down their throats aaaaaaall the time.. they live in hiding as doctors chase them around with blue pills, ready to force it down their throat every time they open their mouths lol. You get that a drug like this is actually for sexual people experiencing distress at having low sexual desire, right? It's not for people who don't give a shit about not having sexual desire.. It's for people actually experiencing distress about their situation.. Why try to deny them the right to treatment based on some flawed, egotistical argument a group of asexuals (who literally do not understand what its like to be sexual but have desire problems) have fabricated. I hope whoever made this petition makes a public statement or something that some asexuals are very against it, I wouldn't want people to think we are all in favor of this ridiculous petition.

I explicitly stated that this isn't necessarily about asexuals, and that I understand that medication is a valid option in at least some cases. My reasons for signing the petition have next to nothing to do with my orientation. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but demisexuals and grey-aces I signed because of issues with the drug itself. I'm honestly unsure how to reply to you, though, because I can't tell what it is about the petition you dislike so much, due to the vague and vaguely insulting language used in your argument. You seem to be against the petition in general, so allow me to address that.

I'm not trying to deny anyone the right to treatment for anything. That would be wrong, not to mention horribly hypocritical as I take meds for a couple of my own issues and they help a great deal. But this particular treatment would not adequately serve its purpose when weighed against the risks of the possible side effects, which you would know if you had done more than simply read the petition and decided that it's "ridiculous." This petition is not the only thing, nor are we the only group, trying to keep this drug off the market. The proposed drug, flibanserin, is not significantly more effective than a placebo, which is a "blank" or fake pill that test subjects get told is whatever drug is being tested so that the researchers can see how much of what the drug does is real and how much of it is in the test subjects' heads. In addition, it affects the central nervous system which, without extensive long-term testing to prove that it's safe (which has not been conducted) could have lasting and even debilitating effects. Because, unlike men's meds for low sexual desire which are only take when needed, flibanserin has to be taken every day. That builds up. (I'll admit that anything severe is unlikely, but my point is that this drug has not been adequately proven to be safe and there's no reason good enough to approve it until we at least know as much as we can about the potential risks.)

Also, low sexual desire is a lot more complicated in women than in men. In men it's mostly the biological components that are the issue. In women, there's a lot more psychology involved. A simple pill would treat one part of the issue, and that would be enough for many people, but it's really not that simple an issue. (Again, a pill like this might be effective for some people. I'm not saying it would never help. But it would not be as effective as consistently as meds for men, and you seem to think it would.) I'm not being sexist at all. I will be the first to say that there should be a treatment for this. But what I'm trying to say is that this treatment in particular would not work and should not be used. Let someone else invent something safer that is actually effective.

(In my original post, I expressed concerns over the social effects of such a drug being released. I'm not completely retracting that statement. But I am revising it because you make some good points, for all that I don't agree with you. I don't like what the marketing of a drug like this would do, I am greatly concerned about it, in fact. But that doesn't mean that a drug couldn't be released with minimal hype and solve quite a few problems, or at least help. My issues with the release of a drug like flibanserin come down to marketing, which I don't have time to properly address right now.)

In short (tl;dr): Yeah, there should be drugs for this. 1) It's only fair. 2) There are quite a few people who've been practically begging for one for a while now. But this should not be one of them, at least not yet, because 1) it's unsafe, and 2) it's not effective.

[AwkwardGuy]

But please, please understand, most women don't want their libido back to make their partners happy. They want their libido back because having a healthy libido and sex drive is an integral part of their enjoyment and satisfaction as a human being. Humans aren't 'forcing' this need for sex on each other, it's not that sexual people are shallow, heartless beasts who can't maintain a romantic relationship without sex due to a lack of emotion, it's that the desire for and enjoyment of sex is an integral part of many sexual peoples biological makeup, and it's extremely distressing for many of them to have that taken away due to illness, stress, whatever. They want that back for themselves, to get back some of the pleasure and enjoyment they have in life and in relationships. Men and women feel this way (and thank god the medical industry is finally catching on that yes, women's sexual pleasure actually matters as well. Women's sexual pleasure and satisfaction is something that has been ignored by the medical industry for waaaaaaay too long now.)

Have you asked "most" every woman and man if this is true? If not, then how do you know this is why "most" women or men try to regain their libido?

I've known many women who felt pressured to make their partners sexually happy. I've known women who felt bound on a religious basis, to service their husband upon his request (more like demand). When they lost all physical ability to at least tolerate this through physical desire, they no longer felt capable to perform what always felt like a chore to them. I've known women who fantasized about romantic adventures or other men while with their husband, so they could trigger enough physical desire to satisfy their husbands. When they were not able to do this anymore, they panicked about how this would affect their husband, and ultimately their own status and welfare, as well as their children's future welfare.

Many people become very cold and unloving when they are not being provided with sexual satisfaction anymore. Many men and women will not maintain fidelity, a relationship, or a marriage if the sex stops. I've known these types of people personally. I've seen them venting and complaining in the thousands on forums about how deprived and angry they are because their spouse is not as sexual anymore. I've seen them all supporting each other to cheat or leave their spouses over it. It is horrifying!

You are severely underestimating the cruelty and coldness of many people, when it comes to sex.

Yes, there is the opposite end of this as well. Many men and women want to enjoy their sexuality again, and be able to share intimacy with their partners, who they love and adore, and whom they would never leave or cheat on for any reason. You are right about that, but the dark side exists too.

As I said in my previous post, my issue with these drug companies is that often they offer false hopes, and so the men or women who are panicking and who are already despondent over their loss of libido, become even more depressed or worse, when the promises of a drug turn out to be false. The women and men who are being made to feel ashamed or worthless if they don't perform, or who are being threatened with abandonment, are often trying to regain their libido so they can survive emotionally or otherwise. This is the truth. I've known people like this and I've seen this talked about all over the Internet. To be perfectly honest, I've been a victim of this as well.

Regaining a high sex drive can be just as distressing as not having one, especially when you are trying to use that renewed libido in an environment where you are unloved and always being threatened or humiliated. It can actually increase the feelings of shame.

Honestly what I see here is asexuals acting like it's almost shameful for a sexual woman to want her sexual desire back, because ''oh she's just conforming to societies standards, she thinks she is expected to drive men wild in bed which is why she wants this drug'' or ''she must be shallow if she thinks it's not possible to have meaningful relationships without sex''... nonono it's not like that. Many women legitimately love sex, and still want to love it even if they lose their desire due to stress or depression or whatever. They aren't being shallow or trying to conform to societal standards, it is literally extremely distressing having something you enjoy and value so much (sexual intimacy) taken away from you due to a condition inside yourself that could possibly be treated with the right medication (I personally don't agree with most medications due to the harmful side-effects they can have, but that doesn't give me the right to take away someone else's choice to try medication if they think it may help them and want to give it a chance)

There are both sides to this issue, and they are both legitimate. Some people want to regain their libido because they love sex and they love having sex with their loved ones or with whomever else. There is nothing wrong with that. However, there is the darker side, which is that many women and men feel pressured to perform sexually in a way that is acceptable to whomever they depend upon, or sexual enough to find a partner, rather than be alone forever, or sexual enough to not be humiliated, rejected, or thrown away. This stuff happens VERY often.

I wish many in the asexual community could just have a little empathy and try to actually understand this, instead of just being like ''we don't want sex and we are happy, we still enjoy relationships, so what's she complaining about if she all of a sudden doesn't want sex, who cares? whyyyy can't people just learn to be happy without sex like we are?'' ... It doesn't work like that, okay guys? Sex is an integral part of many sexual peoples enjoyment in life and that's okay, and if they are experiencing distress due to a sudden lack of desire, they shouldn't be shamed for it by us lol, they should be allowed to seek treatment that's available, knowing full well it may be ineffective and/or may have side effects, in attempt to get back the desire they once had that helped make their lives so enjoyable for them.

We don't have the right to try and take that away from them, just because so many of us here clearly do not in any way understand what it feels like to be a sexual person experiencing distress due to sudden loss of desire. Okay?!

I don't think that anyone here was trying to deny or shame people who love and want sex. I think the problem was that the petition was very misleading and was initially misunderstood by many members, including myself. It was made to sound like a drug for eliminating fears of abandonment and feelings of shame, due to a lowered sexual ability. This is what upset many people, since there is a legitimate reason to fear abandonment/rejection, and people with lowered sexual ability are often made to feel ashamed. To take a drug to eliminate these painful feelings is like telling someone to shut-up and stop crying about how degraded and worthless they feel, because of the way their partner or society now treats them. I think this is what upset everyone.

[Prairie]

AgentKEW, so basically you are signing the petition because you think that the FDA isn't doing its job of keeping harmful products from being sold? i.e. it has nothing to do with the specifics of this drug, just that it's ineffective and harmful

[Guest]

''Have you asked "most" every woman and man if this is true? If not, then how do you know this is why "most" women or men try to regain their libido?''

When I said most women, I meant most women who would seek out the use of this drug to restore their libido. They do it because they want to enjoy sex, not because they want someone else to enjoy sex. I didn't mean most women in all the world, I meant specifically the ones that would seek the use of this drug.

''I've known many women who felt pressured to make their partners sexually happy. I've known women who felt bound on a religious basis, to service their husband upon his request (more like demand). When they lost all physical ability to at least tolerate this through physical desire, they no longer felt capable to perform what always felt like a chore to them. I've known women who fantasized about romantic adventures or other men while with their husband, so they could trigger enough physical desire to satisfy their husbands. When they were not able to do this anymore, they panicked about how this would affect their husband, and ultimately their own status and welfare, as well as their children's future welfare.''

Okay so what does this have to do with women who legitimately want to regain their libido to experience full sexual satisfaction once again, why sign a petition to prevent them from having access to something that may help them? Sure there are women like the ones you described, I myself was one. I gave my hypersexual ex partner sex twice a day, every day, for 5 years.. would cry myself to sleep each night wishing there was something I could have done to make it easier, and yes, I probably would have tried this drug if it had been available to me. If it could have made it easier, what harm would be done? if it didn't work, or I experienced side-effects, I could immediately stop the drug. Where is the issue? But I was not referring to women like me, I was referring to the millions who have lost their sexual desire and are deeply depressed, even suicidal, because of this. And you aksed how many women I have spoken to? well I was in womens sexual issues support groups online for years before finally discovering asexuality as an answer to my issues. Believe me, I have spoken to a fuckload of women about this exact issue.

''Many people become very cold and unloving when they are not being provided with sexual satisfaction anymore. Many men and women will not maintain fidelity, a relationship, or a marriage if the sex stops. I've known these types of people personally. I've seen them venting and complaining in the thousands on forums about how deprived and angry they are because their spouse is not as sexual anymore. I've seen them all supporting each other to cheat or leave their spouses over it. It is horrifying!''

Yes yes, I know, my ex cheated on me, gave me diseases, locked me out of my own house so he could fuck women in there without interruption, and was constantly angry at me, bitter, hateful, because despite the fact that I gave him so much sex, he could tell it made me miserable and that I didn't want it. This deeply, deeply upset him, because he wanted me to enjoy it the way other women do. He would beat me, and sexually assault me due to this frustration. So yes, I know how horrifying it is, though I have no idea what that has to do with this drug? (and no, this isn't a poor me fest or anything. I was a stupid emotionally vulnerable teen who became attached to a much older man, first relationship, and just couldn't see any way to leave. I take full responsibility for my stupidity in staying)

''You are severely underestimating the cruelty and coldness of many people, when it comes to sex.''

No no, I am not underestimating anything. Believe me. My ex also forced me to work in a brothel, for two years. I wouldn't think there are many people who have experienced the levels of coldness that I have, when it comes to sexual interaction. But what I was saying originally is that many women who seek this drug will be doing so legitimately in the hopes of regaining their sex drive, which as you yourself are saying, can be very, very important to many sexual people. Without the ability to enjoy sex, they can feel broken, depressed, and suicidal.

''Yes, there is the opposite end of this as well. Many men and women want to enjoy their sexuality again, and be able to share intimacy with their partners, who they love and adore, and whom they would never leave or cheat on for any reason. You are right about that, but the dark side exists too.

As I said in my previous post, my issue with these drug companies is that often they offer false hopes, and so the men or women who are panicking and who are already despondent over their loss of libido, become even more depressed or worse, when the promises of a drug turn out to be false. The women and men who are being made to feel ashamed or worthless if they don't perform, or who are being threatened with abandonment, are often trying to regain their libido so they can survive emotionally or otherwise. This is the truth. I've known people like this and I've seen this talked about all over the Internet. To be perfectly honest, I've been a victim of this as well.''

Well I don't know about in your country, but I have been on many different kinds of medication (to treat depression, PTSD, anxiety, even anti-psychotics) and before taking all the drugs I have been given, my doctors and psychiatrists made it very clear they may not help, and that I may have side-effects, and that this is something I need to be prepared for and aware of. If a drug is known to have a very low success rate, doctors will generally make patients aware of this so they know not to expect too much. I also do not believe a doctor would prescribe this medication to someone who went in saying ''my partner will hate me if I cannot give him sex, please help'' .. a doctor would in that case suggest the woman seek therapy and possibly even help from womens refuge services, as opposed to giving her medication to help make her horny.

''Regaining a high sex drive can be just as distressing as not having one, especially when you are trying to use that renewed libido in an environment where you are unloved and always being threatened or humiliated. It can actually increase the feelings of shame.''

Again, I do not believe a doctor would prescribe this medication under such circumstances. It would not be ethically correct as this is clearly an abusive situation.

''There are both sides to this issue, and they are both legitimate. Some people want to regain their libido because they love sex and they love having sex with their loved ones or with whomever else. There is nothing wrong with that. However, there is the darker side, which is that many women and men feel pressured to perform sexually in a way that is acceptable to whomever they depend upon, or sexual enough to find a partner, rather than be alone forever, or sexual enough to not be humiliated, rejected, or thrown away. This stuff happens VERY often.''

It may happen often, but there are millions of women who legitimately have been crying out for decades for a drug that will help them with sexual issues they may be having. This drug is aimed at them, not emotional abuse victims. And again, how would this drug necessarily make an abuse victims situation worse? If a doctor DID prescribe it under such circumstances (which I do not believe a doctor would) and if it happened to work, how is it so bad if sex is just a bit easier for the person having to have it? Sure it may not work, but the person would have been fully informed of this when the doc handed over the prescription.

''I don't think that anyone here was trying to deny or shame people who love and want sex. I think the problem was that the petition was very misleading and was initially misunderstood by many members, including myself. It was made to sound like a drug for eliminating fears of abandonment and feelings of shame, due to a lowered sexual ability. This is what upset many people, since there is a legitimate reason to fear abandonment/rejection, and people with lowered sexual ability are often made to feel ashamed. To take a drug to eliminate these painful feelings is like telling someone to shut-up and stop crying about how degraded and worthless they feel, because of the way their partner or society now treats them. I think this is what upset everyone.''

Yes the petition is very misleading, which is just another reason why AVEN should be ashamed to be associated with it.

[AwkwardGuy]

''I don't think that anyone here was trying to deny or shame people who love and want sex. I think the problem was that the petition was very misleading and was initially misunderstood by many members, including myself. It was made to sound like a drug for eliminating fears of abandonment and feelings of shame, due to a lowered sexual ability. This is what upset many people, since there is a legitimate reason to fear abandonment/rejection, and people with lowered sexual ability are often made to feel ashamed. To take a drug to eliminate these painful feelings is like telling someone to shut-up and stop crying about how degraded and worthless they feel, because of the way their partner or society now treats them. I think this is what upset everyone.''

Yes the petition is very misleading, which is just another reason why AVEN should be ashamed to be associated with it.

I'm sorry about the abuse you've gone through. :(

I don't have an issue about women using this drug because they miss the enjoyment of sex. If someone once had great sex and they lost the ability to enjoy it, then finding a way to restore it is a good thing. It is a horrible feeling to lose something that once brought us joy, and so I can empathize with this. I've lost other things in my life in this way.

I worry about people when they are dependent on someone and feel desperate, emotionally or otherwise. I've been that vulnerable person in the past. A long time ago, I compromised myself for a period of time, just so I would feel loved, wanted, or worth keeping. My sexuality somehow got entangled with my emotional pain, and I got involved in situations that damaged me even more, with the result being that my sense of shame about myself increased. So, that is why I worry about women taking a drug like this, while they are in an emotionally destructive relationship. I've personally discovered that when we are vulnerable, sexual feelings will sometimes draw us into a bad situation or keep us trapped in it, and the result is more damage to our self-esteem and more feelings of shame. It is not always easy to realize that we are being emotionally damaged when our bodies are giving us the opposite message.

[Prairie]

AwkwardGuy, when you say you worry about people using something in the world to become dependent and further their problems, are you thinking that these things in the world should be eliminated because of their potential to be used this way? Otherwise, sure, things like this existing enable all the helpful and unhelpful uses people can make of them. Almost everything is like this, having helpful and unhelpful uses depending on who uses it and in what context.

[NothingMuchToDo]

Guys this medication is aimed to help people who are DISTRESSED by their lack of sexual desire. Apart from anything else it's for libido not sexual attraction, making it separate from asexuality anyway, but even if it could get rid of asexuality, if it was helping those who were distressed by their asexuality, then I don't see the problem. I wouldn't say I'm distressed by my sexuality, but I'm not 100% happy about it. If I had the option to change it I probably would. If this helps unhappy people, I think it's excellent.

[Siggy]

I signed the petition because there could be real harm caused by a public campaign to convince women that they're not having as much sex as they should. This harm is just as real as the harm caused by sexual desire disorder, but obviously there aren't going to be any studies on it. The petition informs the FDA of this possible harm.

I do not believe that signing the petition forces the FDA to disapprove of Flibanserin. I think you're overestimating the power of a petition. The FDA knows it's not signed by experts. I simply hope that the FDA takes the petition into consideration when weighing the costs and benefits. If Flibanserin is truly safe and effective enough to overcome any possible harm to society at large, then the FDA should approve it.

[Prairie]

You're signing a petition whose stated goal is not what you actually want to happen? They should rewrite the petition to say what they really mean then, that they want a difference in the public campaign. I'd have no problem signing that!

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.

[Guest]

people should have access to this medication if it works, if they want it

I also resent that they chose to claim to represent the asexual community. You only represent a part of the community.

Don't pretend too speak for me.

Besides, the medical industry and FDA are professional, not democratic. This petition wont accomplish much of anything.

[Redbeard]

Beyond what may or may not happen to asexual women if this drug is approved, there are two very important points to keep in mind:

1. The drug is dangerous.
2. The drug doesn't really work.

The FDA has rejected flibanserin twice before because it is ineffective and has a high incidence of severe side effects. Side effects like:

• Dangerously low blood pressure
• Dizziness
• Nausea
• Tiredness
• Spontaneous blackouts
• Increased risk of accidental injuries
• Increased risk of breast cancer
• Increased risk of appendicitis

And many of these side effects are made worse by alcohol and birth control pills.

And if you manage to keep your appendix from bursting and can stay awake, it barely even does what it's supposed to do. It's only marginally more effective than the placebo.

That means that it would literally work almost as well and be far safer to simply put a bunch of pink Skittles in a bottle and call them "sex pills".

The drug has been rejected twice because it is ineffective and dangerous, and nothing about it has changed on this third attempt.

Also, it's not just asexual people who are worried about the issues posed by this drug. PharmedOut and New View have made clear their objections to flibanserin and have had over 200 doctors, therapists, feminists, sex educators, scientists and others co-sign their letters. These aren't clueless nobodies who'll sign anything put in front of them. Many of the co-signers are prominent, well-respected sexologists, including the editor of the Journal of Sex Research. There's also names like Betty Dodson and Annie Sprinkle, who absolutely know their way around female sexuality. Several people in this thread are saying that we should just "leave it to the experts", and stay out of what we don't understand. Well, those people ARE the experts, and they say flibanserin should be rejected.

[Prairie]

Why are you trying to convince people that this drug is unsafe? The petition that this thread is about is arguing that it should be rejected because of speculated social effects, which would be the case even if the drug were 100% safe and effective.

Many legitimate concerns have been raised about the efficacy of this drug which must be taken daily, has significant and potentially dangerous side effects and drug interactions, and shows barely more effectiveness than a placebo. We share concerns about the drug’s safety, but will let those issues be addressed by the hundreds of medical professionals, research scientists, and therapists already calling for this drug to be rejected.

Instead we would like to raise concern about the “disease” that this drug seeks to treat. Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) is defined as low/absent desire for sexual activity accompanied by distress(1). It is this distress that is our core concern: where it comes from, how it is diagnosed, and how it can most appropriately be treated.

[...]

While patients struggling with distress over low sexual desire deserve better treatment options, we believe that these options can come from proven non-pharmaceutical techniques such as mindfulness-based therapy and from therapies which seek to address the stigma associated with low sexual desire rather than aiming to explicitly change that level of desire. Shame, especially shame about failing to fit a social norm, does not warrant pharmaceutical treatment. Approving flibanserin to treat low sexual desire will hinder rather than help our ability to feel confident, connect intimately with our loved ones, and live lives free of shame.

The petition authors acknowledge there that they do not want people to have the choice of using this drug, even if it is safe and effective, and want to restrict them to non-drug approaches. Again, I am about as anti-medication-for-psychological-problems as they come, but I'm not going to force this view on others by keeping them from taking that approach.

If you consider this drug unsafe, a separate thread about this might be more relevant, though why stop there? You could start a discussion about all sorts of unsafe drugs being considered by the FDA and petitions to sign (though a better course of action IMO would be to educate people to not trust the FDA in the first place, then there's no need to do any petitioning).

[NothingMuchToDo]

I acknowledge the problem of the drug not being safe and I'd happily sign for that, but this petition is arguing that, regardless of whether this drug is safe or not, it should not be approved, because lack of sexual desire should not be stigmatised and therefore shouldn't be treated. I'm all for saying it shouldn't be stigmatised, but the never be treated part is ridiculous. People should be able to change what makes them uncomfortable if there's a safe way to do it. Medical professionals shouldn't have to diagnose distress - if someone says they're distressed, they're distressed. You know those people who annoy the hell out of you by suggesting you should go to therapy for your asexuality? You're doing the exact same thing in reverse. You're trying to suggest that wanting to heighten your sexual desire is a problem and that people should be forced to come to terms with it, whether they want to or not, even if the problem could simply be removed. I fully appreciate that women could be guilted into taking it and that "have you tried this magical new drug it'll fix everything" will be added to the ever growing list of shit people say to asexuals, but if people really, genuinely want to alter their sexual desire they should be allowed to do so without a medical diagnosis or being forced to go through therapy which ten to one wouldn't work anyway. So give me a petition that talks about the medical reasons it should be rejected and I'll sign it (even though the FDA is not democratic and it will make no difference, besides which they've rejected it before and probably will again), but I won't sign this.

[Vestal]

Deleted

[Poots]

...

[Lord Happy Toast]

I'm deeply bothered by this petition, both because of issues of procedure and because of issues of substance. I would also like to preface my comments with an acknowledgement that a) I don't think that the FDA should approve this drug (for reasons unrelated to asexual politics), b) I was involved in encouraging people to sign a petition against Flibanserin in 2010, c) my opinions on the matter have changed on a few key points since then, and d) I am not signing this petition.

Procedure
When I first took a look at the petition--before I even read much of it--I was very surprised to learn that it purports to be done by the Asexual Visibility and Education Network. When I started to look into the question of whether AVEN had officially endorsed it, it became clear that it had not. When AVEN made an official statement concerning a campaign by GLAAD earlier this year, the statement was prefaced by this:

Many of you will have been following the recent campaign by GLAAD and the discussion it has generated on social media. The AVEN Board of Directors and Project Team would like to release the following statement on the matter.

By contrast, this petition was posted without any endorsement from AVEN. One PT member, michaeld, has acknowledged that:

(FWIW I was against the petition back in 2010 as the thread shows. I don't know what my view would be today: it's not a matter I've researched recently or had any opinion on. While as noted, David Jay has played a leading role in the new petition, the PT have not been involved with it.)

When AVEN was a website privately owned by a single individual (David Jay), he could unilaterally declare AVEN's support if he wanted to (although he rarely--if ever--did so). However, now that AVEN has a board of directors, I would expect that something of this sort--if it wants to use AVEN's name--would need approval from the Project Team or the Board of Directors (and preferably from both). This appears to have approval from neither.

Substance
Moving from questions of whether appropriate steps were taken before putting AVEN's name of this, I also have a number of serious concerns with the text of the petition.

First, it claims that " flibanserin [is] currently being considered as a treatment for distress due to low sexual desire." In fact, Sproute, Pharmaceuticals asserts in their executive summary:

Flibanserin is ... [a] treatment for hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women.

HSDD is characterized by a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity which causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty, and is not better accounted for by another psychiatric disorder or due exclusively to the direct physiological effects of a substance or to the direct physiological effects of another medical condition. HSDD does not encompass normal (e.g., daily or weekly) fluctuations in levels of desire.

The measures of efficacy are summarized here as being 1) number of "Satisfying sexual events" per month, 2) "FSFI Desire (Scale 1.2-6.0)", and 3) "Distress (Scale 0-4)".

Second, the petition claims:

Many therapeutic options exist. It is simply not true that there are no therapeutic options to help women with low/no desire for sexual contact and who are distressed about it. More generally, many woman-focused sexuality researchers/clinicians have long recommended focusing on the relational context of sexuality (e.g., Bellamy, Gott, & Hinchliff, 2013; Mitchell & Graham, 2008; Tiefer, Hall, & Tavris, 2002) to alleviate women’s distress (which may or may not change the level of sexual desire). The shame, fear and distress that women diagnosed with HSDD feel are best addressed through examination of that shame and open communication, possibly with the assistance of a skilled professional. Moreover, the recent International Consultation on Sexual Medicine, which establishes the guidelines for treatment for sex-related difficulties, recommended both cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness-based therapy based on evidence of their efficacy for women with low sexual desire. (Basson, Wierman, van Lankveld & Brotto, 2010). Approving a minimally effective “easy fix” could undermine these challenging but proven therapeutic approaches and lead to worse patient outcomes.

This point is not in question. Rather, Sprout makes reference to "the lack of proven therapies [for HSDD]". And on this point, they are correct (to the best of my knowledge), and nothing in the AVEN petition provides evidence to the contrary. And this gets to what I've come to believe is the crux of the issue.

While drug manufacturers are required to provide extensive evidence--using controlled treatment outcome studies--to get their theraputic options approved, practitioners of talk therapy have no such requirement. They can peddle their treatments, regardless of whether it actually works or is a long-winded analogue of snake-oil, without any evidence of efficacy, and without any evidence about what negative effects may sometimes happen. For example, the Basson, Wierman, van Lankveld & Brotto, 2010 paper cited in the petition has no references, and the unnamed studies that they do discuss results from for the alleged efficacy of various treatments have no control group, which means they have no evidence that they aren't merely selling you an expensive placebo.

Many of the people actively fighting against pharmacutical involvement in this area are practitioners of sex therapy, and they admit that one of their concerns about approval of a drug for HSDD is that they will lose market share. Of course, they have to dress it up in nicer language than that, and they've found that wrapping it up in feminist rhetoric helps a lot. But in the current case, Sprout has also realized that they can just as easily wrap up their view in feminist rhetoric, as seen in the Even The Score campaign.

I see a major part of this as being an internal dispute within sexology and sexual medicine. A lot of people have been unimpressed with the efficacy of talk therapies, and when the pharmaceutical industry expressed interest in providing a lot of funding for sex research (with the aim of developing pharmalogical therapies), a lot of people got on the bandwagon. There has been a backlash against this--part of it stemming from legitimate concerns about some of the abuses of that industry, and part of it stemming from concerns about unproven talk therapies losing market share. I would prefer that asexuality politics avoid taking sides in this.

[NothingMuchToDo]

Also, I feel like the petition should be rephrased as it implies it has universal support when, as is clear in this thread at least, opinion is divided. Maybe say "we are members of the asexual community" without saying you represent it (and AVEN) as a whole?

[Vestal]

Deleted

[Kelly]

And it has been approved:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/q-a-first-pill-approved-to-boost-sex-drive-in-women-1.2523444

[Frigid Pink]

I thought "hypoactive sexual desire disorder" was removed from the DSM.

[sestina]

My concern is that doctors will try to push this pill on anyone who has low libido. We must remember that LL in itself is not a problem.

For a diagnosis of HSDD, the LL must cause the patient distress. It is the distress that makes it a disorder. Distress *caused* by LL. I am worried that doctors will try to invent distress where none previously existed. If the proximate cause of the distress is not the LL but rather the doctor herself, then it is not HSDD.

I know first hand how traumatic it can be to be told by a medical professional that I am defective because I am asexual. What safeguards are in place to protect those who are LL?

[Prairie]

Why won't this thread die? The FDA approved the drug. The petition is moot now and its supporters now need to do what they needed to do before: address doctors and potential users with education rather than this surrogate removal of it from the market. Victory.