012 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Guess I'll just plan on never dating again. I'd figured my only chance for having something actually work would be with a female with a diminished sex drive, which isn't too unusual as part of the aging process but might as well forget about that now. Instead of spending their time trying to cure cancer or some other horrible disease, they work on this. Link to post Share on other sites
Prairie Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Yep, they work on giving people more options. Terrible, just terrible! Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Though why can't people just find others with a compatible sex-drive instead of feeling like they have to change themselves. All they would have to do is be upfront about it and ask the person's sex-drive (not mentioning yours first because they could lie) and you easily get your "should i or shouldn't i date this person on that factor" early into the relationship before anything too strong forms. Link to post Share on other sites
UncommonNonsense Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Hey, not every woman who has a diagnosed, legitimate case of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is going to go for this. And not everyone who has low desire has a problem with their low desire. There are quite a lot of women who don't really care that they're not all that interested in jumping into bed. A lot of women still feel, rightly or wrongly (and I'm not mentioning this to start *that* debate, so don't go there!), that once they hit menopause, they have a valid 'Get Out Of Sexual Obligations Free' card. I remember overhearing a conversation between my mother and a bunch of her friends, all retired teachers between 57 and 70 about 10 years ago. They were talking about how they hadn't minded at all when their husbands began to have age-related erectile dysfunction, since it freed them from unwanted sex. Then Viagra came along and they felt annoyed. Now, they felt forced into being sexual despite having little to no desire due to being menopausal or post-menopausal since their husbands now had the 'little blue pill' to jump-start their desire at whim, and they felt they had to go along with their husbands' chemically-enhanced sexuality or their husbands would be tempted to be unfaithful. So I really doubt this is going to be anything more than a flash in the pan. It'll have a high demand at first, but since it isn't overly effective (only purported to give one additional sexual experience per month) and has a large and severe side-effect profile, those who were early-adopters are going to fall away as those side-effects become problematic and it fails to live up to the hype. I'm betting this drug will barely make any profit at all, long-term. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 This is for people who WANT sexual desire back. You don't want to date someone that is miserable because they lost something important (sex) anyway... so doubt it'll hurt your dating pool. But, it will HELP women who are currently DEPRESSED over losing something they consider very important and special to them. And... yeah a lot of women still won't want sex. I am one. :D Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 A lot of women still feel, rightly or wrongly (and I'm not mentioning this to start *that* debate, so don't go there!), that once they hit menopause, they have a valid 'Get Out Of Sexual Obligations Free' card. I remember overhearing a conversation between my mother and a bunch of her friends, all retired teachers between 57 and 70 about 10 years ago. They were talking about how they hadn't minded at all when their husbands began to have age-related erectile dysfunction, since it freed them from unwanted sex. Then Viagra came along and they felt annoyed. Now, they felt forced into being sexual despite having little to no desire due to being menopausal or post-menopausal since their husbands now had the 'little blue pill' to jump-start their desire at whim, and they felt they had to go along with their husbands' chemically-enhanced sexuality or their husbands would be tempted to be unfaithful. They were wrong about Viagra: it doesn't jump-start desire and it doesn't enhance sexuality. It just increases blood flow into the penis so it doesn't collapse. So the two medications aren't at all comparable. But since you DID go there, your mother's group of friends are not a "lot" of women. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Guess I'll just plan on never dating again. I'd figured my only chance for having something actually work would be with a female with a diminished sex drive, which isn't too unusual as part of the aging process but might as well forget about that now. Instead of spending their time trying to cure cancer or some other horrible disease, they work on this. I am sick to death of these bloody topics, can't the mods just merge them all or something? Calm the fuck down okay, this is a drug developed to try and treat women who are deeply distressed by their lack of sexual desire. The drug has been found to be ineffective in many cases, and also has been shown to have rather a lot of side-effects, so doctors won't just hand them out like candy, believe you me. They will be a last resort effort to try and help women seriously fucking distressed and depressed by a loss of sexual desire (I have met women in this situation, it can be hell on earth for them, quite literally. Some consider suicide, this is that distressing for them). The majority of women having your average lower than average libido issues wouldn't try (and probably wouldn't be prescribed) something like this. It's for women severely distressed by their lack of sexual desire, I say again, one more time just for the record ''seriously distressed''. Guess what OP? there are plenty of women absolutely FINE with having diminished or almost non-existent sexual desire, AND, you know what else? There are also plenty of asexual women out there (I mean, look at the numbers on this site) PLEASE can you, and everyone, stop acting like women having legitimate sexual issues is not a big fucking deal. It's a HUGE deal for the women in these situations, men have been able to seek treatment of sexual issues for decades, what's so wrong with some women wanting to also? Thank fuck the are finally making an attempt to help women in this situation, sure this is only a first effort, hopefully over time they'll be able to develop drugs to treat this that are more efficient and with less side-effects, so that those who really want to try this have better options available to them than just this drug. You don't want to date a woman so distressed by her lack of sexual desire that she tries this drug as a last resort? OKAY don't date her, it's that simple. Seriously though, can the asexual community just butt the fuck outta this one? This is not aimed at us, it's never even been suggested as a treatment for asexuality (ie someone perfectly happy with not wanting sex) and for the love of god, it is NOT female Viagra!!! It is a treatment for low libido, not for clitoral erection/wetness issues etc (women's version of genital arousal) .. This is not aimed at the average woman who has a lower sex drive than some other women, it is aimed at treating women whose lives are being destroyed by the state of their sexual desire (ie it's non-existent) And, once again, can mods just merge all these ''asexuals bitch about something aimed at treating sexual women having serious fucking issues with lack of sexual desire'' topics so people can go and read the replies all in one place? Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 @UncommonNonsense Yah, it doesn't jump start anyones desire, it just makes it easier to get an erection. It could do the same thing for women if their arousal lacked due to blood flow but that's actually not the typical reason females can lack a sex-drive. The blue pill was actually advertised for women at one point but that failed because for females it's not blood flow based (or testosterone based for that matter, but the pill doesn't have that in it). Though sexual arousal is what triggers sexual attraction in sexual people so if they're able to get fully aroused due to better blood flow then that could be why people interpret it as a sex-drive increaser; getting a boner at every slight arousal an then desiring sex; and males already easily get boners. They don't know what causes it in women so that's why there's never been a pill for women until now, but this actually alters the brain so who knows what else it would do to you, eep. I wonder if this would just increase an asexuals libido. What if it doesn't work for alot of women because of that lol. Heh, that shouldn't be funny though, they've probably gone through alot to jump to that kind of pill. But the trial results actually said it hardly works; it just increased their desire for sex by one (i.e. if they had sex once a month it only increased it to two and never continued to increase). Link to post Share on other sites
ShyFeather Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I'm more concerned about the marketing of the product. Viagra already overstates what their product can do in order to make more money. If flibanserin ends up having construed advertising too, the regular layman may come to think that this pill can fix any women's sex "problems", even sexuality. Many people's first reaction to asexuality is that it's a disorder so I worry this will socially be prescribed as a cure, even if medically this is incorrect. Not that this shouldn't be a choice for those who need it, but it may well have repercussions on what our culture thinks about what is natural and unnatural sexually. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I wonder if this would just increase an asexuals libido. What if it doesn't work for alot of women because of that lol. Heh, that shouldn't be funny though, they've probably gone through alot to jump to that kind of pill. I have taken medication (zyban) that increased my libido tenfold, but it didn't make me any less asexual (I was just a really horny asexual). I don't really get what you're saying in your comment (can't make it make sense in my brain) but yeah, if you're asexual, no matter how much you are able to increase your libido it won't make you desire partnered sex any more than if you had no libido. I am actually wondering how many sexual women having distress in this way have heard of Zyban (Wellbutrin) .. It's known to make many people who take it exceptionally frisky, and it's been around for a while so the side-effects etc are better documented. Not sure I went off on that topic, procrastinating about cooking dinner I guess. I'm more concerned about the marketing of the product. Viagra already overstates what their product can do in order to make more money. If flibanserin ends up having construed advertising too, the regular layman may come to think that this pill can fix any women's sex "problems", even sexuality. Many people's first reaction to asexuality is that it's a disorder so I worry this will socially be prescribed as a cure, even if medically this is incorrect. Not that this shouldn't be a choice for those who need it, but it may well have repercussions on what our culture thinks about what is natural and unnatural sexually. As I have said in many other topics, how many asexual men have Viagra forced on them repeatedly? Seriously how many? .. Sure many are encouraged to get their hormones checked, but I have never actually heard one account of a happily asexual male being forced to take Viagra (I am sure there are some isolated cases of this, but yeah, not enough that I have ever heard of them) .. The asexual community has just blown this whole issue way out of proportion. If you have such a serious issue with this because you think it may be forced on happily asexual women, then you need to take issue with Viagra as well. I mean, technically it would have just as much potential to utterly destroy the lives of happily asexual people, which is what many here seem to think this drug will do to asexual women... somehow utterly destroy their lives due to it being forced on them. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 The drug has been found to be ineffective in many cases, and also has been shown to have rather a lot of side-effects, so doctors won't just hand them out like candy, believe you me. Viagra can cause heart attack. That hasn't stopped doctors from handing those pills out like candy. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 :D like antidepressants from family doctors. @Panficto Um, maybe knowing this will make my comment make sense? The pill alters the brain to make them "desire sex more" but we don't know if they're talking about their libido or their actual desire for sex increasing. Link to post Share on other sites
dash Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Even if it's true that asexual men have not been prescribed Viagra in droves, that does not mean that asexual women wouldn't face different pressures to try this pill to "fix" their brain chemistry. I'm not convinced that the medical establishment will treat men and women the same when it comes to low sexual interest. (They may, they may not.) Also, Viagra etc. are different. They treat blood flow problems. Men who take these drugs desire sex already, but physically can't do it. They're not really "desire" pills, at least not directly. Not quite sure how that factors in here, except to show that these two pills are different -- they have different mechanisms, and treat different issues. (There have been repeated comparisons.) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I dont understand the whole circus around this topic. People are old and wise enough to decide whats good for them so if there are (a)sexual woman who like to use a viagra pill to boost theyre low libido then good for them its theyre life, theyre choice plus they are responsible for theyre own health. Every drug has a leaflet included in the package and you can read it online so its theyre responsibility to read the leaflet before they use it and if not then the consequences are theyrs and not ours.Saying that they rather shouldve spend theyre money on finding a cure for cancer is a bit harsh because we dont know if there are people who struggle daily with a low libido and if this is the solution: Good for them! I personally would never try such a dangerous thing but like i said before people are responsible for theyre own health and its theyre life they are playing with if that pill really is that "dangerous". Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 The drug has been found to be ineffective in many cases, and also has been shown to have rather a lot of side-effects, so doctors won't just hand them out like candy, believe you me. Viagra can cause heart attack. That hasn't stopped doctors from handing those pills out like candy. Viagra is known to be extremely effective, big difference. Link to post Share on other sites
Member54880 Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I'm aware that the drug is intended for women who are seriously distressed over losing their desire for sex, but I'm concerned about how the drug would be marketed. It wouldn't be a problem if it's very clearly marketed only towards that specific group, but how it would be marketed is a concern especially since there still isn't a lot of visibility for asexuality in mainstream society. I wouldn't want the drug and how it's marketed to reinforce the idea that low sexual desire is always a disease, because it could lead to women who aren't distressed over low desire, being pressured into taking the drug by their partners, or due to the stigma of low sexual desire. Among the women who'd be at risk of that happening are those who are asexual, but they and their partner don't know it. Link to post Share on other sites
chromanebula Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I'm aware that the drug is intended for women who are seriously distressed over losing their desire for sex, but I'm concerned about how the drug would be marketed. It wouldn't be a problem if it's very clearly marketed only towards that specific group, but how it would be marketed is a concern especially since there still isn't a lot of visibility for asexuality in mainstream society. I wouldn't want the drug and how it's marketed to reinforce the idea that low sexual desire is always a disease, because it could lead to women who aren't distressed over low desire, being pressured into taking the drug by their partners, or due to the stigma of low sexual desire. Among the women who'd be at risk of that happening are those who are asexual, but they and their partner don't know it. Can I give you multiple thumbs-up?? :D Link to post Share on other sites
bittersweet988 Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Just another way to convince asexual women they are not "normal" and need to be cured just because they have low sex drive. Why is it so hard for sexual people to understand that there's nothing wrong with being asexual and that in most cases it doesn't have anything to do with mental/physical problems? This kind of things really annoys me... Link to post Share on other sites
Hazelton Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I bet they make them pink because obvious. Link to post Share on other sites
012 Posted August 22, 2015 Author Share Posted August 22, 2015 Agree with ShyFeather and Aqua-ace, it's treating a "condition" that's normal for some people (through natural aging process or asexuality) like it's some sort of physical malady that has to be fixed. And for the record I think Viagra is pretty stupid. I actually wish I had that "problem" (easy excuse). Side note, there's nothing more uncomfortable than a very detailed Viagra commercial coming on TV when there's a child in the room (FCC where are you?). Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Part of the definition of HSDD is that the patient is distressed by it - in other words, they're the ones saying it's a problem. It might be because they want to be sexual for their own benefit, or it's problem in their relationship causing distress. I agree with Aqua's point about the general affect, and the pharmaceutical company clearly is producing it because they sense a profit, but there's a legitimate demand for it. If the patient doesn't feel it's a problem, it's not going to be forced on them. Link to post Share on other sites
praetorius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I think the real problem here is that pharmaceutical companies are allowed to have advertising departments. Taking complex medical issues with serious health repercussions and boiling them down to a catchy slogan and a cute mascot is not beneficial to society --- these are decisions that should be made between highly trained medical professionals and self-motivated patients, not between random TV watchers and the multi-billion-dollar propaganda tentacles of megacorporations. In my opinion, all marketing of drugs should be strictly banned (with comprehensive oversight); information about drugs should go in a "boring" publicly available database of peer-reviewed-research results on medication effects. Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 You mean like the exact situation we have in the UK.... Link to post Share on other sites
praetorius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 You mean like the exact situation we have in the UK.... That would be a significant improvement, but better would not be an "exact" copy. For example, marketing to doctors should also be banned. There should be a complete "firewall" between corporations researching/manufacturing/selling drugs, and those prescribing/researching them, with information passed between only in tightly regulated "scientific facts" form (not chummy relations and perks/bribes between doctors and pharma reps). Also, tighter regulation on propaganda through "informal" channels, such as internet discussions. A drug company should not have any institutional divisions or people involved in marketing, and strict (criminal) liability for conflicts of interest in employees pushing drugs. Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Actually that's far more tightly regulated than it used to be too. No more freebie 'research cruises' for example. What gets published, even academically, is more of a problem, and disseminating it to busy doctors so they actually read it, and the NHS buying policies. Ben Goldacre's blog and books are very good on this. Link to post Share on other sites
dash Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I'm aware that the drug is intended for women who are seriously distressed over losing their desire for sex, but I'm concerned about how the drug would be marketed. It wouldn't be a problem if it's very clearly marketed only towards that specific group, but how it would be marketed is a concern especially since there still isn't a lot of visibility for asexuality in mainstream society. I wouldn't want the drug and how it's marketed to reinforce the idea that low sexual desire is always a disease, because it could lead to women who aren't distressed over low desire, being pressured into taking the drug by their partners, or due to the stigma of low sexual desire. Among the women who'd be at risk of that happening are those who are asexual, but they and their partner don't know it. I think more to the point is that women who aren't distressed about it could become distressed, due to how their partners, peers and family treat them. We all know how many ace people got comments from people when that "House" episode came out. If there is a marketing campaign targeting women with low sexual interest, there could be a flood of concerned, "Hey, maybe you should try out this pill," from friends and family who saw the ads. (Not saying doctors. Doctors may know better.) Link to post Share on other sites
sestina Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 If there is a marketing campaign targeting women with low sexual interest, there could be a flood of concerned, "Hey, maybe you should try out this pill," from friends and family who saw the ads. (Not saying doctors. Doctors may know better.) I wouldn't be so sure. What I am most concerned about is my doctor trying to convince me that I need this medication. Trying to convince me that I really am distressed but just don't realize it yet. The medical community does not have a good track record of dealing with those who fall outside of their norms. Link to post Share on other sites
dash Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 If there is a marketing campaign targeting women with low sexual interest, there could be a flood of concerned, "Hey, maybe you should try out this pill," from friends and family who saw the ads. (Not saying doctors. Doctors may know better.) I wouldn't be so sure. What I am most concerned about is my doctor trying to convince me that I need this medication. Trying to convince me that I really am distressed but just don't realize it yet. The medical community does not have a good track record of dealing with those who fall outside of their norms. That's all true. But at least in my situation, it would be easier to tell a doctor to shove off, and get another doctor, than it would be to deal with a collective onslaught of pressure from peers, family, and others. I don't want to come out as ace somewhere and suddenly get, "Hey, did you hear about that new pill?" I don't want conversation around the dinner table to be, "Hey, did you hear about that pill? You don't have sex, maybe that pill is for you." My immediate family knows me well enough not to do this, but this isn't the case for everyone, or for all of my extended family. Link to post Share on other sites
NoTonguePleaseThankYou Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 This is part of why I only realized I'm ace so late... I had pretty much figured that MOST people had low or no sex drive, otherwise why would they be spending billions on porn, Viagra, sex toys, and lingerie? I'll take a pass on female Viagra, I'm just so happy I figured out I'm ace that I'm going to enjoy that reality for the rest of my days Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 What I am most concerned about is my doctor trying to convince me that I need this medication. Why would she, if you don't raise it as a problem? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.