Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Flibanserin.

[Latvia]

I DON'T think this drug is any danger to asexuality as a legit orientation, as long as we're able to properly define it. Plenty of asexuals have high libidos, yes? Then the drug, if it does its job, would be of no use to them anyway. And hasn't asexuality been defined as a lack of sexual attraction? If you're not attracted to something, no drug is going to fix that. There's no pill to make gay men attracted to women, and there's not one to make people not attracted to anyone attracted to someone.

[prettyeyes]

Totally agree with this... It's sexual tyranny of women in a new disguise. Signed and posted on my face book.

This. I'm sorry but as someone who constantly faces doctors trying to push me on psychotropic drugs for problems that have never been proven to be helped much by them... I do not like the idea of what will assuredly happen once this drug is approved. People might start pressuring their partners to get on it, doctors will start pressuring people to get on it, and quite frankly the last thing I want is to come out of the closet as an asexual only to hear, "Oh yeah there's a medication for that, why aren't you on it?!" (Even though asexuality isn't a libido problem, most people who aren't educated on it seem to think it is.)

[michaeld]

This. I'm sorry but as someone who constantly faces doctors trying to push me on psychotropic drugs for problems that have never been proven to be helped much by them... I do not like the idea of what will assuredly happen once this drug is approved. People might start pressuring their partners to get on it, doctors will start pressuring people to get on it, and quite frankly the last thing I want is to come out of the closet as an asexual only to hear, "Oh yeah there's a medication for that, why aren't you on it?!" (Even though asexuality isn't a libido problem, most people who aren't educated on it seem to think it is.)

Yep. These are all very serious potential problems. However these are our problems, and they can be solved by simply standing up for ourselves. On the other hand, if we stop the drug being available, simply because we find its existence inconvenient, then people who might benefit from it will be denied the choice that we have.

(And again, this is independent of the merits or lack thereof of the drug, which I'm not qualilfied to assess. If it's risky and only of marginal benefit then arguably that's a good enough reason for it not to be available, independent of asexuality.)

[Lord Happy Toast]

If our "self-preservation" is at the expense of other people then they have every reason to oppose us or have nothing to do with us.

We're not doing this at the expense of other people. People who aren't asexual would likely be much more harmed by approving it than the asexual community. The benefit of this drug is minimal (see numbers in an above post of mine), but the potential for harm is great--it costs money, there are possible side effects, there will be lots of effort to convince the general public that not being interested in sex is a serious disorder, lots of partners will pressure people into taking this drug. Long term safety is unknown. These are some very serious risks that simply are not outweighed by the incredibly small benefits.

[michaeld]

If our "self-preservation" is at the expense of other people then they have every reason to oppose us or have nothing to do with us.

We're not doing this at the expense of other people.

I was answering Noskcaj.Llahsram's original point. See below.

But is it really ethical to attempt to stomp out a product that could potentially help a great many people who really are in distress because of their low sexual appetites? Let's not forget that the amount of people who wish they could be more interested in sex for any reason is most likely far greater than our "1%" of the population, which I assume are the ones you're implying might be offended by this product's ad campaign.

At this point I don't think that we should look at this ethically. As a group we are still infantile, with respect to power or influence, if something like this drug we're to reach the open market, with the type of pushing new psycho-pharmaceuticals receive, we'd be smothered by it in the social consciousness. We would all of a sudden be further back from any goal than we ever were.

We need to be selfish for a little bit and concentrate on self preservation, even if it is a inconvenience to the population at large

People who aren't asexual would likely be much more harmed by approving it than the asexual community. The benefit of this drug is minimal (see numbers in an above post of mine), but the potential for harm is great--it costs money, there are possible side effects,

Then that may be a good enough reason for opposing it. I'd have to see more information about the risks.

there will be lots of effort to convince the general public that not being interested in sex is a serious disorder,

Not being interested in sex can be a genuine disorder. It just isn't always.

[Noskcaj.Llahsram]

what I meant was even though we as a group have more or less being entirely able to divorce libido from sexual attraction, but much of society has not. And we still get linked in their mind to something that can be cured by a pill.

[michaeld]

what I meant was even though we as a group have more or less being entirely able to divorce libido from sexual attraction, but much of society has not. And we still get linked in their mind to something that can be cured by a pill.

So then, the worst thing we can do is to perpetuate this misconception by campaigning against drugs for treating low libido because we think it would be bad for our asexual movement.

[Siggy]

I've changed my mind and signed the petition.

Flibanserin is meant to treat libido. But as Noskcaj just said, we may distinguish between libido and sexual attraction, but much of society does not. Most importantly, the people selling this drug do not make the distinction.

As one of Mandrewliter's links explains, the researchers defined sexual desire as having three components: Drive, Belief & Values, and Motivation. Flibanserin only treats Drive (libido), so by their definition, it treats sexual desire.

The drug is intended to treat HSDD, hypoactive sexual desire disorder. As the asexual community knows better than anyone else, the HSDD is a poorly thought out "disorder". Though it may include some people who could benefit from treatment, it also includes some asexuals, and likely many more. Because of the sloppiness of the definition of HSDD, Flibanserin will not just be given to people with libido problems, but also to the many other people who fit under HSDD.

I believe that the FDA is better equipped than I am to judge the benefits and risks of the drug to the individual. However, I believe they should also consider the larger risks of the drug when applied to society. In particular, the drug will be given to many people who do not have libido problems, but are diagnosed with HSDD due to its currently sloppy definition. Furthermore, the marketers of the drug will work to broaden and popularize the HSDD diagnosis. This should not happen until we get a proper definition for HSDD.

According to the studies, Flibanserin appears to have negligible benefits, even to those who really do have libido problems. This negligible benefit does not outweigh the risk of wrongly prescribing the drug to many other people.

Finally, the New View Campaign (they're the ones organizing the petition) claims that they will present the petition at the FDA hearing. So the FDA will at least be made aware of the petition.

[oneofthesun]

I wasn't thinking about the impacts on the asexual community when I signed the petition... If libido were the issue, then we should have the same complaints about Viagra. I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women.

[Sally]

I believe that the FDA is better equipped than I am to judge the benefits and risks of the drug to the individual. However, I believe they should also consider the larger risks of the drug when applied to society. In particular, the drug will be given to many people who do not have libido problems, but are diagnosed with HSDD due to its currently sloppy definition. Furthermore, the marketers of the drug will work to broaden and popularize the HSDD diagnosis. This should not happen until we get a proper definition for HSDD.

That would be very good if the FDA did judge the effect on society, but they are not charged to do so. There have been many, many drugs that have been approved for the market that are marketed to encourage overuse and inappropriate use, or are actually dangerous (Viagra and drugs like it are extremely dangerous for men with diagnosed or undiagnosed heart problems, and hormone replacement therapy was aggressively marketed long after there were problems with its use).

I hate to see people spending time doing something that will have no effect. But will say no more.

[Lord Happy Toast]

I hate to see people spending time doing something that will have no effect. But will say no more.

I figure a lot of the things we do don't have much effect. I'm not holding my breath in thinking that this petition will make a huge difference, but, combined with a bunch of other things, I can imagine that it could possibly have some effect. The authors of it were successful in preventing the first HSDD med from getting FDA approval.

Besides, it does seem to be creating some interesting discussion about surrounding issues, and a number of people (myself included) are becoming more informed.

[PiF]

I wasn't thinking about the impacts on the asexual community when I signed the petition... If libido were the issue, then we should have the same complaints about Viagra. I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women.

zzzz..all the women I've met are more than capable of saying....no

sometimes if they just stopped at that I would be more than happy

o..sorry ..i forgot no women work at corporations..typical anti men comments are getting so boring

[Latvia]

I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women.

....how? If there's a legitimate argument here I'd like to hear it, but right now it just looks like another case of people hearing "women" and "sex" in the same sentence and freaking out.

[Noskcaj.Llahsram]

what I meant was even though we as a group have more or less being entirely able to divorce libido from sexual attraction, but much of society has not. And we still get linked in their mind to something that can be cured by a pill.

So then, the worst thing we can do is to perpetuate this misconception by campaigning against drugs for treating low libido because we think it would be bad for our asexual movement.

If you disagree, or are simply playing devils advocate; either I can respect and both are valid functions of a dialogue. But I have to say that the the worst thing as a group is nothing. For or against the drug you should make you opinions known about how this relates to the asexy community.

no matter which way this thing goes it is a prime opportunity to get our name out there

[Blerdivor]

I don't plan on concerning myself with what pills other people may or may not want to take. It's not like the will be forced on those that don't want them.

[ily]

On the bright side, if there IS an aggressive marketing campaign about how low sexual desire is this horrendous thing, maybe asexuals can get greater publicity by speaking out against it.

[Prismatangle]

I don't plan on concerning myself with what pills other people may or may not want to take. It's not like the will be forced on those that don't want them.

See, that's where you're wrong.

You might want to check out some of the posts on Fugitivus, first source that comes to mind, really, but certainly a good one. The author is a woman who experienced years of sexual coercion and marital rape, which is one situation in which such a pill might be forced on a person who doesn't want it.

An example I’ve used on this blog often is the sex I used to have with my ex-husband. There were multiple times I said yes, only because I felt if I said no, sex would still happen. Sex that happens after I say no would have been rape, and I didn’t want to be a rape victim. So I said “yes,” because then it wouldn’t be rape. That’s not really consent — that was me attempting to minimize the danger I was in. Had I lived in a culture where there was a much higher chance of seeing a rapist sent to jail, a culture where I did not suspect reporting that my husband had raped me would get me laughed out of a police station, a culture where I would have had friends and family supporting me instead of saying, “But he didn’t hit you, right? Well, then, I don’t really see…” — basically, had I not lived in a rape culture, that might have significantly impacted my “choice” to have sex.

From way down in the comments on this post.

One thing I would have expected people in the asexual community to realize and be concerned about is that there is a LOT of cultural pressure put on whichever partner has the lowest sex drive. We know that lots of people think that in a romantic relationship, especially a marriage, it is your duty to have sex. We know that lots and lots of people don't even consider a relationship romantic unless sex is involved (or at least expected to be involved). We know this. I'm sure we know this.

I've seen discussions about this before (not started by me, although I seem to be doing most of that lately--I think there was a good one on Apositive a few years ago? but I don't really remember where I saw it, if anyone can provide a link that would be awesome). So I'm sure that some of us have connected the dots. I didn't bother to elaborate on them when I originally forwarded the link, because I figured most of my blog readers have some idea by now about rape culture and sexual coercion and are at least somewhat concerned about it, if not for their own sake then for the sake of others. And I didn't have much time, as I said before.

It happens sometimes that a couple will go to counseling because they have unequal "sex drives" (sexual appetite is not really a drive), and the person with the lower drive might be diagnosed with HSDD... except that there really is nothing wrong with that person, they are just responding to PRESSURE to have sex (even pressure that's not anywhere near as severe as what Harriet J describes, in what is otherwise a loving relationship) by shutting down... which is normal and should be expected. (Pressure is one of the quickest ways to kill a person's interest in sex.) It's something that only becomes a problem within that specific relationship. But rather than fixing the dynamics of the relationship that are causing the less-interested partner to shut down, they focus on "fixing" the person. The less interested person. Because everybody knows it's a huge problem if you don't want sex, because people are meant to want it.

If there is a drug that is heavily marketed to women who have low libido, (in which case, yeah, it's not really an equivalent of Viagra), there will be people who get pressured into taking it. Some people might not even go to couple's counseling first; a woman might be coerced into just directly asking her doctor for it, or might happen to mention it and be pressured by the doctor into taking it.

But even a woman who genuinely wants to take this pill will most likely be very disappointed.

I'm not against a pill that might actually help people. But this one certainly doesn't look promising, and to push it through would be to promote the "pills cure everything" mentality that Ily was talking about upthread, while ignoring significant evidence that they can't. And yeah, this petition was created by sex therapists who would rather try to actually help people with their underlying problems than present a false cure for something that may not even be caused by something going wrong with the brain. For some people, sure, it might be something going on physiologically. But it seems that it is the opinion of these sex therapists that a lot of the time, it's not, and to treat the physiological problems while ignoring the psychological and relational ones is treating a symptom rather than the disease. I think this is a positive stance and we should support them in their effort. And besides the fact that it's just a good thing to do in general, gaining allies among sex therapists would certainly be a good way to help our cause.

I don't have much hope that the FDA will listen to this petition alone, but if it's presented to them by the sex therapists as they make their case, it might help them be more convincing. And even if they don't really listen, it's sparked a lot of discussion and spread awareness about these issues, as well as brought some visibility to asexuality, which we need as much of as we can get.

[Latvia]

Will banning the drug get those people out of their bad relationships? No. You can't ban something because SOME people might use it for something bad. People use cars as weapons, but we still drive. People beat each other with bats, but we still play baseball. Even if people are pressured to take the drug, they're already in a bad situation anyway. The drug has nothing to do with that. If you want to prevent THAT sort of situation you might as well ban sex altogether, because people are going to get pressured into it, pill or no pill.

[SpirallingSnowy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flibanserin

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/viagra-for-her-real-or-playing-on-a-new-insecurity-precision-1982482.html

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/news/20100518/female-viagra-may-treat-low-sexual-desire

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/you-it/201005/the-new-panty-dropping-pill-germany

I understand why people think its silly to object it - but without HSDD properly defined, we come back to the age old dilemma that people assume that lack of a drive means they have something WRONG with them. if they lose their drive, and want it back, sure. But there are going to women whos partners go " woohoo! solution to her not wanting any!!"who may actually be asexual..... and its also trivialising the relationship issues that can lower libido, and what about a pill for mens desire?? it assumes men dont need sexual desire fixing, cos we all know you guys want it ALL the time...... and it assumes if a woman doesnt want sex there is something wrong with him.

Regardless of whether a petition makes a difference, it is the assumptions the pharmacutical companies make, and the people who know nothing about the differnece between desire/attraction/etc that will assume that they can fix the girl not wanting to sleep with them, with a shiny pink pill.....I would like to think that a woman could say no i dont want sex - without the medical professionals, pharmacuticals, and general public going - well we have a pill for that.

Its that age old debate - if there was a pill that "cured" asexuality, would you take it - a fair few of us say hell no. some say yes. same would go for this little pink pill. Not all women with low libidos think its an issue, even if they are sexual. Depending on the delivery method, or the coating of the tablet - it could potentially be slipped into drinks. Youve read the stories of people poisoning their partners over long periods of time?? Same could be done with this.

Im not saying the FDA shouldnt approve it - hell FDA approval doesnt directly affect me in Aus. The GP guidelines etc need to be scrutinised so abuse cant occur, so it is available to those who it could help - and knowing the side effects - and isnt used to exploit women/asexuals/low libido women who dont care to improve their libido etc.

More and more people are going to the doctors with the assumption the doctor can fix the problem. Sometimes its just the way ppl are made. For eg i am anaemic, however the doctors have ruled out all the usual causes for anaemia and a fair few uncommon ones. Still waiting on results from DNA testing for thalassemia, and results from a bone marrow biopsy. And the only reason ive gone through all this - The Red Cross wouldnt take my blood cos it was a smidge low in haemoglobin....... and the doc called me the other day and said nothing abnormal came up in the bone marrow biopsy.

If the DNA comes back normal, Then im just anaemic. They cant work out why it is, its just how my blood works. There is no magical pill to fix it, i can never give blood, and everytime i get blood tested somewhere new im going to be asked questions.

My point is - the docs dont think im sick, the blood work comes back normal, but there is still an anomoly that doesnt really bother me. Its just how my blood is, it has a small quirk, that has no known cause, and its just a bit different to others.

People are going to make the assumption that the differences in womens drive are actually a problem and try and fix anyone who drive is lower than whats considered normal, women whos husbands think they dont want it enough will encourage them to go see the doc, women will wonder if they are normal and unless strict guidlines are in place, it would be up the doctor to define what normal is.

But it might just be normal for them, and we shouldnt be trying to make ppl feel that just because they are differnet they are sick.

There are lots of reasons why women lose drive, this is a niche med for a niche market and shouldnt be available to just any person, or forced upon someone..... i guess thats the worry.

[michaeld]

and what about a pill for mens desire?? it assumes men dont need sexual desire fixing, cos we all know you guys want it ALL the time......

I would feel the same way; a pill for increasing men's desires should be approved or disapproved on the basis of whether or not its benefits outweigh its risks, not disapproved simply because I might find it inconvenient to have to face people nagging me to take it. I can't justifiably tell all the men who'd want to take it "no you can't take it, because I'm not strong enough to say no, and therefore the decision has to be made for me and everyone else."

Its that age old debate - if there was a pill that "cured" asexuality, would you take it - a fair few of us say hell no. some say yes.

I would say hell no. But I'd also be in favour of the pill being available, even despite the fact its existence would be personally inconvenient in that

(1) I would probably come under pressure to take it and

(2) it may well cause the asexual community to shrink, making me more alone in my sexual orientation.

Neither of those things gives me the right to stop people who want to become sexual.

[Kelly]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flibanserin

Interesting. It states:

Some have argued that Female Sexual Dysfunction is merely Disease Mongering [7] and a ploy to expand a market for sex drugs for women and to medicalize women's sexuality. [8]

The two references point to:

Female Sexual Dysfunction: A Case Study of Disease Mongering and Activist Resistance

The creation and promotion of “female sexual dysfunction” (FSD) is a textbook case of disease mongering by the pharmaceutical industry and by other agents of medicalization, such as health and science journalists, healthcare professionals, public relations and advertising firms, contract research organizations, and others in the “medicalization industry.” Whether one relies on Lynn Payer's original definition of disease mongering (“trying to convince essentially well people that they are sick, or slightly sick people that they are very ill” [1]), her checklist (Box 1), or the analysis of our pill-popping society that was recently offered by Greg Critser [2], the sequence of events and cast of participants involved in FSD matches the classic disease-mongering tactics [1, 2].

And:

The ‘Pinking’ of Viagra Culture: Drug Industry Efforts to Create and Repackage Sex Drugs for Women

This essay will describe how the success of Viagra stimulated drug companies to create a women's sexual condition comparable to erectile problems in men for which they could market new sex drugs to women. The heart of the article focuses on two interrelated aspects of Viagra culture playing out in drug industry efforts to create and expand a market for sex drugs for women: (1) the industry's ‘Hunt for the Pink Viagra’ to treat the ‘disease’ of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), and (2) the prescription and promotion of off-label uses of men's sex drugs to women. In order to contextualize these two trends, the article outlines key activities and actions that have enabled the drug industry to consolidate power and build capacity in this area, including: mass dissemination of estimates of disease prevalence; the institutionalization of FSD in academic circles, which includes strategic revision of disease definitions as well as the creation of a legitimized infrastructure for dissemination of supporting research and education; and public-relations stimulated mainstream media coverage. The article concludes with a consideration of the ongoing challenges to the medicalization of women's sexuality as well as to harmful corporate practices more broadly.

[Blerdivor]

Hmm...there seems to be a lot going on about coercion and pressure. There already so much of that going on. Odds are, somethings influencing everyone of you right now whether or not you're aware of it. And the reason you're doing something is because of some sort of subtle pressure. (If you deny it your lying to yourself). Saying an [insert specific product] shouldn't be available because of pressure to use it. Also the whole pill popping culture is hardly the pandemic people seem to think it is.

[PiF]

they should ban mcdonalds moca frappe....i'm pressured into drinking it

[GirlDreamer]

I´m not signing this. Granted, I haven´t read all the information. But there´s people out there who are sexually attracted to other people and that have a huge problem with having a low libido, so why should we stop them getting the help they need and want? I think it´s selfish for us to deny them that, just to prove that asexualiy isn´t a disease. It´s better for us to just work harder to make people aware that asexuality exists and that it´s not a disease! And it would also help to make people in the health care system aware so they can prescribe the drug to the right people.

[sinisterporpoise]

Is it really a good idea to encourage the FDA to cave into political pressure to not approve a drug? The people who started this petition are targeting the wrong group. And encouraging it only encourages other inappropriate behavior. The effects on society are not the concern of this agency. They should be more concerned about whether or not the drug is safe for individual use.

There's no need for activim here until the drug is approved. Then, go after the people truely responsible, the marketing department of the company.

[Prismatangle]

Will banning the drug get those people out of their bad relationships? No. You can't ban something because SOME people might use it for something bad. People use cars as weapons, but we still drive. People beat each other with bats, but we still play baseball. Even if people are pressured to take the drug, they're already in a bad situation anyway. The drug has nothing to do with that. If you want to prevent THAT sort of situation you might as well ban sex altogether, because people are going to get pressured into it, pill or no pill.

I'll agree that SOME amount of rape and coercion is unavoidable. However, you seem to think that ALL of it is unavoidable, which is not true. Rapists are not pathological people whose behavior cannot be corrected. A lot of them are NORMAL MEN who do not realize that what they are doing is wrong because they have been taught that it is okay. If we focus our efforts on teaching people that it's WRONG to pressure people into sex, and especially to proceed after a person has said no (as well as to explicitly seek verbal consent), we can SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the number of rapes that happen. A lot of them happen because men (and people in general, honestly) are taught to believe that "no" does not always mean no, that providing sex is a relationship duty, and that not wanting sex = disorder, dysfunction, disability.

Honestly, your comparison is asinine because you seem not to realize the extent to which this kind of coercion pervades society. It is seen as normal and right, and you saying that it can't be changed only buys into that mentality. Do you have absolutely no faith in people's ability to control their sexual urges? They can. But a lot of people just think it's right that people should want sex (regardless of context), so there's something wrong with a person who doesn't. And to promote a drug that has such a marginal and negligible rate of success, a high drop-out rate due to the side effects in clinical trials, and little thought behind how female sexuality actually works is only going to magnify the social problems while doing little (if anything at all) to benefit people who might actually want to take the drug. (And as we have seen already in this thread, there are people who won't bother go and read up on it on their own before taking it. LOTS of people. They trust what they are told without looking into it, and there will be a massive campaign to get people to take the drug which won't be presenting an educational perspective.)

I certainly hope that the FDA doesn't approve this drug on the basis that it doesn't work, more than anything else. But I think that even if THEY aren't concerned with the effect on society that it might have, WE should be--and not just the effect it has on asexuals, I mean society as a WHOLE. We should be spreading awareness about such issues even if there is little chance of making any official impact. By advocating for it not to be approved, we end up educating other people about it, and that is the main benefit of promoting this petition, to my mind.

[PiF]

See, that's where you're wrong.

You might want to check out some of the posts on Fugitivus, first source that comes to mind, really, but certainly a good one. The author is a woman who experienced years of sexual coercion and marital rape,

Rapists are not pathological people whose behavior cannot be corrected. A lot of them are NORMAL MEN who do not realize that what they are doing is wrong because they have been taught that it is okay

one of the sun...."Totally agree with this... It's sexual tyranny of women in a new disguise. Signed and posted on my face book. "

I must admit I'm getting quite fucked off at the way one or two individuals always try and turn any opportunity into a man hating thread..the thread was about possible medication and now it's about the rape and sexual tyranny of women??? wtf

is aven being allowed to turn into a man hating forum now as well as fucking facebook?

[Prismatangle]

See, that's where you're wrong.

You might want to check out some of the posts on Fugitivus, first source that comes to mind, really, but certainly a good one. The author is a woman who experienced years of sexual coercion and marital rape,

Rapists are not pathological people whose behavior cannot be corrected. A lot of them are NORMAL MEN who do not realize that what they are doing is wrong because they have been taught that it is okay

one of the sun...."Totally agree with this... It's sexual tyranny of women in a new disguise. Signed and posted on my face book. "

I must admit I'm getting quite fucked off at the way one or two individuals always try and turn any opportunity into a man hating thread..the thread was about possible medication and now it's about the rape and sexual tyranny of women??? wtf

is aven being allowed to turn into a man hating forum now as well as fucking facebook?

I don't see how any of my comments constitute "man-hating." I think it is actually MORE man-hating to think that men cannot control their sexual urges than to expect them to be able to do so. Men are not animals, they are people. They are not stupid, they can refrain from coercive and destructive behavior. However, society goes to great pains to teach people that men are just stupid sexual animals, that they always want sex and cannot control their urges for it. I was commenting on how wrong that is. The burden to "fix yourself" is almost invariably on the partner with the lower interest in sex (which for some reason is almost invariably assumed to be women). Why is that?

[PiF]

I don't see how any of my comments constitute "man-hating."

clearly

the same way one of the suns message of ...."Totally agree with this... It's sexual tyranny of women in a new disguise"... is now just an information share

do not generalise about all or most men in such a negative way then proclaim you mean nothing by it

[Latvia]

Oh yes, it's completely unavoidable, we're all going to be raped and there's nothing that can be done. That's TOTALLY what I said! <_<

Way to twist words around.

All I'm saying is that it's going to happen with or without this pill. I didn't say any of the things you just suggested, nor do I think the way you suggested I do. I'm a firm believer that sex is a want and that some people are too weak and childish to think "Well I want it, but I guess I can't have it right now." These people need to be corrected. Even without the pill, these people will find other ways to make others have sex with them. They've been doing it for years: alcohol, date rape drugs, flat out holding them down and forcing them. You can't demonize this one drug as some big horrible thing that makes people behave like that. There are women out there who really want this drug, who have hopes that maybe it will solve whatever problem they're having, but you'd take that away from them because some people might do something they've been doing without it anyway.

By the way, let's not forget that men get raped, too. Sometimes by other men, but also by women.