There's this new drug, Flibanserin, that was a failed antidepressant but looks like it might have marginally more success at increasing the number of 'satisfying sexual events' in women with low libidos. Not really sure what that means; it doesn't work the same as Viagra, which is more mechanical than psychological. Don't know if the mechanism is known yet. - Now of course here's where the brutes joke along the lines of how such a drug ought to be forced on all women, so now that that obviousness is out of the way and the more clever among them might refrain . . . - The FDA is in the process of deciding whether to approve the drug. Some asexuals/nonsexuals are trying to campaign against its approval. It's a troubling thing for the many of us who are happy with being the way we are. The drug comes with a massive ad campaign aimed at medicalizing and pathologizing something that falls under normal human sexual diversity, and something that's really not that bad - hell, someone who doesn't have sex is going to have a way lower chance at getting various diseases, unwanted or problematic pregnancies, harms physical, mental, and social . . . we're probably healthier this way. If there's a drug to 'treat' asexuality, people might use backwards logic and think 'there's a treatment for people like you, so therefore you must be diseased'. It's long been a thought experiment on gay people to ask them, if there were a pill that would make them heterosexual, would they take it? Some say yes, some say no, some ask if there's also magic pill to make society just stop hating on them so much. And just as it's easy for some heterosexuals to declare homosexuals aberrant, and unhealthy, and wrong, so too is it easy for many sexuals to disparage and pathologize asexuals. Fortunately for homosexuals in many places it is no longer fashionable to think of them in such a way. Asexuals still have a ways to go. But there are still homosexuals who wish that they were not homosexual, and who submit themselves to cults or programs or others who promise to 'cure' them. The sorts who are all for sexual diversity abhor such institutions and take every opportunity to show how they don't work or are harmful or should be banned. But they're also the sorts who would see this drug as being all about 'liberalizing female sexuality and be all for 'treating' asexuality with it. I know there are some people who are troubled by their low libidos, who wish there was a pill that could make it all better. So I don't think they should be denied access to such a pill if they want it and can afford it. But I wish it wouldn't also come with a message that says I'm diseased.
I haven’t seen the advertising for this, but it seems to me you’d have to try really, really hard to see it as some sort of attack on the asexual, except insofar as the pharmaceutical industry would like to divide the entire human race into “niche markets” for its products, especially SSRIs, which is all this is.
Yeah Im not seeing this as an attack. Actually I'm seeing it as an aid. For instance; You have a couple. Madly in love. Married for a coons age. At one time they both had the same sex drive. But as time has gone on the wife's drive has diminished for one reason or the other. The husband on the other hand is still at the level that he was at. This upsets her. She doesn't want to be like this. She want's to be at the level she was at. She doesn't know why this change happened. So for this type of example a pill like this could very well be beneficial for her at least as far as her mental health goes.
Honestly it depends on the cause of it. The analogy to homosexuality doesn't really work because I am not aware of any medication that changes the sexual orientation of people. On the other hand there are many medications on the market that are already known to reduce or increase sexual libido as a side effect. So a loss of libido is much more likely to have some external cause.
Eh. Even if this were some intentional attack on the asexual/nonsexual -- which it's clearly not -- no one is forcing anyone to take this drug. Those who are happy being asexual/nonsexual would have nothing to worry about really. Maybe there might be a smidgen more pressure to take this drug, but that is a drop in the ocean compared to all the peer and societal pressure that already exists to be "normal" when it comes to sexuality.
Okay I'll admit I'm not up to date when it comes to the asexual community but is the topic of biological success ever discussed?
Sounds similar to the deaf community's resistance to cochlear implants. And believe you me, as awesome as hearing is, it's nothing next to an orgasm.
And also the lack of a sexual orientation. That's an odd question. Assuming you mean biological success in the sense of passing on your genes in the form of as many spawn as possible? Obviously "biological success" doesn't rank very highly in the priorities of an asexual. What's there to discuss about it?
For what it's worth, *true* low female libido is usually due to, of all things, low testosterone levels. This drug is just a "Geez, honey, I know you work full time and drive the kids to soccer and cook and clean and balance the checkbook and do damn near everything else while I sit here watching the game, but maybe if you CALM DOWN we can have sex once in a while" pill. The mechanism of action is about equivalent to a coupla glasses of wine.
What? Speak up -- I couldn't hear you over telling my doctor to fuck off with those cochlear implants! Being deaf would suck for me. Always wondered how Beethoven coped while composing.
Actually I was referring to the ability to produce fertile offspring. C'mon, a little introspection is common to everyone. Again I'm not familiar with any sort of asexual community, I'm curious about their thoughts on human reproduction, evolutionary and otherwise.
Then don't take it. Like Garamet said, this pill doesn't really adress the issues that usually cause women to have lowered sex drives in the first place. If you're truly asexual, it's probably not going to be of much help to you anyways.
It seems to me that the FDA should not consider this counter argument seriously. If the drug us safe and effective, it should be allowed to market and those that chose to utilize it will, and those that don't, won't. Why limit someone else's choice because of silly preconcieved notions in your head or someone else's insecurities?
