LIVING: Is ‘Female Viagra’ Finally On the Way?

What's the problem? Sexism. Not the "women make less than men in the same types of jobs" sexism or the "I'd rather hire a man because he won't get pregnant and quit" sexism, but a deeper, more biological and subconscious kind of sexism that exists in men AND women and in society as a whole.

If you've ever studied (or even casually glanced at an article here or there) gender roles in human sexuality, you probably know that societies all over the world, since the beginning of time, have held major double standards when it comes to women, men, and sex. Men had concubines, women could be stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage. Men who raped women had to pay her father a monetary restitution, and then her family could kill her for dishonoring them. Even today in liberated, post-feminist America, men who sleep with lots of women are masculine and cool ("Aaat's mah boy!!") and women who sleep with lots of men are loose little whores.

Sexuality and pleasure are empowering, and giving women the ability to control and maximize her sexual pleasure is threatening, on some deep, psychological, biological level to men and to the "natural order" of things. Men have to climax to make babies. Women don't. Men are stereotypically highly sexual and thus, it is acceptable for them to fulfill their needs and "spread their seed." If women were as highly sexual and received as much gratification from sex as men did, what would happen? Women running amok and acting like sexual animals! Women having sex with lots of men, being able to compare their lovers and demanding what they want sexually! Wives demanding pleasure from their husbands or - gasp - seeking the fulfillment they need elsewhere! OH THE HUMANITY!!

Again, this is obviously not a conscious thought running actively through the minds of human beings on a daily basis, but sex, rape, pleasure, fidelity, childbirth, marriage, and family have all played a huge role in shaping society as patriarchal, and things that change the way we've always done things in these arenas - particularly things that give more power and autonomy to women (remember the fight against hormonal contraceptives in the 60's?) - are almost always railed against to some degree.

It's like, totally lame. ;-)

PDennoll - I think you definitely misunderstood me. I am not opposed to medical intervention! I think this pill could be a great thing, just like I was enthusiastic about the possibilities of the testosterone patch before it (which was ruled against by the FDA), the use of Viagra in females (which was ruled against by the FDA), and at least two other hormonal and/or chemical treatments for Female Sexual Dysfunction. You know what they HAVE approved? I clitoral pump. LMAO!!

No, no, no...my point was that human sexuality, female sexuality, and gender roles are intertwined and very complex studies in the fields of medicine, biology, psychology, theology, sociology, and philosophy, and that the general attitude amongst scholars, doctors, and government entities AGAINST finding something to enhance womens' sexual pleasure and experience is a result of - basically - the patriarchal culture that has dominated nearly the entire world since the beginning of recorded human history. We saw the same sort of thing with the birth control pill when it made its debut here in America in the 60s. Certain groups RAILED against it and the FDA and the government tried repeatedly to block its approval and sale. Think about why...because once women had the power to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy, they gained independence from men. We could delay marriage and motherhood and get educations and establish careers. We could divorce our way out of marriages we were dissatisfied with more easily, thanks to being educated, having our own income, and not being saddled with 6 or 7 or 8 kids.

Similarly, this pill is a sort of affirmation of the relatively modern idea that it's OK for a woman to enjoy sex (in the past, and even today in some places, women weren't supposed to enjoy it - it was a duty, with pregnancy, not female orgasm, seen as the successful result), and it could give women a certain amount of power, control, and independence that is contrary to all that we've known and believed since the beginning of time. Put it this way - if it IS approved, I guarantee the Pope will denounce it and discourage Catholic believers from using it, LMAO.

Obviously, societal attitudes on gender roles in the context human sexuality is a subject of great interest to me - I studied it in college, I've studied it on my own, and although I consider myself reasonably intelligent and well-read on the subject, I'm NOT a biologist, sociologist, philosopher, doctor, theologian, or psychologist. So I lack the credentials and the level of education and experience to really organize and articulate my thoughts effectively, which is certainly why you misunderstood me...I'm sittin' here pontificating and spouting off like some arrogant Ph.D. on a subject that I like but only truly understand on a basic undergraduate level, LoL.

Bottom Line: YAY for research into and approval of effective solutions for Female Sexual Dysfunction. ;-)

I'm glad to hear it. I had said something relatively positive about the pill and your response sounded very negative against what I had just said.

As for this being a human sexuality issue... it is. And I could be wrong, but I always understood the opposition to birth control pills had more to do with religious and moral notions regarding contraception versus "controlling a woman's sexuality" per-se. Granted, the two notions may be irrevocably entwined, but it's useful to understand people's underlying motives before tagging them with your own. I don't think you can arbitrarily take that example and apply it to just anything.

If I'm right about motives and that's relevant it suggests that "nobody" (read: always rare exceptions) is going to be railing against a woman's pleasure. Using motives as a predictor, I say that you're just simply not going to see that. Those same religious and moral opponents of THE pill are going to embrace THIS pill for the potential it may have in enhancing or preserving marriages. So I don't see that same opposition materializing.

Opposition will come in two forms. First, you'll see it when people decide they want to start handing these things out to school kids. Sure as rain, those pesky religious and moral objections will crop up and you'll have one side saying it's evil and another side saying little girls are going to have sex anyway, they might as well enjoy it.

Secondly, you'll see opposition if someone tries to make this yet another government freebie. Just as you saw with viagra, people are going to lose their fuzzy minds to hear the feds are using tax money to hand out viagra or these pills. And on the other side you'll hear the usual assertions that pleasure is a human right and so people should pay for other people to get off.

Because nobody wants to take care of themselves, anymore. Pun intended. It does seem that some people aren't happy unless they are arguing. I hope they stop eventually. :)