Pill: Viagra for the female brain

[aitm]

Can I come over? 

Seriously though, you seem right on the evolutionary side of low libido in women.

Low libido is once a day? Criminy, my wife could care less is she ever has sex again, and has pretty much been uninterested for the last 10. Her sister is pretty much the same way. My "bar wife" on the other hand is still single at mid 50ish and would probably fuck every day if she could find a guy she liked. You may find generalizations can be killers in a bar discussion.

[Aletheia]

Can I come over? 

Seriously though, you seem right on the evolutionary side of low libido in women.

Meh... to each their own. Although, sex for me ranges from 10 minutes if I'm short on time to about 3-5 hours if time is not an issue.

Might be a good idea to check the surveys on the frequency and desire for sex among women. I'd be happy with sex once or more a day, I think about sex every few minutes, more so when college girls are jogging in those skimpy outfits. I tend to be pretty visual. Although, I wonder if the libidos of bisexual women differs from heterosexual women.

[stromboli]

My wife, even with MS, still enjoys it as often as we have it. Sex between us has always been good and plentiful, so I can't say anything negative about it. My sexual adventures as a single man were few and far between, so I'm certainly no expert.

[kilodelta]

Low libido is once a day? Criminy, my wife could care less is she ever has sex again, and has pretty much been uninterested for the last 10. Her sister is pretty much the same way. My "bar wife" on the other hand is still single at mid 50ish and would probably fuck every day if she could find a guy she liked. You may find generalizations can be killers in a bar discussion.

Shit... I have to schedule it. Even then it ends up being cancelled more often than not. I would be in full support of once a day. But, once every several weeks to months is what actually happens.

[Jason78]

If I could, I'd have sex at least once a day, preferably before I left for work or right before I go to sleep.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that scientists have shown that it helps you sleep better.

[Aletheia]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that scientists have shown that it helps you sleep better.

It does. You're physically exhausted and the endorphins are high, so you have a general sense of well being.

Plus there's the intimacy which is renewed with your partner.

I don't view sex as a bargaining chip. Even if we're angry with one another, if we both want sex, then we go with it. Sex should be spontaneous and integrated as the "spice of life" in a relationship. I considered it foolish to make demands of a person and withhold sex if they don't do what I want. You're guaranteed to chase a person away - either through affairs or they may end the relationship formally. You place a premium on sex and treat is as a currency. Once you've created a "market" then it becomes plausible for your lover to want to "shop" elsewhere for cheaper "rates." Furthermore, this method works two ways. Your lover may withhold sex and turn the tables on you (quite effective if you have a high libido too).

Sex is an expressive, spontaneous, and pleasurable act - not a form of currency.

[SGOS]

Sex is an expressive, spontaneous, and pleasurable act - not a form of currency.

That's a very mature attitude.  Thank you.

[Mermaid]

All sexual politics aside, if the FDA says it's not significantly effective and has safety issues, it doesn't belong on the market. Period. That's their job and why they exist. I keep hearing stories about the FDA being in bed with pharmaceutical companies and push unsafe and/or ineffective drugs to the market because they are paid to do so. Every new drug has a website dedicated to bitching about how terrible it is, how the drug killed their dog, or ruined their life and how evil the FDA and Big Pharma are. Now here is an example of the FDA not approving something and people are crying that it's sexist. Seriously? Which way do the people want it?

Somewhere in the middle lies the actual REALITY of how pharmaceuticals come to be. I wish people would do a little more thinking about this and a little less believing whatever any swinging dick online writes about it.

It would be a useful pharmaceutical tool for a lot of women. But if it isn't safe and effective, there's nothing useful about it. If there are targets to be researched, someone is likely to come up with another chemical entity that works and is safe.

[Mermaid]

Is the female sex drive really something that needs to be fixed?

If it's a problem to the woman in question, sure. Why not?

[SGOS]

All sexual politics aside, if the FDA says it's not significantly effective and has safety issues, it doesn't belong on the market. Period.

I mostly agree, but it's hard to separate "political" from government.  The government is political.  Courts and agencies included, although those are not as wildly political as our representatives in Congress.  And the FDA usually tries to err on the side of caution, but in this case, there are strong opposing political forces from the public at large.  I see no reason to believe the FDA is sexist.  That seems like name calling to put the FDA on the defensive.   If anything I would expect the FDA to bend a bit to the current political forces.  While I'm always skeptical of government, I'm even more skeptical about the public, which can manipulated by various emotional agendas and special interests.

In this case, I tend to side with the FDA's current position, but I can't sort out all the information from the misinformation, either.  I am sympathetic to women who would like access to a sexually stimulating chemical, and like you pointed out, there may be something down the road with less serious side effects.  But I don't think the FDA is sexist.  What purpose would they have in denying women more sexual satisfaction?  While this isn't exactly Denmark, we aren't Egypt or Afghanistan.

[Aletheia]

If the medication is ineffective and has severe side effects, then it doesn't get approved. The gender of the intended recipient of these drugs is irrelevant. It's the FDA's job to prevent medications like this from being used by the public where severe harm or death can happen - especially when the drug does next to nothing.

Women will simply have to wait for the next medication that shows much better promise. Nothing sexist about it - just FDA standard procedure.

[Deidre32]

Sometimes, I wonder if it's just a matter of getting a lover that is more compatible, than taking a potentially harmful pill.
I'm shallow. ^_^

[Deidre32]

Low libido is once a day? Criminy, my wife could care less is she ever has sex again, and has pretty much been uninterested for the last 10. Her sister is pretty much the same way. My "bar wife" on the other hand is still single at mid 50ish and would probably fuck every day if she could find a guy she liked. You may find generalizations can be killers in a bar discussion.

what exactly is a 'bar wife?' lol :=P

[aitm]

Sex is an expressive, spontaneous, and pleasurable act - not a form of currency.

Sorry, but that really is an opinion. Many of us know differently

[aitm]

what exactly is a 'bar wife?' lol :=P

Ha.
A certain lady, who is also a member here, introduced me to my wife. She and I are as close as possible without the deed. We each know our secrets, our lies, our "indiscretions", should either of us get pissed off enough we would have to kill the other for fear of the knowledge they know. However, we remain close and every Wednesday and sometimes Friday we gather together with others at a local pub to visit and bullshit. I keep the weirdoes from her and the bitch cock blocks me from some cuties…..bitch.