Leave it to politics to impede a clear win-win.
I am not so sure Rush is worried about the Other Team any more.
I’m old enough to remember how they used to treat ED before Viagra became available (or its horrifying predecessor, Caverject [1]), and it was mostly all some version of “Hey pal, it’s all in your head.”
In retrospect, it was quite cruel. [2] But it was all there was to offer these guys.
And women get that routine now, because there’s nothing much else to offer them (as you can see from many of the comments here: various implications that the lady is either too uptight or her partner is insufficiently alluring).
[1] But what do I know? Maybe sticking a needle in your penis every time you want to fck isn’t as bad as it sounds.
[2] Joke all you like about Viagra and its younger brothers (Cialis, etc.) but these are wonderful drugs.
2 Likes
Oh, and what do you think they need? Because I remember what sex with older gentlemen was like before these drugs and there was a LOT work involved, for a relatively short-term pay-off. For anyone who likes to have sex with men, Viagra is a labor-saving device.
8 Likes
“some chemicals”
Everything is “chemicals.” Hormones are chemicals. Many “chemical medicines” are consist of chemicals that exist naturally in the human body. Others don’t.
Is a diabetic’s insulin not medication? Are mood stabilizers, which increase or decrease naturally occurring chemicals - some through “chemicals” that we don’t normally have in us, others through “natural” chemicals that do… not medicine?
I’m not sure what your argument is nor why you feel its important to make it… but it seems either a kneejerk response to a gender issue or a knee-jerk rejection of “chemicals” like some people who (ridiculously) tout certain foods as “chemical-free.”
2 Likes
These kinds of drugs are not usually the kind of thing that you can just take a dose and an hour later your psychological state is different.
Most likely this would be one of those “take one a day and after three weeks see if you’re starting to feel different” meds.
That having been said… even if someone DID want to slip some woman this pill to make her more likely to be aroused…
…there are drugs that are far more commonly used by rapists, far more effective at reducing people’s ability to resist, and far more readily available.
Constantly topping off women’s drinks while they aren’t really noticing is common and inexpensive. Rophypnols is common.
Spending serious bucks on a prescription drug that MIGHT make a woman more aroused but no less likely to find you disgusting, or no less likely to still want to go home, or no less likely to find someone else more worth going to bed with is not a likely scenario.
Frankly, it’s odd that when the subject of women having tools to deal with sexual problems comes up, the first thing that comes to your mind is how that choice might be dangerous for them.
Not odd as in uncommon though. When the thought of women having control of their sex lives comes up, “we must protect them from that!” is sadly the TYPICAL response.
1 Like
Point 1: As I mentioned, I do not have pharmacological or medical training, and so I do not know much about how these drugs work (timing or duration of effect, dosage size, expense, etc.), nor does the article provide this information. That is why I made a comment suggesting that we need to think seriously about these issues, without saying that it should impact FDA approval or disapproval, as I noted repeatedly. Your most recent reply (“usually”, “most likely”, etc.) suggests that even you are not sure exactly how this drug works, so perhaps you agree. And as you surely know, drugs that initially work one way can sometimes be repurposed, redosed, reengineered, etc., to work in other ways. I don’t know whether that is possible in this case. Do you?
Point 2: As I am sure you know, date rape (and marital rape and rape by deception) isn’t just committed by people women find “disgusting”. It is committed by spouses, boyfriends, etc., as well, perhaps even predominantly. No means no, even if you love and might at some other time want to have sex with someone. If you are implying (as you seem to be) that law and public morality should never view the influence of this drug as defeating a woman’s consent, then I either need to be told much more about exactly how the drug works and can potentially work, or we just have to agree to disagree.
Point 3: I am not sure why you think this possibility is the “first thing” that comes to mind just because it was mentioned on an Internet comments board. It wasn’t the first thing that came to my mind at least, but it was “a” thing, and that’s what discussion boards are for. We should think of lots of different things as a society, including both how pharmaceuticals can help people and how they can harm them. I want nothing more than for women to have control of their sex lives (and the rest of their lives too), which is why I raised the point in the first place.
'. . . older gentleMEN . . ."
Don’t be coy.
While this isn’t exactly the forum for this, there are non-prescription options that won’t cause a dangerous loss of blood pressure and all the other delightful potential side-effects of Viagra and Cialis, don’t require a prescription or cost anywhere near what they do. Do a little research. That’s why god invented the Internet.
1 Like
If a new opiate-based or similar painkiller were released, it could be used to drug women so they could be raped.
If TPM had an article about a new painkiller being released, would you post a comment worrying that it could be used as a date-rape drug?
I highly doubt it.
Despite the fact that a drug that sedates is far more likely to be used for that reason than a drug that helps women who have trouble getting aroused,
The key here is “women getting aroused.”
You equate women’s sexual arousal with susceptibility to rape.
That is a bizarre and problematic conclusion. And the fact that women’s arousal makes you immediately think of them being raped is a bizarre and problematic mindset.
1 Like
Yes, you’re right. Exact equivalence.
Putting the snark to one side, I suspect the reason this comes to mind is because consent is what is litigated in rape cases (I’m a lawyer) and drugging someone unconscious is an easy case. Artificially increasing someone’s sexual arousal is a much more difficult case (though I know where I would come down). But you’re right, if we don’t talk about it and yell slut-shamer and misogynist at anyone who raises this issue, I’m sure that will make it go away.
While there’s a lot of discussion about the gender-issue, which is significant, my main concern is the company. As a prior poster noticed from the Orgasm Inc. documentary, this isn’t about freeing or treating women, it’s about making money. Pharmaceutical companies make no bones that their main interest is making money and it sounds like this company is riling up opinion to do just that, they’re not a social advocacy firm.
Arguments about rush jobs on androcentric drugs justify doing so in this case are also complete bullshit. If effective, I know many women in my life who would have interest in and benefit from it’s effects… to help counteract the changes in their own mid-life chemistry. I would much rather they don’t become the subjects of future documentaries about developing serious unforseen health issues because a slime-ball pharmaceutical company had an effective social marketing strategy.
1 Like
Looking for ED treatments on the Internet. Brilliant idea. Gives new meaning to the term “snake-oil.”
Although I’m every bit as grateful for your mansplaining as you might imagine, in grad school, I wrote a paper on the hormonal/neurotransmitter interactions that mediate the parasympathetic enervation of boners–which entailed reading studies by teams that performed real investigations in this area, rather than “a little research” on the Internet.
I realize that the neuroscientists and board-certified urologists who published these data probably weren’t as personable as the herb-sellers and naturopaths whose online woo you seem to find credible. Fortunately, when you’re doing actual scientific research instead of figuring out how to con money out of the most gullible faction of the general public, you don’t have to worry so much about being charming.
3 Likes
Snark was put aside huh?
Bottom line is, the moment women’s sexuality comes up - the moment women are thought of as wanting sex, the moment women are given an option and a choice, the brakes slam on and HOLD ON, WAIT, STOP… before we do something that WOMEN WANT, we need to stop and discuss what is best for them.
Birth control, abortion, changes in cultural attitudes that shame them less for wanting sex and - WHOA, hold your horses, not so fast, we must protect them! We can’t go around encouraging women to have sex without discussing all of the most remote possible negative consequences!
Same old story. Over and over. Clothing might cause rape. Birth control might cause rape (yes, they have said this) Abortion might cause rape. Women wanting sex might cause rape.
RAPISTS cause rape. Women wanting choices does not.
2 Likes
Republican legislators and regulators realize that, when women are given agency to regain desire - instead of grim toleration of conservative male sexuality - Republicans may never get laid again.
1 Like
Yeah, yeah yeah. It’s been years, but I had both high school and college chem just like you. .
I was trying to point out that one was a hormone replacement treatment vs one that provided assistance with male impotence. One will presumably raise libido, the other one’s penis. And so, calling a one “female viagra” would seem a misnomer because its purpose is to increase a woman’s libido. That’s all. I evidently did a poor job of making the distinction.
And please don’t “gender- issue” me. If the substance helps anyone that’s all to the good as it would be with any new drug.
Nor am I some food nut. Adios.
1 Like
I am 100% in favor of women wearing the clothing they want; having access to birth control; having access to safe reproductive care, including abortion; wanting sex; not wanting sex; saying, performing, and acting like they want sex (assuming that’s their choice); and having access to safe and effective drugs that increase their libido. And so we agree about everything except whether the original comment amounted to a slamming of brakes, which it explicitly did not. We can talk about the social consequences of drugs (when used by rapists, not by women!) without denying women choices.
2 Likes
1 Like
Now, if they could create a pill that would increase the sexual desire of 8 year old boys for corpulent, 5-time-married, loud-mouthed conservative, millionaire perverts, Rush would be ALL OVER THAT.
1 Like
So much for the “not tonight I have a headache line”, huh?
It is true it can be seen as a hydraulic assist, but having a good erection can be a great “sign” to your partner that your desire is there and desire on both sides can expand, and if you are lucky enough to have a partner who wants to use it can be a very good thing.