The Female Viagra: If Big

Pharma Can’t Save Your Sex Life,

Who Can?
http://www.lilithland.net

On June the 18th, the FDA's Reproductive

Health Drugs Advisory Committee will
convene to consider the possibility of
approving what has been deemed the
"female Viagra", flibanserin, which is the
latest in a long line of drugs to be
considered for that coveted position.

Flibanserin failed as an anti-depressant in early clinical trials, but had the unexpected side effect
of making participant's horny, which, of course, thrilled researchers ever on the look-out for a
"pink" Viagra.

The reason for their elation was simple -- economics: there's big money to be made out of your
sexual misery.

To understand this issue better, let's backtrack to 1997. That's the year that the new diagnostic
classification FSD (female sexual dysfunction) was developed. The designation was coined at a
Boston conference sponsored by Pfizer and other drug companies as a way of combating what
had become a persnickety obstacle on the road to viagrasizing the male population -- the female
libido.

At the time, Pfizer, still afterglowing from Viagra's initial sale figures realized that they now
faced a peculiar problem: Just what are we going to do with all these erect penises? The "what"
hadn't been an initial concern. The first goal had been simply to provide an on-demand erection
to every last male on the planet. But now that was accomplished, the "what" had become a big
deal. After all, public acceptance of homosexuality or solo sex has never run very high. So, there
was only one acceptable solution.

Naturally, women must be brought into the equation.

Plus, women were a potential gold mine of pharmaceutical opportunities. According to an

influential article in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), women had
higher rates of sexual dysfunction than men (43% female, vs. 31% male). The problem was that
women weren't exactly like men in terms of sexual functioning.

Since that Boston conference, Big Pharma has run into one problem after another in its quest to
market a drug for women. Plus, the designation FSD has been mired in controversy since its
inception.

Critics charge that FSD is a phony diagnosis that was invented to profit drug companies and that
it unnecessarily medicalizes women's sexual problems. They have a point. The way a drug
catapults to blockbuster status depends on heavy marketing. And the first step is to convince the
public that they have a condition that needs treating.

One could argue that part of the marketing for FSD is to convince women who have the libidinal
equivalent of a Yugo that they need a pill to bring them in line with the new millennium.

To that end, the researchers who introduced the diagnosis were later found to have ties to drug
companies that stood to make a fortune if the public could be convinced that FSD was a medical
condition. In spite of the fact that most research on FSD has failed to support that theory.

ED (erectile dysfunction) is highly associated with age-related medical problems. As a man ages,
his penis loses the smooth muscle tissue that fills with blood and squeezes his veins shut like a
tourniquet (trapping blood in the penis). Because his erectile tissue no longer fully expands, he
leaks blood. So, his penis doesn't become erect.

This is not true in FSD. The JAMA article found that women with the highest rates of FSD were
between the ages of 20 and 30, which made them a little young for widespread health issues.

There is no doubt that some women do have sexual problems that have a medical component.
Testosterone does drop in women between the ages of 20 and 50, usually by half. Check my
article Testosterone: Sex Drug or Just Plain Dud? Pelvic surgeries like hysterectomies can
impact sexual functioning by damaging the uterovaginal nerves and the cervical plexus, which
can prevent some women from having orgasms from cervical stimulation.

But the factors that are most associated with FSD are primarily socio-cultural: income, marital
status, and education. Women who are poorer, with less education, in unstable and/or
unsatisfying relationships, and with higher rates of depression and stress are more likely to have
FSD.

None of this, however, has kept Big Pharma from trying to market drugs to women. At first, the
idea was that women, like men, must have erectile problems too. After all, the clitoris and its
attendants the vagina and G-spot become engorged with blood much like the penis. So, if Viagra
worked for the gander, it must work for the goose. Right?

Wrong.

It's not that Viagra didn't swell women's parts as well as men's; it's just that women didn't care or
notice the difference. So, that idea was shot down. And Pfizer withdrew their submission for
FDA approval for usage in women due to lack of supportive clinical data.

Next, testosterone was called in as the big gun, and Big Pharma hung their hopes on the Intrinsa
patch -- Proctor and Gamble's ...well... gamble on FSD (over 100 million spent on marketing
alone). The Intrinsa patch delivered testosterone into the body via a transdermal system, and it
proved to be more than just a gamble to P&G. In fact, the FDA insisted it was a gamble to
anyone who went on it, and refused to approve the patch in light of safety concerns regarding
cancer and heart disease. However, the drug is available in Europe.

As of 2010, the only drug that has been approved by the FDA for FSD is the EROS-CTD
Therapy Device, which ironically does the same thing as Viagra -- it sends blood to the genitals.
In this case via a small vacuum. Unfortunately, it is available by prescription only and costs over
$300 dollars a pop.

This bring us to flibanserin, a drug that is said to stimulate desire by upping dopamine and
balancing serotonin levels. This drug is the next great white hope. The next potential Viagra.

There are some women who will no doubt benefit from this drug. But it is doubtful that it will
alleviate most women's sexual dissatisfaction rooted as is in more personal and cultural factors.
Then there are those critics who worry that drugs like flibanserin aren't in women's best interests.
That they simply reinvent an old idea -- the idea that the female body is inherently warped.

In the past, when women failed to fit the status quo we were called hysterics, nymphomaniacs, or
frigid. Critics of the medicalization of FSD worry that if we focus too much attention on
pharmaceutical causes that the real factors behind FSD will be ignored. As sex researcher Meika
Loe put it:

For women, alleviating sexual problems requires acknowledging, among other things, the lack of
adequate sex education, outrageous rates of domestic violence, and the double workday for
women in this country. If sexual satisfaction and women’s empowerment are the goals, we must
deal with these social problems. There is no pill for social change. There’s only us.