This morning, Dana of Mombian sent us this link to an article about a documentary called Orgasm, Inc., which details the pharmaceutical industry’s mission to profit from FSD (female sexual dysfunction). While I applaud the author for deriding the notion that women who lack sexual desire should be characterized as “dysfunctional,” I think this article (and others on the topic) miss the underlying assumption that makes the FSD phenomenon so troubling.
The press has been covering FSD for years. Two “dueling” articles treat the topic as a physiological problem and as a mental health disorder (though even the second article acknowledges that sometimes medical intervention is necessary). Either way, I have two problems with the legitimization of FSD in the first place:
1) This seems to be another example of the medicalization of women’s bodies that Professor Moss discussed earlier this month. If you are a woman and you have “inability to achieve orgasm, decreased sex drive, arousal disorder, [or] vaginal dryness and sexual pain,” you are dysfunctional. How are these disorders diagnosed? Is inability to achieve orgasm once a dysfunction? Surely there are myriad possible causes of “sexual pain” (an insensitive or incompetent partner?); if we can’t explain it should we automatically place it under the umbrella of FSD?
2) Treating FSD as a mental health disorder is no better. I’m hearing shades of Freudian analysis of “frigid” women here. Not to mention the fact that this line of discussion tends to lead to the perpetuation of gender stereotypes about sex, foremost of which is that women are aroused mentally/emotionally, while men are aroused physically.
Above all, though, the underlying assumption here is that sex is defined as vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. If a woman is unable to “perform” (i.e. have desire, become aroused, and reach orgasm) for her man, she has a problem. The goal of these drugs is to allow for easy and “pleasurable” vaginal intercourse.
Vivus, the pharmaceutical company looking to benefit the most from FSD, is in late trials of a topical solution called Alista. Alista contains the exact same active ingredient as the male ED topical treatment Alprostadil, a vasodilator. A short clip from ABC’s 20/20 demonstrates the product:
Alista “opens up the veins to allow for blood engorgement.” We assume this will make intercourse more enjoyable (for both woman and man?). But again, I ask, is this the only “functional” definition of sex?
Drugs aimed at curing men’s sexual dysfunction also assume that vaginal intercourse is the only kind of sex anyone would ever want to have. After all, it’s the mighty erection that Viagra, Cialis, et. al. promise to return to weak, enfeebled men with ED. Non-prescription products like Enzyte also promise better erections, though they use more euphemistic language, innuendo, etc. (since they are not FDA approved and thus cannot make factual claims about their own efficacy).
Surely sexual pleasure can be achieved in myriad ways, sometimes even without a partner. So why the obsession with vaginal intercourse? For starters, we see phallocentrism reinforced here. Since the male is the default sex (and masculinity the default gender), we must all view sexual dysfunction through the lens of male desire, performance, etc. Nevermind that not all men desire only intercourse, or that orgasm may be possible (for either partner, or both) without an erection present. We must maintain the edifice that a “real” man must be able to get it up and a real woman must be ready for her man as soon as he does.
It seems very likely to me that both men and women experience occasional, temporary, bouts of sexual “dysfunction” throughout their lives. How could they not? We can’t all be desirous of or ready for sex 24 hours a day. Perhaps we should just accept that sometimes desire waxes and wanes, sometimes men and women don’t become aroused on command, and sometimes our trusty naughty bits are too dry or too soft to do the job society commands them to. Perhaps at those times we should consider expressing love and sexual/sensual intimacy in other ways, and perhaps we should try to imagine a world in which those expressions are not ridiculed or turned into causes for alarm or reasons to seek medical attention.
I strongly disagree.
Now I am going to attempt to put together my argument in a logical way.
Once upon a time, I was a member of a mailing list for a specific thing, and depression was a very common element among the members. Which means, of course, a large number of them were on antidepressants. Every few months or so a conversation would come up, circulate, and die back down. That of sexual dysfunction. A very common side effect of certain types of antidepressants is an inability to function sexually. Both genders tend to find it more difficult, and sometimes entirely impossible, to physically function in a sexual way.
Now, not only is this a possibly embarrasing thing to bring up with one’s doctor, but I got to hear a HUGE number of stories of women who did go to their doctor with their concerns, and simply be brushed off. Her sexuality was trivial, her inability to orgasm unimportant. I heard complaints about how many of these ladies still wanted sex, still tried, still played by themselves or with their showerhead or with their partner, and eventually they found that they hadn’t had an orgasm in over a year and they were climbing the walls with frustration!
I also cannot see that it is something centered around “a real woman must be ready for her man as soon as he does.” Two of the most frequent complainers happened to be in a lesbian relationship with one another. Plus, while I really really hope I am misreading, your statement seems to assume that the only reason a woman might want to change this is for the convenience of men, rather than because she wants to be sexual, but can’t.
Plus, antidepressants are hardly the only cause of this. And what else could it be when a women wants to have sex, has the mental and emotional desire to have sex, but has a body that simply will not cooperate for an extended period of time? When she winds up frustrated and angry, is she just supposed to get over it and calmly accept that her medications or illness or medical condition or whatever other cause there might be is now going to simply rule her sexuality?
So circle back to something I said earlier, I do not see FSM and developing treatments for it as “another example of the medicalization of women’s bodies.” Instead, I see it as a welcome change that doctors are no longer trivializing women’s need for their own sexuality, and instead trying to find ways to help.
Yes, it is true that “sometimes desire waxes and wanes, sometimes men and women don’t become aroused on command, and sometimes our trusty naughty bits are too dry or too soft to do the job society commands them to” but when I hear people talk about sexual dysfuntion, that is NOT, at all, what I think of. I remember the people I have known personally who were experiencing prolonged sexual frustration, I remember the numerous accounts I have read of the same, and I remember how many women couldn’t get their doctors to care. In fact, I remember one account from an incredibly pleased patient who had approached her doctor about it, and her doctor DID take her seriously and started looking into ways to repair the situation. I remember how astonished and wistful the respondes were.
So I see the legitimization of FSD as a very VERY good thing. Now, I do agree that it is not good if we start crying “dysfuntion!” after a single failed orgasm, or a week of sexual disinterest, or a short dry spell. But that is far from the only problem that people are talking about.
(oh, and sometimes male sexual dysfunction involves not being able to orgasm too. I got to read complaints about that one as well)
The situations you describe seem difficult indeed, and I don’t mean to deny that there might be some people who experience prolonged periods of loss of desire, inability to become aroused/have orgasms, etc. If it is possible to develop drugs to break the cycle for those people, that’s probably a good idea. Vivus, and the media outlets covering FSD, however, claim that 43% of women suffer from it. That number seems unbelievably high to me.
It’s not that I reject the possible existence of something like the FSD Vivus wants us to believe is rampant; I just reject the notion that it is rampant. And I think that throwing around stats like “4 in 10 women suffer from FSD” in order to sell worthless creams is irresponsible.
Also, I worry about the efficacy of creating powerful drugs to counteract the negative effects of other powerful drugs. As someone with a family history of mental disorders, I would never suggest that people with bipolar disorder or serious depression should just get off the meds, but is it possible to alter one’s brain chemistry too many ways at once?
Well said. I’m often struck by comments made by men who can no longer achieve an erection and claim they feel like less of a man because they cannot please their partner. The real truth is that these men cannot please themselves pleasing their partners.
I will once again attempt to speak for ALL lesbians here. We have been pleasing our partners without a penis, well, forever. …Despite commonly believed notions, also without a dildo most of the time, also without oral sex much of the time. The female orgasm is a complicated animal and for many women does not occur until long after her partner (male or female) has finished (and may be quite tired). This also brings in the notion that is it not sex unless an orgasm is reached by one or both parties, which I believe you alluded to.
For a man to say he can’t please his partner because he cannot achieve an erection of a total lack of imagination and probably a tell tale that he was not doing a very good job in the first place.
The flip side of this is that the drug commercials also sell so many men short. (I’ll say that men are the target regardless of which gender is taking the drugs. This stays in line with your comment that the woman’s role is to please her male partner. ) The notion is that the whole lot are just a bunch of insensitive bastards wrapped around their teenage obsessions. I’ve known far too many who take great pride in truly pleasing their partners. (Don’t ask me why but straight men feel quite comfortable talking in great detail with me regarding their sex life.)
It would be nice to hear an honest public dialogue, with real solutions that don’t involve drugs. Pleasure comes in all levels for men and women and there are great compromises when one partner just ain’t feeling it. That would be true sex education!
“I just reject the notion that it is rampant. And I think that throwing around stats like “4 in 10 women suffer from FSD” in order to sell worthless creams is irresponsible.”
This statement I entirely agree with. However I hope you will forgive me when I say that the above sentiment is not what I read in your post, especially with statements like “Either way, I have two problems with the legitimization of FSD in the first place”.
Anyway, yes, trying to claim that a large percentage of women need medical intervention for FSM is disturbing, and I would definitely prefer to see attention given to those who honestly need it.
I strongly agree with gothicfeline. I don’t know about this 43% stuff. Based on dear friends’ experiences, I don’t think about orgasm AT ALL when thinking of FSD and the things that fall under that category. I think of things like being able to use tampons during a period or have sex or even masturbate and not have it be excruciatingly painful. Rarely does a drug or cream solve that kind of issue the way the original article discussing the topic puts it.
Might want to check this site out:
http://www.nva.org/
Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!
I think I’ll step in the fray here. I think the generalization regarding FSD was actually one of Prof. Bean’s points. To make a claim that almost half of all women have FSD is damaging to women who actually do have very real problems. It also perpetuates the notion that man/woman vaginal sex is the only path to true sex and the only successful outcome is a vaginal orgasm. Regardless of the gender relationship of partners, this may be a very limiting and continually failing endeavor.
All the things that affect female sexuality are a complex mixed bag of circumstances. Women’s bodies change with age and life circumstances and have different requirements from one day to the next. For many some of the difficulties that arise with age ARE solved with creams and lubricants. Far too many women have no idea what is available and the positive benefits they (and their partners) may experience.
Using a drug that increasing blood flow for a woman who has extreme discomfort will likely make her situation worse. The drugs are more about arousal, which is often not the problem for women who experience pain during intercourse. The problem is the pain and whatever is causing the pain. As long as there is a non-targeted over-generalization of FSD there will not be legitimate studies conducted.
Here again we return to the idea that these women are somehow adequate because they cannot have conventional sex. If the physical pain did not bring about mental distress the feelings of inadequacy will. The drug companies are essentially saying to women that if they do not have orgasms during conventional vaginal intercourse then the have FSD. Saying that makes the claim of FSD invalid. I believe that was Prof. Bean’s point.