Because it will turn women into sex-crazed vixens, and society will crumble.

Good god, talibanesque anyone? Some days I think society has moved beyond victorian prudish and prurient thinking, and some days I don't. (So much for my previous post juxtaposing enlightened democracies against muslim theocracies.)



"There was a lot of discussion about the need to show that you’re not turning women into nymphomaniacs. There’s a bias against — a fear of creating the sexually aggressive woman."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/27/health-female-viagra-lybridos-emotional-brain_n_3344172.html



"This is the risk potentially posed by Lybrido, the female arousal drug (or "female Viagra"), according to some "experts" who are worried that this drug won't get past the regulators unless there are assurances that it won't lead to women becoming raptorial sex beasts. Women should like more sex, but not too much."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/invasion-marauding-nymphomaniacs-female-viagra

I had to argue with the husband about this one. "He said WHO is afraid of a higher sex drive in women? That's outrageous! Everyone wants their woman to put out more!"

I had to remind him of things his friends have said TO OUR FACES about women, and how it would be very dangerous to the poor wittle male ego if the woman wanted more than he could provide. Enter the fear of inadequacy, the fear of cheating, and at its root, the need for control of da wimmins.

We went around and around about this one. I had to stop and calm myself a few times because at several points he told me my experiences are unrealistic and I had to remind him, due to male privilege, he will NEVER have first hand experience of what it's like to run up against this chauvinistic "control", and that by denying my experiences as a woman he was demonstrating my point.

He ended by conceding everything I had said but then followed that up by telling me he hoped I knew how lucky I am to be with him, a man that doesn't do that.
And I had to let it go because it would have just continued indefinitely. How "lucky I am???" Thanks for continuing to demonstrate my point!!! Gah!

I see your point WW.

And for me the ideal is this: When people have chosen to spend a good portion of their life together, it's not so much feeling lucky that keeps them together, rather a sense of contentment and security and belonging. A partnering and pooling of ideas and resources and effort.

"Feeling lucky" about being in a relationship with another person hints of an unequal balance of power - I don't like that - my first wife (TBM) was forever throwing in my face how "lucky" I was to be with her. Nowadays, I realize just how "lucky" I am to be out of her life - best "luck" I ever have had in my life, in fact.

. . .

And as an aside: Studies are also hinting to another interesting facet of human life, women may be biologically less disposed towards monogamy than are their male counterparts. "Strange" might be more of an aphrodisiac for women than men. Interesting.

"One of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale."

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/02/the_truth_about_female_desire_its_base_animalistic_and_ravenous/

Oh luck had nothing to do with my careful choice of partner!
If he had shown any sign of being a misogynistic asshat a la TSCC's style of men, he would never have been married to me at all. He's got some mild habits of relating to women that rub me the wrong way from time to time, but he usually considers me the complete exception to the rule, or keeps it under his hat better than most.

That's why I had to grit my teeth and drop it. We'd already spent half the day just getting through to him that the "enlightened" man-friends of his are still searching for ways to control their wimmins and have told him so. I had to quote them back to him.

And yes, it was very condescending to call me "lucky" in my _choice_ of him, but at that point I had dragged his little ego through a several mud puddles, and I could let that one go because he had conceded my point, generally.


I'll be an exception to the "strange" preference. I have always, ALWAYS preferred the familiar to the novel experience. But I am also a little bit of a weirdo to some peoples' point of views.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 07:24PM by WinksWinks.

...because we know an abundance of sexually aggressive women means a constantly deflated phallus; I mean, the collapse of patriarchy :)

Good grief. Just last week there was a big deal made when women make more money than men. Some of the talking heads were all a flutter about what a dimise to the country it is that women are even in the work force and not at home raising the kids. Now, horrors of horrors women might actually enjoy sex.

My only question is, will my girlfriend notice the taste, after I slip it into her drink?

Just kidding, that would be wrong. The alcohol might dilute the effects.

let us lend a little perspective (reality) to what you are saying.

You think the drug companies want to with hold this product because it will make women more horny(????????) (!!!!!!!!!)

That sounds pretty silly.

The drug companies care about making MONEY.

Just for one example, Everyday million of people are poisoned with artificial sweeteners, a chemical concoction very much like a drug, and big business gets away with that
just fine.

Revving up the sex drive of women in not a major concern of drug companies, unless it can be used to drive up sales of their product. If women screwed themselves to death on their drug , they would only care because it limited the women's ability to be repeat customers and in turn the drug company's profitability.

If you REALLY want to blame any REAL deal for messing up with people's natural sex drive, and the female in particular, then blame Christianity. (the mythological) Jesus is the ultimate (male) role model. and ultimately he is supposedly single and celibate.

Mary is the ultimate female role model , she had the perfect child (Jesus) and she did it with out having to indulge in nasty old sex.

Its been a sex drive inhibiting world class mind fuck of the western population for 2000 years now.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 07:03PM by lucky.

Not the drug companies. The World Health Organization and regulators.

Did you even read my post, or the articles attached therein?

And I suggest you read some of my other posts before presuming to know my position with respect to women and sexuality (both the healthy and unhealthy variants).



That's exactly what I was saying (and the linked articles), that the prudish and prurient mores of society were giving the drug companies pause. They are concerned that if Lybridos is submitted to the FDA in its current "potent" form, that the FDA may not approve the drug because the FDA would be worried about the societal implications of such a pill.

I'm sure the drug companies would like to sell something to the public that would have them clamoring for more, i.e., the more potent the better, from their marketing standpoint.

you win, I was going way too fast, I hope to read the links later.
I hope this stuff works and I hope it gets approved.

+1,000,000 as usual Lucky....

If insecure men are at the heart of this decision, I have first-hand experience that would concur with the subject line.

Of the five sexual partners I've been involved with, only one matched my sex drive. Initially excited about my openness and joy with sex (and ability to recharge quickly), my male lovers turned sour towards me. The discrepancy in our sex drives in the other four sexual relationships resulted in verbal and emotional abuse. If they didn't have a greater sex drive, they made sure I knew they had greater intellect in discussions and found faults with me they constantly brought up. Because I've dealt with my end of the psychological damage, I pick up on signs during dating that help me better filter if a man is secure and thus, would have the ability to be patient with me if I want sex more than him, rather than making our relationship a competition that I'm not looking for, which might turn abusive.

I'm dying to find a man who's compatible not only sexually, but emotionally and intellectually as well. The "one" was only compatible sexually and that's not enough for me.

Again, if these men in charge of the decision are panicked about their own sexual abilities, everyone loses, not just the women.

Is it just men, or is it also the frumpy-christian-sex-is-filthy women, who are petrified of wanton-sex-kittens wandering the streets - and subsequently boinking their weak-willed-feckless-husbands (who quite obviously have no volition of their own).

Some of the polls I've seen, questioning whether prostitution should be legal among consenting adults, regulated by the state, is usually favored by the majority of men, and not favored by the majority of women.

I'm not sure I would tag this one to sexual-ability-impaired men only.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 06:08PM by schlock.

schlock Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it just men, or is it also the
> frumpy-christian-sex-is-filthy women, who are
> petrified of wanton-sex-kittens wandering the
> streets - and subsequently boinking their
> weak-willed-feckless-husbands (who quite obviously
> have no volition of their own).
>

> I'm not sure I would tag this one to
> sexual-ability-impaired men only.

great point !

So I haven't read the link but will later...

Men's Viagra works for (x) amount of time. After that time with no more Viagra, men are back to their sub-par selves sex-wise due to a variety of physical reasons.

I am ASS_U_ME(ing), that this is the case for the womens' Viagra as well...They take it, it helps to get them "ready". Hopefully the couple gets to fully enjoy this benefit to the fullest extent, then once again, the women who use this, will need to use this again for the next go-round.

I don't see women becoming the uncontrolled sex maniacs that many men want but male dominated society is afraid of.


Just my opinion.

This reminds me of the argument (espoused by McCain among others) supporting insurance covering Viagra but not birth control. He argued that are men who need it because of health problems and injuries in war, etc.

And what of the women who can't shouldn't get pregnant because of health reasons? Don't they deserve the same consideration?

It is all about the control of women, their bodies, their lives. Always!

"What's that,my dear? You need something to pep your lovelife up? Try this new drug!"

"You are now so insatiable for sex your poor husband can't keep up? Just give him these little blue pills!"

"You killed him by making him have too much sex with you? You feel depressed as you blame yourself for his death? No problem! We have some pills for that, too!"

Sex and drugs? What next, rock and roll?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 10:17PM by donbagley.