Saturday, September 5, 2009

Why Female Viagra Doesn't Exist

Everybody knows that many women experience difficulties with reaching an orgasm (especially a vaginal one). Why, then, have we seen no equivalent of Viagra for women appearing on the market? Obviously, such a drug would bring billions in revenues to the company coming out with it.
In my opinion, here, as well as in many other areas of life, pecuniary interests give way to ideological, psychological and social concerns. Liberated female sexuality would mean that all men who today buy heterosexual sex and companionship with money and promises of a relationship (which is the only way for a woman to receive social validation) would not be able to secure a partner. All men who today take pride in purchasing women for money and even publish articles about that, would sit there all alone with their "money and maturation". The wives and girlfriends of such men only need to experience an orgasm once in other to dump their boring men, who for years have taken pride in their capacity to purchase women for a very low price.

Of course, men are terrified that this would happen.  Anything that can potentially prove even marginally liberating to female sexuality is profoundly scary to huge chunks of male population. In order to appear on the market, a female Viagra would need to pass through so many men that our chances of seeing it any time soon are next to none.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

No Viagra for women you say? I'm not a doctor but I think it's because women don't have penises.

The chauvinism tag for your post is quite appropriate though. It makes sense given that Female Chauvinist Pigs is on your reading list.

Clarissa said...

So no penis = no sexual enjoyment? You should get out more, my friend. Talk to some women, ask them what they have INSTEAD of penises. I'm sure you'll discover many new and interesting things.

The second paragraph of your comment is incomprehensible.

Anonymous said...

I think that what the original commenter meant was that Viagra facilitates erections, not orgasms. I would have thought you'd have done some basic research about a subject before blogging about it.

"no penis = no sexual enjoyment?" was the worst kind of intentional misinterpretation. Followed by childish shaming tactics which sheds doubt on your professed status of 'academic'. This and your other entry I bothered looking at read more like the bitter rantings of a sexually frustrated first-year undergraduate.

As if a product that enabled women to have orgasms more easily would not appear on the market if such were possible. Such a product would be pure lucre. Think of all the female sex toys already available. I suppose you think men are terrified by these.

Let me tell you what's really going on:
Men aren't thinking about this at all.

Yup. As a man, I spend practically no time at all thinking about female sexuality and its liberation. The idea that I would be afraid of women wanting to have sex more is genuinely laughable. But now that you've brought it to my attention, I'd welcome a product that enabled women to have orgasms more easily. It would mean that, if I was with a woman who found it difficult to orgasm, this product would solve all our troubles, and we could both enjoy sex together.

That would mean that, even if I was one of those 'boring men', I probably WOULDN'T actually be dumped, since my partner would have no need to go elsewhere for her orgasms.

You REALLY didn't think this through, did you?

Clarissa said...

"I think that what the original commenter meant was that Viagra facilitates erections, not orgasms"

-That is obvious. However, my hope is that female equivalent of Viagra would allow women to achieve such a strong level of physical excitement that the psychological barriers to the enjoyment of sex would disappear or be weakened. Impotence, as well as anorgasmy, are cause by psychological issues. If Viagra works for men, there is no reason why something similar shouldn't work for women. Why this possibility upsets you so much is beyond me.

Women who do not enjoy sex look for other things from a relationship with a man. So men who are bad in bed can attract women with marriage and/or money. Women who enjoy sex would look for good partners, not for wallets or husband material.

"It would mean that, if I was with a woman who found it difficult to orgasm, this product would solve all our troubles, and we could both enjoy sex together."

-Or if (hypothetically) you were lousy as a partner, she'd move on to someone else. Women who don't enjoy sex don't care how good or bad their partners are at it. Those who enjoy it, though, really do. Is it clearer now?

Eric said...

I think your take on this is a bit off.

Very, very few people are sexist enough to turn down billions of dollars. If anyone. Money overcomes all else to a large degree imo.

I think what happens here is more subtle. First of all there's a less obvious problem here. Impotence is easy to see and diagnose. Women not enjoying sex is a bit more vague.

Second I think the misogyny isn't some blatant hatred of women's sexuality but a more subtle bias. That perhaps researchers who are primarily male don't think to start looking into it. Or assume that 'women are just complicated' or some sort of thing like that. That they aren't looking at this idea and saying 'we've got to hold on to our heterosexual power' but instead not pursing it and possibly not even realizing that they are being sexist.

Clarissa said...

"Very, very few people are sexist enough to turn down billions of dollars. If anyone. Money overcomes all else to a large degree imo."

-I respect your Marxism, my friend, but I can't agree. There are tons of examples of ideology truumping money concerns. There are beautiful examples on how the fashion industry in the 80ies prefferrred to go bankrupt to flatter the designers' chauvinism (Susan Faludi in "Backlash" tells the story at length).

"Women not enjoying sex is a bit more vague."

-Not for those women. :-)

"Second I think the misogyny isn't some blatant hatred of women's sexuality but a more subtle bias."

-You are probably right here.

Eric said...

Thanks for the book recommendation. Added it to my amazon wish list so sometime in the next decade I can read it.(I've got to start reading more :) )

Looking back at my first paragraph, you are right that was silly of me.

I was trying to say that I don't think that there are a bunch of old guys in a room and one says "hey heres a drug worth billions" and another goes "but it helps women sexually, we can't have that".

That its a more subtle thing and I would wager that most of the people involved don't think they are sexist or opposed to female sexuality. And to my mind that's a bigger problem than the first scenario because its so much harder to fight.

But I think that may have been me misconstruing your argument, sorry about that.

Eric said...

Also as to the women enjoying sex part I still sort of stand by my argument. I'm not a women and I can't claim much sexual experience so I may simply be ignorant and if so I apologize.

But I would imagine that even to the women experiencing sexual dissatisfaction its still vague. As in, maybe your partner is bad in bed, maybe you aren't attracted to them, maybe you are stressed out/tired, maybe its a medical problem...

There can be a lot more causes and pills aren't going to solve all of them where as impotence is simpler to categorize.

Daniel said...

ViagraKamagra, Jelly, Silagra, Caverta, Soft Tabs, Lovegra, Apcalis, Aprima - all guaranteed cheap and genuine. Kamagra is made by Ajanta Pharma. We provide world-wide (UK, Europe and USA) free delivery.

アレックス* said...

The fact of the matter is that a Viagra-like product (viz, chemical stimulation of libido) for females enjoys an active research community. The AP reported on it in 2006 (can't find the article now, though).

Viagra is very simple chemically. It is an inhibitor of a single simple enzyme which has been well-known to control penile blood-flow for more than 20 years. And its effects are predictable, crude, and have a small regulatory domain. All it does is make blood flow to the penis.

A similar drug could be made very easily for women. The female analogue enzyme exists and could be inhibited pharmaceutically. But would women benefit from analogous effects? No, they would not. Blood flow to the vagina is not broadly thought to be a limiting factor in female orgasm. Currently (though this is not my field specifically) a complex melange of physical and psychological issues are believed to complicate this issue.

This is not so with erectile dysfunction. Its causes are usually simply hydraulic.

However, when a male experiences sexual dysfunction of the kind that Viagra can treat and yet is in good cardiovascular health, psychological issues can be to blame. In this case, the male is referred to a therapist. To the best of my knowledge, therapy will remain the best bet for females who are suffering from sexual dysfunction (without obvious physical problems) for some time.

Clarissa said...

So, male sexuality is physiological and female is psychological? I'm so tired of this unintelligent stereotypical crap.

アレックス* said...

Viagra does not treat male sexuality. It treats bloodflow, which is necessary for male sexuality to be expressed physically.

Clarissa said...

Great news! Also, today is Friday. :-)

Clarissa said...

Everybody who will try to post their stupid advertisement here will see their posts DELETED.

calvin said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.