Many women report losing their desire for sex, some temporarily, some permanently.
to develop two slick campaigns, “eventhescore.org” and “womendeserve.org,” which argued that the FDA's failure to approve a drug to treat women's sexual problems was “sexist.” After all, men have Viagra and its various relatives.
The patients told stories of their frustrations and distress,
Their desire had simply “turned off like a light switch,”
As professional sexologists and advocates of women's sexual rights, we were horrified by the campaigns' use and abuse of the language of equality to pressure the FDA to approve a potential billion-dollar blockbuster “pink Viagra.”
The drugs for women didn't work and were unsafe. Not approving them isn't sexism, it's proper regulation.
Second, the campaigns claim that the FDA has approved 26 drugs for male sexual dysfunction and zero for women.
What do you all think? Why isn't there a Viagra type of pill for women? Is the F.D.A being sexist? Do they think women don't need help to improve their sex drive? Did the F.D.A. made the best decision at rejecting it? Should it be called "pink viagra"??
If the FDA rejected it, then it's probably harmful to the public to use. I'd rather be safe then have people suffer from any complications that come from the drug.
Trust me, drug companies probably do want to find the ideal female viagra drug since viagra alone is a multimillion dollar enterprise.
why would i debate this if the FDA said no? they know what they are doing.
the argument that this is sexism is silly and thats probably the viagra company being mad that they wont make millions lol.
the FDA approves tons of meds specifically made for women. this is a health issue not a sexism issue
If the FDA did not approve the drug, it's because it's not safe for women to use. Thing about Viagra is that it doesn't give men a sex drive, it just gives them a boner. With women, the issue is more complicated. The drug would have to deal with actual hormonal balances as opposed to just rushing blood to their private parts. It's probably a lot more tricky than Viagra.
Besides, I see commercials for female hormone therapy all the time and that is designed to do just what a female Viagra would.
I heard about this earlier on a network news program and it was only phrased as a sexism issue (they even had a few women crying about never getting to feel like real women because of men.) This is an interesting read after that.
If the FDA rejected it, then it's probably harmful to the public to use. I'd rather be safe then have people suffer from any complications that come from the drug.
Trust me, drug companies probably do want to find the ideal female viagra drug since viagra alone is a multimillion dollar enterprise.
Right?? The greedy bastards @ big Pharma are more than willing to find an effective female Viagra. That's makes me think even more that this **** was probably unsafe or ineffective
That makes no ****ing sense, Viagra does not make a man horny, it just gives him the tools he needs to have sex. A woman can have sex whether she's aroused or not, the vagina always works. There is no such thing as "female Viagra" because there's no part of the body that a "female Viagra" could stimulate.
That makes no ****ing sense, Viagra does not make a man horny, it just gives him the tools he needs to have sex. A woman can have sex whether she's aroused or not, the vagina always works. There is no such thing as "female Viagra" because there's no part of the body that a "female Viagra" could stimulate.
Not really. If a woman is not aroused she can't lubricate nor can her vagina widen. So really the sex will be painful and really horrible.
If the FDA rejected it, then it's probably harmful to the public to use. I'd rather be safe then have people suffer from any complications that come from the drug.
Trust me, drug companies probably do want to find the ideal female viagra drug since viagra alone is a multimillion dollar enterprise.
