Hi again:

"If the sterotypes and cultural fears didn't exist, these products wouldn't move."

I think if the medical conditions and/or quality of life issues that this pill may or may not address didn't exist, these products wouldn't move either.

I am troubled by when we assume that women are duped into buying things they don't need. Are you? Do you buy things because some industry out there persuaded you to buy them? I don't think I am, in general. And so, my personal branch of feminism doesn't allow me to assume such thinking about other people.

here, again, is the same type of thinking in your letter:

"Sure: alleviating low libido and large appetite for women who really truly want those things allieviated..."

The fact that you qualify "women" with "who really truly want those things allievated" suggests that you think there are women who have some sort of false consciousness about what they "really truly want." This point alone can get into a whole series of questions (why aren't the media and corporations a "real" part of informing our decisions? Why do some feminists always think that the media/corporations/men/etc have the ability to dupe women? etc.), but more importantly,

WHO IS GOING TO DECIDE WHAT WOMEN "REALLY TRULY WANT"?

You? Me? I think that sets us up on dangerous terrain, and ignores women's health issues (low libido and large appetite) because they may be associated with an unfortunate social stereotype.

"For some of us, this article reminded us that in many places, for many reasons, our culture reinforces stereotypes and encourages citizens, consumers, whathaveyou, to adhere to them."

This, to me, is vastly too vague to describe any significant social process (and what you describe sounds utilitarian and way too neat and tidy). And what is "our culture"? How exactly does it "reinforce" and "encourage" people to--implied in your letter--buy unnecessary medicine? I'm not suggesting that what you roughly outline may or may not occur, I just am suspcious of broad sketches vs. detailed empirical claims.

I just don't think some potential annoyance justifies denying possible treatment to women.

from your posts is that you are taking the position that prioritizes the dangers in this pill's continuation of stereotypes about women, while I am prioritizing the dangers in letting such stereotypes prevent possible health issues for women be improved.

I don't think it is fair to let some broad-sweeping stereotype trump real women suffering.

Really, if I'm grossly mis-characterizing your position (and I'm a pretty fair and accurate reader if I do say so myself), I'd really like to hear you clarify what it is you are saying and how I'm mis-characterizing it.

I'm sure that people will balk at the McDonald's analogy of a previous poster, but you have to see it from the perspective that not everyone has the same beliefs about what sex means. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

Some feminists who oppose prostitution do so because they believe that part of patriarchy is control over women's sexuality. They view prostitution as the ultimate exploitation of women's sexuality. They say it objectifies and demeans women. I disagree with their basic premise and thus don't agree with their larger argument about prostitution. For me, their basic premise is inherently flawed because I think it not only presumes what are acceptable forms of sexuality (sex for love is ok, but not sex for money), but it also makes for strange bedfellows with right-wing ideologies. As long as feminists think sex for money is inherently bad, then I'm not surprised to see them critiquing sex work.

The biggest challenge is to making prostitution legal everywhere (not just in certain places in Nevada) in the U.S. is the perception that sexual relations should not involve money exchanges, and, instead, should involve (two heterosexual*) adults in love (preferably, the married kind).

For me, this position on sex (sorry, couldn't help myself) is amazingly narrow and, dare I say, unfeminist. It also supposes an ideal that sex in marriage or romantic love is always right and good, but sex in prostitution is always dirty and bad. So if I give my husband a blow job tonight in exchange for a new pair of earrings, no problem. But if I walk 50 feet out to the sidewalk and make the same offer to a stranger, I've committed a crime. Please.

And of course there are race and class issues relevant to prostitution. But not any more so than other occupations. Demonizing prostitution is really a demonization of poverty, except you're punishing the effect instead of the cause. I think most people who participate in sex work do so because they have few traditional job skills and little hope of gaining said skills. If you want there to be less prostitution because you think it is a bad occupation, then give people other opportunities. Address the social issues and sex for money could be a lot better if its conditions were regulated and if it wasn't an overwhelming effect of poverty. And the hypocrisy with which we decide what is legal and what isn't is glaring.

For example: porn. People are paid to do porn, but that's not illegal. You can be paid to have sex on camera, and as long as the person having sex with you isn't paying you, that's fine. But if the person you're having sex does pay you, that's a crime. These people are prostitutes: they are having sex for money. You're still getting paid to have sex, you money is just coming from a third party. Or, to take another example, anyone can go buy a dildo, vibrator, sex doll, what have you, and get off. That is, you can exchange money for a product that will get you off. But if the product becomes human hands, mouths, or other exciting orifices, then that's the ballgame.

*This has some flexibility, but with some sodomy laws still on the books, is up for debate.