Patriarchy Men for a Future American Patriarchy Society meeting.

So basically, what this study found is that -- hmm, 36 divided by 4 -- 9 percent of women surveyed had a problematically low sex drive. Well, crap, that's not going to sell testosterone patches. Good thing a bunch of self-reported answers to vague questions, in concert with stereotypes about the female libido, can make this sound like a much bigger problem that only modern medicine can fix! Whew!

As it seems you agree with the PMFAFMPS platform that women and all women should not have a healthy sexual life. Or is it that this drug is for only the benefit of men? It is so hard keeping up with which women get full rights and which get only some rights according to BS/American/Radical/POMO feminist.

Sorry you are just wrong. All forms of depression are biochemical reactions in the brain, period. The unset of depression might be because of emotional trigger or some form of external trigger but the actual depression itself is biochemical. To say otherwise is to give the POMO nonsense that the mind is separate from the physical credence despite every study in the last 50 plus years showing the opposite. There is little hard data that shows psychotherapy on its own to bring about results greater then placebo and as you mention it is a combo of pills and talk that does the job but it is hard to find a solid study that shows it is the combo of the two and not that a person that is going though therapy is more likely to be taking their pills.

What is wrong with going to the pills for help? That too me is a positive that so many in the west are willing to pop pills to make us better, what I don't understand is why people want to "tough it out" and live with conditions that can be improved by taking a couple of pills. If this patch can help 4 million women have the sex lives they want is that not a good thing? Taking some antibiotics that will stop an infection that otherwise will keep me in bed for a month and possibly send me to a hospital, that is a good thing right?

And finally, The Jim, brief one-time structured interview surveys, whether over the phone or not, are a poor way to develop accurate data on a topic as loaded with shame, self-image & self-esteem, cultural stereotyping, and outright lying and extreme self-deception, as sex. Harding is damn straight, from the get go the study is highly dubious and questionable at best

What is the better why to do this survey? Do you know if they did a single call or if they made several follow up calls to see if the information changed? Do you know what corrections they used to account for the issues you brought up? Of course not because you nor Kate bothered to read the journal article. Do you think respected medical journals go around publishing just any old study with out first looking at the methodology and having a group of Top of the field first look at it?

The reason I did say "look here little lady" is because I don't use overused patronizing language with a history of sexist blanket use and belittlement. I prefer to belittle those that deserve it as individuals (or small subgroups based on ideology) due to their history of shoddy journalism, their repeated hypocrisies, and the lack of understanding of the topic they are discussing especially when they can pick up a phone and find out the answers.

But, then i find you attacked me and not my argument nor did you even defend the original piece.

Oh, The Jim? What makes you think Kate didn't read the original study to find out specifically what they meant by "low libido"?

Did you read the piece that is how i know that Kate did not read the study. Almost every reference in Kate's piece was a reference a form of "Graham says". Hell when she could not find the numbers she needed Kate uses "Graham doesn't tell us". I stand by my original assertion that she did not read the study.

I did. And what it says is that they use the diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV for Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder. Linky: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/hyposexdesdis.htm

As you can see, NO specific criteria is given for what constitutes "low libido," as to how many times a week (or day, or hour, or whatever) you're "supposed" to want sex in order to be considered healthy; IOW, it's shrink's prerogative whether you're "frigid" (as they used to call it) or not.

You did more research on this study then Kate did congrats. Personally I am not a fan of using a definition like that as it is to broad and vaguely defined. Unfortunately, I feel it will be at least another 3 or 4 decades before psychology goes away and neurology virtually replaces it.

Looks like someone didn't do his homework before hitting the trollkey.

Ummm, what was I wrong on or can you not read? I specifically said that I did not read the survey and specifically said that I was making educated guesses on the criteria they used to define low sexual desire and guess what one of the three guesses I made turned out to be basically right. What I did was criticize Kate because she wrote a story about a study that she never bothered to read, she criticized researchers because of what another reporter decided was not important with out picking up a phone.

Sorry, pointing out the massive problems with a story is not trolling.