No expertise here :) but, here is one concise explanation of sildenafil/viagra on the net:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100002749.html

"Viagra tablets contain the active ingredient sildenafil, which is a medicine used in the treatment of erectile dysfunction (impotence). Sildenafil is called a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, and works by preventing the action of a chemical in the body called phosphodiesterase type 5.

An erection is produced via a complex chain of events, involving signals from the nervous system and the release of chemical messengers within the tissues of the penis. One of these chemical messengers is called cyclic GMP.

Cyclic GMP causes the blood vessels in the penis to widen by relaxing a thin layer of muscle found in the blood vessel walls. This allows more blood to enter the penis, which ultimately results in the penis becoming rigid and erect.

Cyclic GMP is normally broken down by another chemical in the body called phosphodiesterase type 5. Sildenafil works by preventing the action of phosphodiesterase type 5, thus stopping the breakdown of cyclic GMP. This means that the blood vessels are kept dilated for longer, improving blood flow to the penis and maintaining an erection.

As sildenafil enhances the actions of the chemical messengers responsible for producing an erection, it will only work once these messengers are present. This means that sexual stimulation is required for it to produce and maintain an erection. The dose should be taken approximately one hour before intended intercourse."

From everything I've read, they really are using a sledgehammer to fix a clock with the SSRIs (I'm on them and they are worth every inconvenience) When they are able to tease out what does what to the point of being able to fix the side effects, they probably will find a more specific drug that won't have such systemic consequences. That's just an opinion though.

Viagra is not about having an orgasm. Taking Viagra is to treat men with erectile dysfunction. for many, if not most of these men, intercourse would essentially be impossible without the drug, i.e. no drug, no sex.

This tidbit of information seems to be lost in the debate about whether 9% of American women can achieve orgasm. I think this debate tends to trivialize the real medical miracle Viagra gave to men suffering with ED. There simply is no equivalent to ED and simply a failure to achieve orgasm.

So now that I can't use jalapenos does this mean I should substitute crushed viagra pills in my salsa?

By the way, is this young lady related to someone who owns Salon? And why is everything she "reports" on related to sex? Can't they get Glenn Greenwald to reads some of these stories for us?

I'm trying to figure out what it is that researchers and lay people think Viagra will do for women.

To my understanding, Viagra has no effect on the libido in either sex; it only enhances the ability of individuals to achieve erections of the penis and clitoris, which contributes to more efficient orgasms. Is this correct?

Or is Viagra attempting to increase vaginal and vulvar engorgement and possibly lubrication as well in the phallocentric belief that female sexual desire and orgasm is all about insertion of the penis?

If anyone out there has the expertise to answer these questions, I would love to hear from you. Thanks!

salonuser: "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."

9 percent won't sell something?

Hmmmm. Let's do some math:

325 million people in the U.S., 51% female = 162.5 million women

Figure 75% are over 17. That's about 122 million women.

Now figure 9% of those. That 11 million women.

11 million people isn't a target market?

Excellent synopsis! Surprisingly often, a perfect gem of a letter will pop up on Salon. . .

It's true, you guys: A lot of ladies don't like the sex! According to a new study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 36.2 percent of ladies don't. What ever can we do about this? Well, Procter and Gamble thinks a testosterone patch it's already selling in Europe might help American women get their grooves back, which is why it funded the study. Oh. You know, I applaud Judith Graham for pointing that out in her blog post about it at the Chicago Tribune's Web site -- so often, obvious conflicts of interest go unreported -- but once we know the study was carried out with an eye to selling libido boosters, why are we still taking it seriously?

Because rigorously conducted research is possible regardless of who funds it, you say? OK, let's take a look at what else we know about this shocking new information. First, the study looked at women ages 18 to 70. Now, I would never suggest that post-menopausal women aren't sexual (go see "Mamma Mia!" if you have any doubts about that), but I'm thinking they might not be as horny as 18-year-olds, generally speaking. Indeed, Graham says the study also showed that "of women who entered menopause naturally as a result of aging, 52.4 percent confirmed low levels of desire. By contrast, 26.7 percent of women still getting their periods and 39.7 percent of women in menopause because of surgical interventions (removal of the ovaries) found themselves without sexual urges." Even 26.7 percent is a pretty big number, but what are we actually talking about here? How do you define or measure "low levels of desire"? Graham doesn't tell us, but she does mention that the study consisted of a phone survey. Oh, hey, self-reported data coming from women who wouldn't blow off a stranger calling to ask about their sex lives! That sounds totally reliable!

If all that's not enough to make you doubt the study's findings, try this on for size: "Only one-quarter of the women who said they weren't inclined toward sex were disturbed by their lack of feeling." So wait, all these women have desperately low libidos, but only 25 percent of them care? Ooh, I bet there's some evolutionary psychology coming up next! "[Edward] Laumann of the University of Chicago has a theory why that may be so: It could be low sexual desire is hard-wired into women through evolution." Ding ding ding! What do I win? "If women were like men and wanted sex all the time, they'd be pregnant more often," says Laumann, which means our bodies would go through a lot more stress, which means no sex for you! Sure, that sounds sort of logical, except I missed the study demonstrating that men ages 18-70 "want sex all the time." And what about the 63.8 percent of women who don't have a low sex drive? How come only a little over a third of us are hard-wired to want to protect our bodies? And why do we become less interested in sex once the threat of pregnancy is gone?

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!