The majority of US drug research is funded by Big Pharma. Any numbers they produce are suspect.

none of them reported a low sex drive.

Work Svutlana for big drugged company and guarantee me, they can find research for support anything, even epidemic of erectile dysfunctions in young men.

Dumbya is the ass behind the downward spiral in getting down. He's a one man buzz kill, a mumbling stumbling bumbling chastity dolt. When Obama is erected, uh, elected, things will be looking up. And in. And out. Repeat as needed. Goddess Bless America.

Brought to you by drug companies and the AMA. Oh I'm sorry did I poke a holy liberal Shibboleth?

paid by the post during summer detention school, Merry? Fascists specialize in Larry craig tapdancing and Jimmy Swaggart whoring. Which is your bag, Merry?

can attest that all the women HE'S known have a low sex drive.

also some time at the food bank. You?

We're called Parents.

That isn't gonna change anytime soon unless the drug companies find a way to manufacture an over-the-counter baby sitter/ weekend getaway combo.

While I am sceptical about any industry funded studies, for years it has been reported that the biggest complaint couples and sex therapists (and research) ususally find is lack of interest in sex. It is a pretty common problem and is a serious issue for couples when one partner has lost his or her sex drive.

trolling for tuna at the food bank? lowlife. trying to bang someone between the two by fours at Habitat? creepazoid. You're mother teresa, crossdressing, right? typical hitler youth.

Thank you for uncovering this particular hidden agenda. Natch, it's not surprising, and it reminds us of the importance of cultivating strong, nimble and bullshit-resistant brain cells.

That's a task requires eternal vigilance and a lot of hard work, but it is the only way we can divine truth from what ain't so.

You see this everywhere. Lest any of you think that Big Pharma has a monopoly on self-interested research, scratch below the surface of much of what passes for "research" in alternative health circles. I suppose that in an utterly unregulated $12 billion / year industry, fast-buck artists should be expected to promulgate lots of bad science. Fortunately, most of it is so sloppy it can be detected by the average 12 year old... but they are getting more sophisticated.

Just a few days ago, the local "Health" emporium had an attractive end-cap display for various magnetic magic charms. Yes, you too, can buy a pair of utterly useless magnetic insoles for only $39.99, or a similarly useful magnetic knee-brace for $89.99. I kid you not. And this in a small Appalachian city where the poverty rate is 12.2% and a median household income of less than $40,000.

On one hand, one can make a point that there is nothing wrong with separating fools from their money, but on the other, when so much blatently false and manipulative marketing informs their decision, that's just wrong. I swear, I don't know how the people who sell this shit manage to sleep at night!

If you look at the author list of the study (and their institutional affiliations are very clearly listed on the first page) you'll note that there are six total authors, and only one of them works for Proctor and Gamble, the rest are at UNC Chapel Hill.

The methodology of the study is sound as is the sample size (2207 women). The assumption of any survey study is that most respondents will answer honestly, as they've had the study described to them before agreeing to become a participant (and so why answer dishonestly if you're going to bother participating?) The broadsheet writer seems more interested in making snarky comments than substantive criticisms of the published article, as when she notes at the end that if "9 percent of women surveyed had a problematically low sex drive. Well, crap, that's not going to sell testosterone patches." Actually, it is. If the sample is representative (and unless the authors are outright lying, it appears to be) then even if the results are restricted to only American women between the ages of 18 and 70, 9% of that total means somewhere around 10 million women have this problem. To put that in context, there are currently 4 million people in the US with Alzheimer's Disease. Are they also not a problem and not deserving of medical care because they represent such a minor fraction of the total population?

Does P&G have a financial interest in determining whether there is a market for their drug? Of course they do, and to suggest otherwise would be hopelessly naive. But just because a market exists for a drug doesn't mean the problem is being manufactured. Demonize corporations for the legitimately bad things that they do, don't just grasp at straws playing to the peanut gallery.

Yet another BS post that bashes science when it does not result in conclusions that match American middle and upper class/POMO feminism politics. But, of course if this studies conclusions did match American Feminist politics would be praised to high heaven.

Harding starts out trying to poison the well by stating the monetary backers of the study are trying to sell a product that might/will elevate the symptoms that the study is trying to look at. Well no shit would a well ran company actually see if there is a market for a product before sinking millions into advertising and marketing (which includes educating doctors that they know have a medication that can be prescribed, you know the way every drug/treatment maker has to educate doctors about new medications since doctors don't have special powers to know there might be new treatments for diabetes or cancer) along with FDA approval process. Well back to who Harding poisons the well, she strongly implies that it was a lone journlist that fought against hope to find the backers of the study when in reality all Graham did was look at the study to find that the authors of the study made no secret at all about either their methodology or their backers. She also ignores that the orginial story where she learned this also makes mention of 3 other surveys that found similar results that where all also published in a respected medical journals. I guess the medical journals too are under the thumb of big pharma and the patriarchy?

Because rigorously conducted research is possible regardless of who funds it, you say?

Why yes, I agree that rigorously conducted research is not only possible but likely regardless of who funds it especially when it is published in a respected medical journal. Why do you ask? Because, the "big pharma" likes to make money and if the results of a study like this to see how large the market is is vastly overstated then they will loose money. Because, the journal that published this likes to keep its reputation. Well, damn I did not know that snarkiness and citing a movie based on a musical based on Abba songs was stronger evidence than a background on research methodology, statistics, and medical research.

Since you decide to play with the numbers, why did you use the numbers of another reporter and not use the numbers from the survey itself? Doesn't Salon pay for access to the large medical journals like the Wall Street Journal, NYTimes, the Tribune company and well every large and medium media company?

How do you define or measure "low levels of desire"? Graham doesn't tell us,

If you looked at the original survey it will tell you how they define "low levels of desire"? Since I am not paid to do your job and don't have access to journals where I am, I will just throw out a few educated guesses on how they define low levels of desire; lower level of normal sexual desire, drop in sexual desire, level of sexual desire that is a couple of standard deviations below other women the same age/medical conditions.

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!

So with your obvious background in snark and knowledge of a film based on a musical based on Abba songs how would you suggest they do this study? Four journals have thought this was a valid way to conduct a study like this but obviously you disagree. Do you even know how a phone survey is set up? Or do you just totally like think the conversation just jumps to how much a person fucks?

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?

Oh what snark you got him, you go girl. I know that to American Feminist men and women are exactly equal in every way except in ways that women are better then men but you cut off why it could be hard wire. Here is the rest of what Laumann (who actually did one of the studies and is making a best guess not a declarative statement that Harding suggests) said that was quoted in the article. ""If women were like men and wanted sex all the time, they’d be pregnant more often" and their bodies would be exceedingly stressed as a consequence of the demands of bearing and rearing children, he said.

It’s probably an evolutionary advantage for women to want sex when they’re most likely to survive pregnancy and be able to take care of a child, he suggests.

"I consistently find that stress in women doubles or triples the likelihood of reporting a lack of [sexual] interest," Laumann observes."

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?

Why don't you do what Graham did and fucking call the guy? Other wise ask Graham why she either did not ask him these questions or chose not to include them in her story, I mean shit she should have known that a radical feminist would demand answers (with out doing a damn bit of her own journalism) that at best are tangibly connected to the story she was writing.