I can certainly understand Ms Berman's concern with overmedicalizing people's lives. And I am concerned also with all possible bad side effects of medicines. But I can also see the bright side: maybe some women's lives will get better thanks to that. (I don't want to say that simply getting more or more intense desire is the path to happiness; just that, for some women, it may be.)

I don't know if pharma companies are to be trusted. I want to think so; after all, if prolonged testosterone treatments do end up having bad consequences for women's health, I suppose they wouldn't let the product out because of possible lawsuits plus the loss of a market niche. And I'm also reminded of all those people who thought (think?) that cellphones and wireless internet are bad for our brains because of the effect of "radiations."

OK. I'll be optimistic. I hope this product will be around, I hope it will work well and help the women who use it.

even if it means I need to end up shaving my chin, and get 'roid rages- which it probably will. Anything to get my sex drive back, but man, there is a huge ugh factor in having to take testosterone to be feeling more 'womanly'.

Lib as in Libido

libido or even libertine, but what good is a libertine boost if it comes with a mustache?

Complain if no product is being developed, and the patriarchal pharma companies are discriminating against women, or complain about the product being developed, as it's an example of a product that will be "pushed on women who may have different medical or psychological issues preventing them from wanting and enjoying sex?"

Just keep complaining, and we will remember we live in America, where women like to complain.

If a woman wants it and needs it, fine. I have no problem with that, all I would worry about is a doctor or woman running to this pill or gel before doing the work necessary to determine if this lack of libido is physical or mental.

One is called vodka. The other is called money.

There is a fundamental difference not really being addressed here. In the case of the men there is an inherent mental desire (dare I say craving?) present for sex that is consistent at most ages, they just need something to get the equipment cooperating. Therefore there is an active demand for products like Viagra.

Women’s’ issues, on the other hand, tend to be desire related, not an equipment problem. It seems, as women age, have families and (especially) go through hormonal changes their sexual interest normally drops, often to a level of no interest at all. The active product demand just won’t be there like it is for men. It’s kind of a catch-22 where they need to be taking the product to be interested in buying the product.

Hence, if researchers do come up with a safe, effective product it will probably sit on the shelf gathering dust. Of course men may buy it and beg women to try it but I suspect the begging alone will give women a headache.

On another note, it would seem easier to create a drug to manipulate a seemingly simple piece of “equipment” than a drug that can create desire in a complicated brain, though I’d swear that equipment has its own brain sometimes…

I don't think Ms Berman is complaining. She is afraid of possible collateral effects, stuff like that. But reading the article, my impression is she's OK, even happy, with the possibility of this product being around and having the desired effect.

I don't know, Brass Ones. This "catch-22" you mention--they need to be taking the product to be interested in buying the product--sounds a lot like it should prevent alcoholic beverages or cigarettes from being bought. Since everybody's first experience of drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco was bad, you had to want to do it because of social pressure (the "cool effect") and/or the effects alcohol and tobacco have. They're acquired tastes.

My impression is that some curious women will try it, and if they get a good result, they'll keep buying it. And then their friends might get interested. After all, if they start desiring sex and having more and better orgasms, I'm sure this effect will work in the direction of making them want more of the product. Just like the effects of alcohol and tobacco do.

(linkback) Thrive or Fail? Viagra for Women: How will it fare? [VOTE] - http://www.thriveorfail.com/0eb07

Like 700 or so years ago, in Europe anyway, the OPPOSITE of this drug would have been a major money-maker. All those convents, monasteries, etc., just dieing for something to keep the sisters and brothers calm and focused.

It seems that Judy Berman's main objection to these drugs is the commercials that will follow their approval.

It's hard for me, a 71 year old female, to empathize with women who have lost their groove except to say that a WHOLE lot has to do with whom you are grooving.

My studies have definitively improved with Prozac! Now I have to resort to video games as a distraction. :)

Really it's not the partner, even though they usually blame themselves. When masturbation no longer works the way it always did, you kind of know it's you. Bodily function is what's out of whack for the SSRI population. The pharmaceutical companies have low statistics for sexual side effects, but literally everyone I've talked to on these meds says it's sexually different now (either completely broken, or partially broken). Sex is not everything, and I certainly wouldn't go off my meds to achieve a normal orgasm, but it's very frustrating to not work anymore.

I have zero libido and I LOVE it! I'm totally in control of myself at all times and I have so much more free time to do stuff I really want to do. So, while I applaud the researchers for turning their attention to something that apparently bothers some women (or perhaps more realistically the men they are involved with?!), I am not interested.

Kind of interesting that the story that follows is about doctors being able to refuse abortions and sterilization though.