I apologize if what I wrote was a little too simplified. I think what I was trying to say when I said that women may want sex but lack the desire for it, is that some women may wish they were more desirous of sex than they find themselves to be.

There are lots of legitimate reasons a women may want this, for her own emotional reasons, to create a stronger bond with her partner, etc. I think the pill fills this need.

The crucial part though is that the woman wants it, i.e., she is in charge of making the choice for herself. I think this is different than someone convincing her she should want it when she doesn’t, presumably by telling her she is broken.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether or not a low libido is a medical condition or not. What matters is whether a not a woman wants to change an aspect of her sex life that she couldn’t previously address. This pill allows women who want to make changes to their sex lives to do it, and I think this benefit outweighs the negative ways in which it might be used.

Your critique seems to assume that a women may not be ambivalent towards sex on one level (physical, for example) but able to desire it on another (like emotional). Women may want sex, but lack any desire for it just as easily as they may desire sex but not want to have it. I myself have wished I could become more easily aroused by my partner (which is different from being aroused but not “getting it up”). I don’t see why a woman couldn’t find herself in this same position.

This pill is for women who want to raise their level of arousal to a point consistent with how often they are (or would like to be) having sex.

What this pill doesn’t do is make any claims towards restoring a woman’s ideal level of arousal, probably because a definite one doesn’t exist. This doesn’t mean, however, that no woman is unhappy with what she perceives to be a low level of arousal and wants to change it.

Those women should not be denied access on the grounds that some other women may feel pressured to take the pill despite being happy with their lower arousal levels. Women being pressured to do anything they don’t want to do is problematic, but that problem lies with the men in their lives, and not medicines that are meeting legitimate needs.

What Viagra is for:
Dude is aroused but has physical problems (like bloodflow) preventing changes to his male anatomy from occurring.

What this is for:
Woman does not want to have sex.

So, when you say:

I think your having a hard time seeing a diference between women wanting sex and not being able to have it, and women notesnting sex and being pathologized for it. As far as the pill helps the former, I support it.

You are exactly missing that this pill is for the latter. The former is fixed by lube.

Opting out of the whole thing altogether is not a choice.

Funny how the people who are all about “choice!!!! choice!!!!! CHOICE!!!!!” are the ones on here saying that not having sex is not an option. Not a choice. Speaks for itself, almost.

Also, for anyone reading at home who made it through the comments here and is still unsure, “a new pair of eyes”, James, and Andrew should toss themselves. Not for being dudes (other-james/syndicalist702 manages to be both a dude and not totally obnoxious), but for being assholes who barge onto feminist spaces and refuse to listen.

ND, your blog + factcheckme’s essays about PIV = better and more effective than a decade of therapy in helping me feel like I do in fact deserve to be alive and am not crazy.

Unless that is to say that all men (and the contents of their head) are the same.