In August 2015 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in America approved a female libido-enhancing drug variously dubbed “Female Viagra,” and “pink Viagra” in the media. There are a number of drugs to treat low female sex drive. The condition used to be called hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD), but since 2013 The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the psychiatrists’ bible, has re-labeled it female sexual interest/arousal disorder (FSIAD). Some of the better known commercial brand name drugs are Intrinsa, Flibanserin, and Sildenafil. I could be wrong, but I think that none of these are anything at all like Viagra and the monikers used in the media are both stupid and misleading. Viagra is not designed to treat sex drive but sexual function: the treatment of physical conditions contributing to male erectile dysfunction - the physical inability to achieve or maintain an erection. Female Viagra is designed to treat a psychological condition only: subdued libido. That being the case, I should say that every adult female I have ever known seems to have been suffering from FSIAD, so what’s the big deal? It’s normal among women. Are people - the pharmaceutical industry, the media, doctors, and women themselves - now telling me that women (some women, anyway) actually want to have sex? Really?! Get outta here! You must be kidding! Hence I don’t see the point of female Viagra.
Now, we are living in a feminist age. Equal rights, equal pay, equal opportunity, equal treatment and all that jazz. Personally, I object to the use of the word “equal” because I feel that no one is “equal” to another. “Equal” misleads people into false and unsound thinking, because “equality” means sameness, not like value. And if feminists want to say that women are the same as men then they are just plain wrong. It’s difficult for me to comprehend deliberate unsound thinking, which seems wicked. The wicked praise themselves for their own selfishness, call it a virtue, and then turn sanctimonious ire on dissenters. Instead, “equitable” and “equitability” are what feminists ought to be using. But the difference between equality and equitability is lost on most people.
Feminists would deny my accusation of universal hypoactive sexual desire disorder and rebut, first that there’s nothing wrong with women, only with me; and second, that female Viagra is about enhancing female empowerment and sovereignty over their own bodies, control of their own lives and destinies, and control of their own sexuality. Not only control of their sexuality but the celebration of it.
But I continue to wonder about the point of female Viagra because, from my perspective, it seems that adult male sexuality effectively has been outlawed leaving us with restricted outlet to celebrate our masculinity. In fact, we would probably be condemned for doing so, just as heterosexuals would be condemned for celebrating pride in their heterosexuality. Having sex seems to have become illegal, as well as feeling sexual feelings, having sexual fantasies, and behaving in a sexual manner. Being male and sexual are not just politically incorrect but in many instances prosecutable. So what’s the point of female Viagra? Maybe I’m wrong. I am not trying to make a point about sex so much as a point about the place of sex and sexuality in our culture, and on that I think I have some legitimate observations even if some of my comments are wrong.