Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first pill for impotence. According to a New York Times article, "there were a number of impotence treatments before Viagra, but all carried one or more drawbacks that the drug will not have: a need for surgery, interruption of lovemaking, or pain." In an Associated Press article, Dr. Harin Padma-Nathan (of USC and director of The Male Clinic in Santa Monica, CA) "predicts half a dozen oral impotence medicines will hit the market in the next seven years." Male impotence also made news back in January, when a new baldness cure listed impotence as a possible side effect.

When men can't have sex, it's a major health issue. In comparison, news about women's sexual problems has been almost nonexistent.

So, where are the treatments for pre-orgasmic women? None of the male remedies have even been tested on women to see if we might benefit. When other drugs affect the male libido, it makes headlines. When a woman's sex drive is impacted, you MAY see it in the fine print. Did you know that reduced libido is a common side-effect of the birth control pill?? I found that in Our Bodies Ourselves; none of the manufacturer's informational inserts thought that was worth mentioning.

Another NYT article on Viagra notes "relatively little is known about sexual function and dysfunction among women. Until researchers solve that problem, Pfizer's plans to test the effects of Viagra on women cannot begin." But even though the drug only helps men, its manufacturer is "considering advertising the drug in woman's magazines, hoping women will encourage their partners to seek treatment." (Wall Street Journal)

This inequity in handling sexual dysfunction is an insidious and subtle form of discrimination. Compare the underlying assumptions:

• Men need to have sex and orgasms. Men with sexual dysfunctions cannot perform at all. Therefore, any problem is a major one.
• Women don't necessarily need to have sex or orgasms. Women with sexual dysfunctions can still perform, so it's not as serious. (Even unwilling women can be penetrated, and women have the option of "faking it")
• When men are unable to have or enjoy sex, there are numerous medical treatments available -- implants, injections, and now pills. A man with sexual dysfunction has a physical problem.
• When women are unable to have or enjoy sex, the main medical advice is to seek a sex therapist. A woman with sexual dysfunction has a mental problem -- "it's all in her head"
• Often, articles on sexual dysfunctions talk about "impotence and infertility" as if they were parallel and gender-specific problems. Equating men's lack of pleasure with women's inability to reproduce implies that female sexuality is primarily for procreation, and women's pleasure is secondary.

Even if you have a wonderful sex life, these assumptions affect all society. Once you trivialize women's sexual pleasure, it's easy to deny that women have any desires at all. Abstinence-based sex education often teaches that girls must resist boys' desires. And, with all the responsibility belonging to the women, it's easy to separate "good girls" from "bad girls" -- the whole virgin/whore dichotomy.

Last Saturday's New York Times had an article titled: "Scientists Weigh Viagra-Like Drug For Women." The article begins like so: "About 100 scientists from drug companies, academia and the Food and Drug Administration met in a hotel here Friday to ask a pressing question: If Viagra or a drug like it works in women, how would you know?" Later in the article, we get the following comment: " Norman Mazer, vice president for clinical research at TheraTech Inc, a small drug company in Salt Lake City, stated the difficulty: 'A man knows he has a problem. But in the case of a woman, she can perform. She doesn't necessarily think of herself as having a problem.'"

Do these people really think women are so ignorant of their sexuality? Apparently, as long as women can take it and fake it, there isn't any problem. If scientists making medical decisions about adult women can make such offensive statements, we all deserve a second opinion.

The article then contradicted these experts by saying: "Although the actual definitions of female sexual dysfunction may seem elusive, those who were at the meeting agreed that women do complain about their sex lives. Large surveys in the United States and Europe have found that as many as 50 percent of adult women say that they have lost interest in sex or that they have difficulty becoming aroused."

A full quarter of the adult population is having sexual problems, and this isn't newsworthy.

Good news is on the horizon. Pfizer has taken the first steps to study Viagra in women. However, many doctors aren't waiting for the drug company and have begun prescribing it to women already. "Drug companies and individual doctors were clearly rushing into the female sexual-dysfunction arena."

Pfizer has been testing Viagra as an impotency drug since 1993 on over 3,000 men. Over five years of study, and they couldn't examine one woman? Once again, women are the medical afterthought, completely ignored in all the trials. Medical studies on women are finally underway, but it may be years before results are available. So without tests, women and doctors have already begun gambling with this untested drug. Pfizer earns the same amount per pill whether the patient is male and female, but since the women are paying to be experimented upon, it's a net gain for the company.

Women are 50% of the population. Drug companies need to test their medicines on both genders, and shouldn't profit by turning half the population into paying guinea pigs.

>I'm responding to this old posting now, and in a slightly different
>context, because I recently read an article in my local paper once again
>decrying the "sexism" of insurers paying for Viagra but not birth
>control pills.

>I would urge people not to misconstrue standard insurance company
>"logic" as sexism, or not caring about women. Viagra and the pill are
>not comparable. One is an impotence drug and one is a temporary
>contraceptive.

The Pill has other valid uses besides contraception. Because the Pill is a regulated dosage of hormones, it is often prescribed for women with hormonal problems, such as irregular menstruation or extremely painful cramps.

In these cases, the contraceptive features of the pill are a side-effect, rather than the primary effect.

Also, look at what the Pill and Viagra do in a social aspect. Both pills free people to have sex with fewer consequences. The Pill allowed women to have sex without fear of pregnancy. That was a very real fear and stigma in the 1950s around unmarried women who get pregnant (read the EXCELLENT book The Fifties: Women's Oral History to see just how inhibiting that mindset was)

The changes that the Pill wrought on women's sexuality are *extremely* similar to the current hysteria regarding Viagra. It had such a liberating effect that many doctors would only prescribe the Pill to married women.

If the insurance companies are willing to pay for something that frees men to have sex, they should do the same for women. [I understand that several drug manufacturers are working on "orgasm pills" for women. We'll see how insurance companies cover that...]

Plus, paying for contraception is cheaper than paying for an abortion which is much cheaper than paying for delivery and childcare. The insurance industry is extremely short-sighted by not covering such a basic need.