Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later[^][v]#418,895
The writer sounds like a snarky piece of shit.
"Derp what do all of these scientists know? They're clearly just afraid of female sexuality!"
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,913
they're worried that it would work too well?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 28 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,914
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
The medical establishment is terrified of female sexuality.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao double-posted this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,915
@418,895 (B)
Uhhh... yeah that's pretty much what it comes down to, isn't it?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,917
@418,913 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Isn't that something that should be taken into consideration? An overly high libido would be problematic for anybody. The article most likely seized on and magnified this detail because it was the most eye-catching.
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,918
@418,915 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Yeah. These scientists, they've all got hidden agendas. And we can completely rely on the media to report these shadowy agendas accurately.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,919
@418,917 (B)
Meanwhile, the medical establishment has never had any concerns about forms of birth control that routinely kill libido, cause weight gain, can lead to deadly stroke or blood clots, and increase risk of suicide and depression. But it keeps women sexually available without consequence!
But god forbid a woman enjoy sex "too much."
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,921
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Right, because the medical establishment is in fact a hive mind. They're all one entity with a consistent, and EVIL agenda!
How can you not see that such a drug being overly effective would be problematic? Note that the scientists are not worried that it would have an effect, just that it could be too strong.
Bur of course that's not as exciting or scary, so this guy's decided to twist that detail to make it more sensational.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,922
@previous (B)
No, but when an industry or a profession is filled with people who've been socialized in a particular way, it's not at all surprising for those messages to manifest in the work they do.
I've been reading about this stuff for years -- it's not one article. I do find the way women's sexuality is treated (especially relative to men's) in medicine to be a huge issue, and one I've personally experienced. Don't just sit here and spout off like a twat about "one article."
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,925
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
You don't care that they're just trying to make a drug that doesn't cause problems, do you? You don't want to see that an overly high libido would be problematic for anybody. No, it's much more fun to paint the scientists who made the drug as evil schemers with an agenda.
And if they were terrified of women's sexuality, then why in the fuck did they develop the drug in the first place?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,926
@previous (B)
That's right. I think they are terrible people who have no interest in safety at all. Thanks for being so reasonable to debate with.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,931
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
You said that the entire medical establishment was deliberately making shoddy drugs for women five posts ago, you ass.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 49 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,932
@previous (B)
I'm quite sure that's an exaggeration.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,933
Isn't this thing hella old and the conflict around it only slightly younger?
Personally I don't see the issue of girls enjoying sex more… I dunno.
::shrug::
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,934
@418,932 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
You said that they didn't give a shit about making drugs with horrible side-effects as long as it kept women sexually available.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 35 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,935
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,936
@418,933 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Neither do I. But it being too effective, which would be a problem for a woman or a man, is a legitimate concern.
Personally, I hope that they make this drug as good as they can and put it up for sale. It has very beneficial applications (helping women with low libidos) and gives women an option that men have had for a while.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 13 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,937
Perhaps it is time for women to be ultra-horny, too.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,942
@418,917 (B)
But it seems like that didnt stop viagra. It can give elderly gentleman rock hard erections that last for hours.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,944
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Have you ever had to deal with one of these elderly, rock-hard erections that last for hours, at work?
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 13 years ago, 18 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,945
@418,936 (B)
Indeed.
Personally I think the concerns might be overstated though from looking through what's available online.
If the main problem is really the thing being too active I'd personally vote for a soon release.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,947
@418,942 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
They probably like to think that they'll need those erections for that long. ;)
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,948
@418,945 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Media outlets aren't always a reliable source for getting a good picture of research, though. Were you looking at scienctifically-orientated sources or things like newspapers? I'd trust, say, a medical journal's report on this over a newspaper's.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,949
@418,944 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
lol No. Most at my work have super floppy cocks. Though, there are some issues where we have to manually stimulate a resident in order to perform a procedure. Such as putting on a texas catheter
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,951
@418,947 (B)
Probably, but to me that sounds like a drug working too well
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,952
@418,949 (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > manually stimulate
Gosh. Your job gets more and more... Interesting every time you describe it.
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,954
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,956
@418,934 (B)
I didn't say, btw, that I thought they were "deliberately making shoddy drugs for women." I don't think it's a deliberate intent to harm women; I think the potential side effects of hormonal birth control are just generally given less weight by doctors than they might be if men were experiencing them. (If you ever do some reading on it, you'll find that hormonal birth control can work for men, too, per trials of some drugs -- but the same side effects that happen to women, were considered a dealbreaker for men's use.) Likewise, women's sexual enjoyment is just not as important a goal to drug makers or doctors as men's sexual enjoyment is. I think that's pretty obvious; we're talking about this fifteen years after Viagra came out, did you notice? It seems clear to me that any side effect in the context of such an "unimportant" drug would be given a lot more weight than perhaps it otherwise would.
And you do realize there's a very long and well-documented history of doctors and psychiatrists pathologizing women who just happen to enjoy sex in a non-approved way? It's just... strange to me that this is the big concern about Viagra for women. Jesus. We've been stuck and prodded, had fertility killed, made moody and depressed, had our libidos killed, had strokes and blood clots because of hormonal birth control for over fifty years now. But god forbid a drug actually work too well in making us enjoy sex.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,958
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,959
@418,956 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
If there's any too negative, overly prevalent side effects in any drug then they should be working to eliminate them. If they're neglecting this duty in any way then they're wrong to do so.
And here's female viagra. Surely a positive indication? They've gone to the trouble of developing this drug, so you can hardly say that they've got some huge problem with women having sex drives. And again, I wouldn't exactly trust a media outlet as a reliable report on it anyway.
(Edited 10 minutes later.)
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,969
depends if it just makes people want more sex like that or if it starts making the people on it uncontrollably masturbate at every possible time they could just to reach the minimum of action to satisfy themselves which would be a pretty concerning thing for anyone really
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,970
@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
Kind of joking, but that sounds so hot
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 54 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,971
@418,969 (!KThEOwLwbU)
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. This is the kind of drug that, ideally, you don't want to get wrong. Can't blame them for being careful about it.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,975
If it makes women want to have sex every second, and disregard "safe" sex practices because they're so eager, that's dangerous. Imagine the unintended pregnancies, spread of STDs, etc. Too strong of a libido booster could really fuck ANYONE's life up, male or female. I don't understand how being concerned about it makes one afraid of female sexuality.
**disclaimer: I totally did not read the thread, sorry if I'm parroting what everyone else already said
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,978
@previous (H)
Well viagra now greatly increases the rates of heart attacks,and prolonged priaprism.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 55 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,980
@418,971 (B)
It just doesnt seem like they gave viagra that same type of wariness. They even send samples through the mail to people with known heart conditions
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,983
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Aren't there different doses of viagra? Weaker doses, I mean.
And yes, viagra obviously should be given the same level of scrutiny as any drug. I think the problem is that, due to its nature, it ends up being distributed by shady organisations that don't care about any potential side-effects and just want to make quick money.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#418,993
@418,980 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You're missing the point. The issue isn't the heart conditions. The issue is that they're worried about making women obsessed with sex to the point that it negatively impacts their lives and the lives of those around them.
> They even send samples through the mail to people with known heart conditions
is a completely irrelevant statement.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 38 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,013
lol
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,030
@418,993 (H)
Of course, women are just a hair's breath away from turning into ravaging sluts at any moment. I'm glad someone is concerned.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,031
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
You've already done this bit.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 40 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,032
@previous (B)
Oh, are you retards the only ones allowed to repeat your point 50 times in a thread?
Nega !34Kas0OdzM joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 59 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,034
@418,948 (B)
I'm currently going through reports one by one, **and I am starting to have the sickening feeling that this might all be part of a campaign by the manufacturer to use popular opinion as a way to push something with only meh effects.** **Might have been too much time around conspiracy theorists.**
It's basically something composed of testosterone and a chemical with a similar acting mechanism as viagra which does actually do something for girls http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=182296, just nothing as phenomenal as it does for men.
TL;DR: This particular formulation seems over-hyped from what I've seen.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,039
@419,032 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
But your point didn't hold up. Being cautious of a libido drug having too great an effect is the same as having a problem with female sexuality.
And if they've got problems with horny women, then why did they put time and money into making a drug that increases female libido?
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,041
@419,034 (Nega !34Kas0OdzM)
Hm. Well if it's really just some company trying to build hype for easy money then that's a real shame. Such a drug could geniunely help some people, and is in its own way a step forwards for gender equality.
Guess time will tell if this is the real deal or not.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 13 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,042
Shut up virgins.
Nega !34Kas0OdzM replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,043
@419,041 (B)
Aye.
And for that they should release it. @previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
> Shut up virgins.
Why so RUDE?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 36 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,045
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,069
@418,993 (H)
Wait, viagra encourages men who are too old or out of shape to even have sex, to attempt to do so. The mail comment is very relevant, because even though its a dangerous drug, its treated casually. They dont give out narcotics samples in the mail
(Edited 1 minute later.)
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,070
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Would you support viagra for transgender people?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 22 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,071
@418,993 (H)
Do you think that a drug that gives old or unhealthy men erections could possibly negatively affect their lives or the lives of their sex partners? Yes or no?
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 41 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,073
@419,070 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
I support viagra for anyone healthy enough to use it. Besides sex offenders.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ triple-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,077
Related to this, insurance companies are much more likely to cover Viagra,but not even birth control. Also, frequently you hear of conservatives/the religious rail against "the pill" but they almost never mention viagra. Why is that?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ quadruple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,078
I'd actually like to see the reasoning behind their fears of this product working "too well". Were women getting rock hard clits for over four hours, necessitating a trip to the er?
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 30 seconds later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,079
I feel like I should make a quality contribution to this thread but I have no opinion on this issue!
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,080
@418,949 (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > Though, there are some issues where we have to manually stimulate a resident in order to perform a procedure.
... my God.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,081
Quote from article:
More than one adviser to the industry told me that companies worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong, that the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering,” Bergner writes.
My question is, why is no one worried about men having crazed binges of infidelity and male excesses? Even before the creation of Viagra, men already committed the majority of sex crimes, and also used prostitutes at a much higher rate than females.
Also, during the conception of "the pill" people expressed these same fears about women!
This doesnt reference medical side effects at all, but moral worries. Which does suggest a fear of female sexuality.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,082
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,083
@419,081 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You could look at it a different way. Maybe they're being extra careful becuase they actually care and want to minimise any negative side-effects?
> Which does suggest a fear of female sexuality.
Then why are they developing a pill to increase female libido? It doesn't add up.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,085
@previous (B)
No side medical effects have been mentioned. Just moral issues. Also, if enough people are willing to pay for a product, then it will be produced. Thats capitalism.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,087
A question for any of you. Have male sexual excesses ever hurt society in any way, and if so, should that have stopped the creation of viagra? Also, might there be good reasons why fat, unhealthy, or old men should not have sexual intercourse?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,090
@419,085 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
A libido that's too high and affects one's normal function is a medical issue.
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I don't understand how this is related. Nobody is saying that viagra is perfect and that men should be let off the hook for sexual excesses.
We're just examining at a drug and discussing its potentially harmful side-effects. That's all this is.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,092
@previous (B)
Its not a medical issue if it doesnt negatively effect health. We have no proof that it would harm anyone's lives, and medical side effects were not mentioned at all! It didnt say that women were having orgasms at odd times and running cars off of the roads. It didnt mention that someones clit could fall off. all that was said was that they were worried that women might want sex too much!
Also, what counts as having a too high libido? Who makes that judgement call? Are the women taking this drug saying that its ruining their lives?
Viagra should be mentioned because we treat this drug very casually even though we have proof that it can negatively effect health, and encourage unhealthy people to have sex.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,094
@419,090 (B)
btw, it didnt even talk of any of the patients complaining about having "too high libidos" but only that drug companies are afraid that women will cheat and bring on the downfall of society! Are you fucking kidding me?!
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,095
@419,092 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
A major behavioural change, which would have too much of an influence on regular behaviour, is what they're worried about. I'd call that a potential medical issue.
> and medical side effects were not mentioned at all!
Probably becuase it's not as exciting to read about. This journalist was clearly much more interested in trying to paint the scientists as being afraid of female sexuality.
Also, note that it says "companies worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong". "Prospect". Apparently no actual studies have been done yet, it's just concern that the chemical could be too strong. Of course there aren't any solid results, yet.
Question, do you think that there is no such thing as having too high a libido? Do you believe that it could never be big enough to be a burden on somebody? Do you think that the scientists should not take this factor into consideration and just make massive doses of it?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,105
@previous (B)
It's a moral judgment. No one claims that it's a biological issue when an old man on Viagra goes and cheats on his wife, or fucks a congressional page, or whatever. It's just when a female becomes overly sexed that people start worrying about society collapsing. The women are supposed to stay home, and stay monogamous. The men are entitled to rock-hard dicks for as long as they'd like.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,111
@419,095 (B)
Its up to the individual. Until I see the patients complaining, citing the possible downfall of civilization is not a medical side effect.
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 53 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,117
I just had a mental image of some woman popping that pill just as a guy is about to go down on her, and the clit just instantly shoots up and knocks him out
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,118
@419,105 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
No, it's medical professionals worrying that their drug may have an adverse effect on its intended recipients.
You're the one who keeps brining men and gender politics into it. You just really want it to be about sexism.
@419,111 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Nobody said that. All they said is that it might have adverse effects on the behaviour of women who take the drug.
And why would they be worrying about this if they're developing the drug? If they have a problem with sexually active women, why develop the drug at all? It doesn't make sense.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,123
@previous (B)
because people are willing to buy it. When no adverse side effects are mentioned besides fears of moral problems, it is sexism.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,124
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,126
@419,123 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
So because people are willing to buy something, it's automatically seedy with an ulterior agenda? And you're refusing to see the concerns as anything other than sexism. They are medical professionals and researchers, and you're saying that they're motivated by base predjudice over actual medical knowledge or experience.
In answer to your earlier point about it being the individual's choice, this is true, but if this thing were to go out it'd be new to the public. Isn't it logical to make sure that it doesn't have an adverse effect? You seem to keep conviniently forgetting that they ARE putting out a drug which will increase female libido. How are is a supposed fear of women's sexuality meant to fit in with this?
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,127
@419,118 (B) > You're the one who keeps brining men and gender politics into it. You just really want it to be about sexism.
I don't think it's the concerns about this drug in and of themselves that she has a problem with, but rather the fact that these concerns exist only for women, but not men.
I think you and becky are only disagreeing because you're talking solely about the concerns of this drug, whereas becky is talking about the concerns as part of the wider treatment of women's sexuality by the medical establishment (relative to men's).
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,130
@419,126 (B)
What? I dont think that something is seedy because someone wants to buy it. They havent mentioned any health concerns, only moral concerns!
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,131
@419,127 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
But they havent mentioned health concerns at all. Only moral issues
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,134
nevermind, this is retarded.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,135
tbf they haven't even mentioned that just that they're scared that moral issues might be a factor in the fda rejecting the drug
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,136
@419,131 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Suppose this drug IS too strong, and a woman takes it. Isn't it possible she'll engage in risky sex (not morally risky, but puts herself at risk for stds and pregnancy) when she normally wouldn't? How is that not a health issue?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,138
@419,135 (!KThEOwLwbU)
But why havent they mentioned health concerns? Shouldnt that be the most important thing?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 51 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,139
@419,136 (H)
What counts as too strong? Suppose, suppose, suppose. I want to hear from these women who say that the drug is too strong for them. This is an optional drug! people who have those type of side effects need not take it. Just like men with Viagra
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ triple-posted this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,141
If they found a pain pill that worked too well, would they refuse to release it? No! They would give it in smaller quantities, and only people who really needed it. They wouldnt cite the downfall of civilization as a reason for it not to exist.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,143
@419,139 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Too strong would be if it dominates the woman's life and causes her to make sexual decisions that she wouldn't normally make that put her in danger of STDs and unwanted pregnancy.
It's optional... but the government doesn't allow the sale of meth because it's dangerous. We don't want to sell something dangerous to people, men or women.
Anonymous H double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,144
@419,141 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
There's a difference between controlling pain too well and having such strong artificially induced sexual desires that it impacts your life negatively.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,146
@previous (H)
Wait, couldn't strong pain medicine negatively affect someones life? Possibly make them ignore pain that could be caused by a serious medical condition? Make them take physical risks? Make them walk around high? Be addictive?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,147
@419,143 (H)
They allow the sale of meth in pill form, because its weaker and regulated. Like ADD drugs. Also, I'd say that erections dominate many peoples lives. Is that not true?
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,148
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
If a lady wants to think about sex and have sex every day, I'm totally down for that. What I'm NOT cool with is if an unsuspecting woman takes a drug, hoping to increase her libido, and can't stop masturbating. I just think we should be careful, and make sure it's well tested and doesn't have horrible effects.
@419,146 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Uh, yeah, if a pain med did that it would NOT be over the counter and it would be prescribed with great caution only when absolutely necessary. On top of that, pain can make a person's life a living hell, so we're willing to take more risks. I don't think that's a good comparison, buspuppie.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 27 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,149
@419,147 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I don't think you understand the TOTAL HAVOC that results from females enjoying sex too much. The entire world as we know it could fall. Do you want that on you conscience?
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 57 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,150
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 12 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,154
@419,149 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Are you joking? Sex is an instinct driven thing. What if that part of your brain got turned on overload and you started having unprotected sex with homeless people and contracted HIV?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 25 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,155
@419,150 (!KThEOwLwbU)
They havent mentioned side effects, besides possible infidelity.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 11 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,156
@419,152 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
When do they mention that the concern is women cheating?
totes skimmed the article, maybe I missed it
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 51 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,157
@419,154 (H)
My god, what if viagra makes a non working penis functional and makes someone more likely to father a child with autism or cause an intercourse heart attack!
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 8 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,158
probably because there arent any bad enough to merit worry that they would make the fda reject the drug
i mean its like, none of this has even happened
its a drug company having a what-if shit-their-pants
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,159
@419,156 (H)
“More than one adviser to the industry told me that companies worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong, that the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering,” Bergner writes.
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 13 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,160
im all for it unless it starts causing people to have a libido of such strength that it starts having a negative impact on their life
there are people that that happens to normally and they have to get psychological treatment and everything i hear
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 12 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,161
100 GET, faggots.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,162
@419,158 (!KThEOwLwbU)
The problem is, when Viagra was created, they rejoiced and didnt worry about men cheating
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,163
@419,157 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
that's kind of different, though. What if viagra made men so sex crazy that they couldn't help themselves but hire prostitutes all day and night and contracted STDs? That is a much more comparable what-if.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,164
@419,160 (!KThEOwLwbU)
We'd have to wait and see if that issue occurs.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 11 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,165
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 42 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,166
@419,163 (H)
It might! Do you think that every old man who takes viagra is fucking their dry, after menopause wife? wtf? lol
Also, men already get prostitutes and take more risks than women in every aspect of every day life. They still released viagra.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,167
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
i'm pretty sure viagra helps dudes get/keep boners, I don't think it actually increases sex drive.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,168
@previous (H)
It increases the amounts of times that they can have sex in a period of time. It also increases the age of men who can get natural erections. You dont think that it would encourage men to seek out sex from someone other than their partners? Seriously?
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,171
afaict theyre just getting worried when they imagine the fda getting worried because that would mean they would lose millions if not billions of dollars lol
its like they just dont wanna spend all that money and then find out that theyve thrown it onto a fire so theyre thinking of all the possible reasons why that might happen to examine them and say like "right this isn't exactly realistic" or "shit that's totally going to happen" it probbaly happens with like every drug they trial
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 44 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,172
@419,168 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
i think there's a difference between enabling someone to have sex (by helping them with erections) and making someone want more sex than they normally would, yeah.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 26 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,174
@419,171 (!KThEOwLwbU)
I'm not surprised that they worry about this, because several people in this thread believe that this drug could bring down humanity as we know it. lol
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,176
@419,172 (H)
They've also approved testosterone supplements for old men with "Low T" that rejuvenates the sex drive. Look that shit up
kook !!32zdfdzi+ triple-posted this 13 years ago, 58 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,177
@419,172 (H)
So you are saying that old men are very likely to fuck their non horny old wives and not prostitutes?
!KThEOwLwbU replied with this 13 years ago, 22 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,178
i remember reading the blog of a woman who lived in a hole in a wooded area somewhere and she rubbed testosterone gel onto her vagina to see what would happen and she got so incredibly pent up that she went down to the freeway and stood there masturbating and getting off at everyone watching and ended the post with "holy shit is this what its like for guys"
off topic but it was a funny memory and it seemed like something you would like
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,179
@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
She already had mental issues. Her name was Faye, and she was delightful. lol
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 40 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,180
@419,174 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
calm your tits, no one is saying it'll bring down humanity. I just want to make sure it's safe and doesn't have crazy effects on unsuspecting women. They should do trials and whatnot, which I'm sure they will.
@419,176 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I'm really not concerned enough to look it up right now but I'll take your word for it. I'd bet that the testosterone supplements didn't adversely effect the men's lives, though. And that's good news. If the female libido booster doesn't have adverse effects, I'm all for it.
Anonymous H double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,181
@419,177 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
I don't know dude, that's barely the issue
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,182
@419,180 (H)
Calm your taint. You havent mentioned real side effects during any of this. Only weird, and sexy speculation.
Also testosterone increases sex drive, and you've said that such a thing can ruin lives.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 37 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,183
@419,181 (H)
It is an issue, because that would be an increase in sexual risks, and infidelity.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,184
@419,181 (H)
One time I got really horny, and all I could think about was black cock. So I drove to the black part of town, and I took in like 50 loads of semen, all chicken-greased. I must have gotten a good 10 doses of HIV, but I'm still negative. Do you think this means God loves me? Please let me know.
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 5 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,185
@419,182 (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > you've said that such a thing can ruin lives.
uuugggh only in crazy EXCESS.
yes it's speculation! we're not having a scientific argument, we're playing the what-if game. What if this new drug caused women to masturbate on freeways all day every day? That would be bad. What if it doesn't? Great, put it on the market!
I just think the consumers should be protected/warned if it ends up being something totally ridiculous like that. It doesn't matter if it's for men or women.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 19 seconds later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,186
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,204
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
goddamn why are you such a frigid bitch
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,205
@previous (H)
I complimented your sparkling clean cooter and have been celebrating the possibility of a female libido enhanacer1 Do you even understand what the term frigid means? damnlol
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,208
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
"good for you" is obviously sarcastic, you can't fool me buspup
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#419,209
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,225
@419,130 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
You said that they weren't doing it for the good of women because it was created out of demand.
Your entire argument hinges on not acknowledging that an excessive libido is in itself a bad thing. Nobody here has said that they are opposed to a drug which increases female libido, but some have said that they would want such a drug to be safe and to not have any ill effects.
@419,127 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
Again, you can also take the view that these people's concerns were legitimate and that the drug really could result in an excessive libido. One could say that they're doing right by women in trying to make a safe drug.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,237
@previous (B)
they havent even said that the drug is too strong, but that they are worried that it will be, and that it will make women cheat. thanks
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,239
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Quote where it says that.
All the article says is that they are concerned about "excesses" and "binges". That is a worry of it being over-strength. Would you not care is the effects were too strong?
@419,188 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
And here you've resorted to simple insults, not even trying to address Owen's points. Really, the only concern being expressed is that it would be good for the drug to be safe. Are you opposed to safe drugs?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,241
I see nothing wrong with horny women. In fact, I encourage this. In fact, I want my tax dollars to provide this service to all women.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,242
@419,237 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Also, they're scientists. Do you think that they are wrong to speculate on what a drug will do? Should they just give it to people blindly without first having considered what it will do?
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,243
@previous (B)
I wonder how easy it would be to spike a chicks drink with hornyness?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,245
@previous (squeegee) > implying that you of all people need a drug to induce arousal in women
Are you stupid?
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,247
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,248
@previous (squeegee)
Not a good mindset if the box is where you want to be.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,250
@previous (B)
Fine. I give. I'm on the scientists side. Horny women are dangerous and shouldn't be created. Happy?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,251
lol nerds
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,252
@419,250 (squeegee)
Huh? That's not what they're saying. And why would they be making drug to increase a woman's libido if they thought that?
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,253
virgins & nerds itt
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,256
"Beyond what might happen in millions of bedrooms, it’s even more difficult to foresee what societal transformations might be stirred. Just as with the birth-control pill, a foreboding not only about sex itself but also about female empowerment may be expressed in a dread of women’s sexual anarchy. Over the last decade, as companies chased after an effective chemical, there was fretting within the drug industry: what if, in trials, a medicine proved too effective? More than one adviser to the industry told me that companies worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong, that the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering.
“You want your effects to be good but not too good,” Andrew Goldstein, who is conducting the study in Washington, told me. “There was a lot of discussion about it by the experts in the room,” he said, recalling his involvement with the development of Flibanserin, “the need to show that you’re not turning women into nymphomaniacs.” He was still a bit stunned by the entrenched mores that lay within what he’d heard. “There’s a bias against — a fear of creating the sexually aggressive woman.”"
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,293
@419,239 (B)
I wasnt insulting you. Are you autistic or something? You said that you support the drug if it doesnt make people go crazy and I respect that.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,294
@419,239 (B)
More than one adviser to the industry told me that companies worried about the prospect that their study results would be too strong, that the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering,” Bergner writes.
Bam! Infidelity!
kook !!32zdfdzi+ triple-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#419,295
@419,242 (B)
They arent giving it to people blindly! They're doing tests and worrying already if the drug will work too well