Recently, yet another attempt to distribute a pill treating women's sex issues has been shot down by the FDA. The promise of a drug that makes sex desirable for women continues to fall on the question of whether female sexual dysfunction is "mental" or "physical."
Many people contend that for women, their dysfunction is mentally based. In other words, they have other psychological issues going on, and it is those issues that are responsible for her not wanting sex or not desiring sex physically. Her problem is not functional, as the argument goes. Since it's not physical, it shouldn't be treated physically...i.e. with a magic pill.
For men, it's different. A man having "erection problems" is simply a lack of physical function. It has nothing to do with anything mental. It's the opposite of what's going on with women. A man can take a pill, get hard, and thrust away in complete ecstasy.
Like really?
The irony of all of this is that it is women who have a harder time with sex. They have a harder time becoming physically stimulated--lubrication of the vagina. They have a harder time orgasming. And, they have a harder time wanting to have sex every day. Simply put, their problems with sex are quite magnified in comparison with men. Yet, the men have the magic pill.
The idea of a woman taking a pill to make her clitoris swell with desire seems too far fetched to be a reality. Women need counseling--they need extensive treatment--they have a bunch of problems they need fixed.
Let's take a look at the vicious circle of a woman's low sex drive: Woman A has sex with man, man has great time and orgasms while she has an okay time and does not. Man wants more sex because it is very pleasurable for him. Women is getting tired of doing something that is not really worth the trouble. Woman is diagnosed with sexual dysfunction...man gets Viagra because he has a "problem."
If we were to increase blood flow to the clitoris, thereby making sex physically stimulating, the woman would actually enjoy what she is doing with the man, would perhaps orgasm---and would want to have sex more often as a result.
Perhaps we have it backwards. Shouldn't the women be getting the pills and men the psychological treatment? We can only hope to bring to light the double standard that continues to exist with the idea of having a magic pill for women to get their sex lives back on track.
Wednesday, June 16
Friday, February 12
Comment #1 on Addition of "sex addiction" in New DSM.
This is terribly disturbing.
1) New definition of addiction: repeatedly causing pleasure to self (either by ingesting a drug or physical activity). This is what "addiction" has been reduced to.
2) Having a lot of sex with many different partners is a preference, not a problem. There’s only a “problem” when one breaks their own moral code…which is not clinical.
3) Everyone who cheats on their partner (breaking a moral code) has this new wonderful excuse of "I can't control my genitals because I'm addicted to sex."
4) Is someone who has a lot of sex/masturbates a lot/watches porn a lot/etc. really suffering from a diagnosable clinical mental illness? Really??? I guess the “sex addict” population will be rising dramatically in the next few years.
5) According to this line of thinking: I like to run. I run a lot because it makes me happy and feel good. My body aches from my excess running (problem). Well, I guess I am suffering from a mental illness because my new addiction to running causes me problems. I need to be medicated. “Hi, I’m Dr. Evile. I’m a running addict.”
6) “Repetitively engaging in sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior in response to stressful life events.”
What are people supposed to do in response to stress? REALLY?
Please…tell the overstressed population what they should do if you are going to maintain that “repeatedly engaging in pleasurable things” is an “addiction” wherein that person is “mentally ill” and needs treatment.
People can’t repeatedly have sex, can’t repeatedly drink alcohol, can’t repeatedly take ANY drug that relieves stressful symptoms (except, of course, the ones that are prescribed by psychiatrists), can’t do ANYTHING repeatedly that actually makes people feel good…
Provide the population with the HEALTHY way to respond to our frequent and acute stress, because we are all confused.
1) New definition of addiction: repeatedly causing pleasure to self (either by ingesting a drug or physical activity). This is what "addiction" has been reduced to.
2) Having a lot of sex with many different partners is a preference, not a problem. There’s only a “problem” when one breaks their own moral code…which is not clinical.
3) Everyone who cheats on their partner (breaking a moral code) has this new wonderful excuse of "I can't control my genitals because I'm addicted to sex."
4) Is someone who has a lot of sex/masturbates a lot/watches porn a lot/etc. really suffering from a diagnosable clinical mental illness? Really??? I guess the “sex addict” population will be rising dramatically in the next few years.
5) According to this line of thinking: I like to run. I run a lot because it makes me happy and feel good. My body aches from my excess running (problem). Well, I guess I am suffering from a mental illness because my new addiction to running causes me problems. I need to be medicated. “Hi, I’m Dr. Evile. I’m a running addict.”
6) “Repetitively engaging in sexual fantasies, urges, and behavior in response to stressful life events.”
What are people supposed to do in response to stress? REALLY?
Please…tell the overstressed population what they should do if you are going to maintain that “repeatedly engaging in pleasurable things” is an “addiction” wherein that person is “mentally ill” and needs treatment.
People can’t repeatedly have sex, can’t repeatedly drink alcohol, can’t repeatedly take ANY drug that relieves stressful symptoms (except, of course, the ones that are prescribed by psychiatrists), can’t do ANYTHING repeatedly that actually makes people feel good…
Provide the population with the HEALTHY way to respond to our frequent and acute stress, because we are all confused.
Tuesday, January 26
Religion and Sport: What does God have to do with it?
Well, here we go again. Another “celebrity” trying to impose his religious beliefs upon me. And, another broadcasting company endorsing it.
During the 2010 Superbowl, CBS plans to run an ad of Tim Tebow who apparently is going to preach to us all about how women should not end the life of a fetus.
Nevertomind the fact that the anti-abortion folks are completely uneducated about the biological process of becoming pregnant, what the hell does Tebow’s religious beliefs have to do with watching football? Like do I really need to listen to this?
I’m sorry, but I don’t appreciate having to be coerced into agreeing with someone else’s religion and religious beliefs when watching sports. Nor do I appreciate a broadcasting company endorsing this coercion. True, we all have a right to free speech. But, not true…is it in good taste for a broadcasting company to endorse one religious belief over another.
Let’s get something straight:
1) A fertilized egg (zygote) implants in the uterus only 50% of the time. I.e. God kills 50% of conceived eggs. Sorry folks, but that’s a biological truth.
2) Jesus would not tell other people what to believe. Nor would Jesus paint bible verses on his face.
3) Tebow is not God.
Do us all a favor and follow the Framers of our Constitution who separated Church and State by separating Religion and Sport. Watching this ad will be really offensive.
During the 2010 Superbowl, CBS plans to run an ad of Tim Tebow who apparently is going to preach to us all about how women should not end the life of a fetus.
Nevertomind the fact that the anti-abortion folks are completely uneducated about the biological process of becoming pregnant, what the hell does Tebow’s religious beliefs have to do with watching football? Like do I really need to listen to this?
I’m sorry, but I don’t appreciate having to be coerced into agreeing with someone else’s religion and religious beliefs when watching sports. Nor do I appreciate a broadcasting company endorsing this coercion. True, we all have a right to free speech. But, not true…is it in good taste for a broadcasting company to endorse one religious belief over another.
Let’s get something straight:
1) A fertilized egg (zygote) implants in the uterus only 50% of the time. I.e. God kills 50% of conceived eggs. Sorry folks, but that’s a biological truth.
2) Jesus would not tell other people what to believe. Nor would Jesus paint bible verses on his face.
3) Tebow is not God.
Do us all a favor and follow the Framers of our Constitution who separated Church and State by separating Religion and Sport. Watching this ad will be really offensive.
Friday, January 15
Sex Addiction v. Variety: Tiger’s transgressions.
With recent rumors that Tiger has checked into a Sex Addiction Recovery Center, I can’t help but to discuss the prevailing American sentiment that an individual should only have monogamous sex (whether married or not) in light of the concept of sex addiction.
To begin, we must examine the roots of the sentiment that we as a society should aspire to monogamous sex. As with many American attitudes, the thrust of disdain toward polygamy comes from the prevailing Catholic moral code governing how people are to live their lives. Catholics are specifically instructed not to have sex before marriage: Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” When married, fornication must be monogamous: 1 Corinthians 7:2 “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”
If you have sex before married, have sex with more than one person at any given period of time, or have sex with someone other than your spouse when married-- you will go to hell. Sorry. Evolution is thrown out the window here.
Is sex addiction a clinical sickness, behaving “badly,” or simply the preference of multiple partners and/or very frequent sex.
1) Sex addiction qua sickness, the clinical approach.
Compulsive sex (not being able to control the urge to have sex, acting on the impulse). Here the definition of addiction follows that of drug addiction.
The typical pattern of chemical addiction is:
social use--experiences problem--dependence (impaired control-cannot consistently stop, compulsivity).
For sex addicts:
For sex addicts:
lots of sex with many people--problem?--dependence?.
2) Sex addiction qua “behaving badly,” the moral approach.
Breaking a moral code. For many Catholic law-abiding believers having sex before marriage and/or breaking the commitment of monogamy by having sex with someone other than one’s spouse when married violates the Catholic code. These are perceived as being acts of “sex addiction.” Here the line between actual clinical diagnosis and one’s personal religious beliefs is blurred.
3) Sex addiction qua personal preference, the biological approach.
Some examples of personal preference would be: maintaining multiple sex partners and/or having sex very frequently, possibly with many partners at once. Choosing to have sex once a month with a different partner each time. Choosing to have sex several times a day with a monogamous spouse. Or combinations thereof.
Here having frequent sex, doing so with a variety of people, and/or doing so before marriage is not “wrong” or “bad.” There’s nothing “immoral” or clinically diagnosable about these habits…they are simply a preference.
2) Sex addiction qua “behaving badly,” the moral approach.
Breaking a moral code. For many Catholic law-abiding believers having sex before marriage and/or breaking the commitment of monogamy by having sex with someone other than one’s spouse when married violates the Catholic code. These are perceived as being acts of “sex addiction.” Here the line between actual clinical diagnosis and one’s personal religious beliefs is blurred.
3) Sex addiction qua personal preference, the biological approach.
Some examples of personal preference would be: maintaining multiple sex partners and/or having sex very frequently, possibly with many partners at once. Choosing to have sex once a month with a different partner each time. Choosing to have sex several times a day with a monogamous spouse. Or combinations thereof.
Here having frequent sex, doing so with a variety of people, and/or doing so before marriage is not “wrong” or “bad.” There’s nothing “immoral” or clinically diagnosable about these habits…they are simply a preference.
Consider the following case scenario:
Man A is married, has a high sex drive, is impulsive. He has sex with his wife multiple times a day, watches porn with her, owns sex toys and sometimes calls his wife to have a quickie with her at work. He has not and will not sleep with anyone other than his wife. Both are very happy with their sex life, and feel they are “doing nothing wrong.”
Man B is not married, has a high sex drive, and tends toward impulsivity. He prefers to have sex with a variety of women, and does not want to be in a committed relationship. In one and the same week he may have sex with many different women via random hook-ups, perhaps with more than one partner at the same time. The women are aware that he is not monogamous and they are okay with it. No one is harmed, and to the contrary everyone is very happy.
Both men like to have sex often. Both tend toward impulsivity. The only difference is one is married and having monogamous sex, the other is not and having polygamous sex.
1) The clinical application.
1) The clinical application.
According to our clinical definition both men could be diagnosed with clinical sex addiction, and both could be treated due to their compulsivity regardless of who each is having sex with. Impulsive, uncontrollable, frequent sex is the definition of sex “addiction.”
2) The moral application.
2) The moral application.
Man B would be breaking a moral code if he were Catholic, since he’s not supposed to be having sex before being married. (On a related note, a married couple who both prefer to sleep with multiple partners while married would also be breaking the Catholic moral code.)
3) The personal preference application.
3) The personal preference application.
And yet neither would be a sex addict if their sex acts are simply a matter of personal preference. There is no inherent harm in what either is doing (so long as they are using protection and informed consent). If neither are Catholic, neither are violating a moral code.
We ask: is one a “sex addict” because their behavior is actually causing “harm” to themselves and/or another, or is one a sex addict because the prevailing American sentiment is to value monogamy over and above polygamy, with a clinical diagnosis as a convenient excuse to “treat” - or more accurately -‘reform’ improper and immoral habits?
We ask: is one a “sex addict” because their behavior is actually causing “harm” to themselves and/or another, or is one a sex addict because the prevailing American sentiment is to value monogamy over and above polygamy, with a clinical diagnosis as a convenient excuse to “treat” - or more accurately -‘reform’ improper and immoral habits?
What makes Tiger a sex addict? Is it because he cheated on his wife or because he preferred to have sex with many partners? The problem is people don’t recognize the distinction between being faithful and monogamy. Monogamy is a preference…i.e. that a man chooses to have sex with only one woman. Violating a vow to one woman has nothing to do with one’s sexual preference.
In other words, the issue with Tiger is not that he prefers to have sex with many women, but rather that Tiger violated his commitment to his wife of being monogamous. Violating this commitment does not make him a sex addict, but rather an idiot for getting married since clearly his sexual preference is for polygamy. I am not saying breaking a commitment is okay…it is not. If you can’t be faithful, don’t make a commitment of faith to someone.
(As an aside, I believe Tiger checked into rehab to repair his image. It’s the first step back to stardom.)
This discussion points to the issue of clinically diagnosing someone with sex addiction in the first place. Is someone partaking in too much of a good thing with no harm as a result really enough to diagnose that person with an “addiction”? Isn’t the point of treating an “addiction” to help a person not harm him- or herself due to a destructive habit?
I just don’t see how having a lot of sex with many partners is “harmful” (if he/she acts responsibly by using protection as well as informing their partner of his/her sexual habits).
Regarding the morality issue, people are quick to label someone as a “sex addict” simply because they cheated. They believe someone was immoral because that person is suffering from an illness that caused them to be immoral. Sorry, but, just because someone acted immorally it does not mean they are suffering from a clinical illness.
Unfortunately, this sentiment is quite rife in our country and one that I find completely detestable. What is overlooked is the fact that compulsive and frequent sex can be a good thing, even by clinical standards. Whether this is with the same person each time or a different person each time really has no significance either way.
Like, does someone having a high sex drive with a preference for many partners make them an addict? Really?
Monday, January 11
G-Spot: To G or not to G, that is the question.
Do I have a G-spot? Hmmm…let me see. Well I know one thing for sure, when my man repeatedly presses against this area about a couple of centimeters beyond my vaginal opening along my vaginal wall, a gush of fluid comes squirting out. (Sorry about the details.)
A recent study published by King’s College London denies the existence of the “G-Spot,” quote: “The women in the study, who were all pairs of identical and non-identical twins, were asked whether they had a G-spot. If one did exist, it would be expected that both identical twins, who have the same genes, would report having one. But this pattern did not emerge and the identical twins were no more likely to share a G-spot than non-identical twins who share only half of their genes.”
-BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8439000.stm
Damn. Apparently what I experienced is all a “figment of my imagination.” My man is not really manually skilled. A river of fluid didn’t actually come gushing out. I didn’t experience a pseudo-orgasm. And that particular physical area the size of a quarter was not, in fact, stimulated. There goes my sex life!!!
In a study conducted by Emmanuele Jannini at the University of L'Aquila in Italy, an ultrasound was used to identify distinct anatomical differences in women who have a G-spot. “[J]annini's team took a different approach, and used vaginal ultrasound to scan the entire urethrovaginal space - the area of tissue between the vagina and urethra thought to house the G spot.” NewScientist Print Edition, 20Feb08, Linda Geddes. "The authors found a thicker vaginal wall near the urethra and hypothesized this may be related to the presence of the controversial G spot."
Well there you go. Scientific evidence of a G-spot. Need I say more?
----------
Unfortunately, both studies fall prey to egregious generalizations. Like, do we really need to make a generalization about all women- more than half the world-wide population- based on a tiny population (British study) and on flawed conclusions (Italian study)? Do we really need to take the conclusions so far as to say if women don’t have a G-spot, they can’t experience a vaginal orgasm? Really?
With regard to the British study, perhaps their mate just stunk in bed and they should have hired Don Juan to participate in the experiment as an alternative. Perhaps the overall negative attitude the British carry toward sex made it hard for the twins to want to experience a G-spot orgasm. (The latter is well documented in a book by Paul Ferris, “Sex and the British: A Twentieth-century History.”) In other words, it’s really hard to prove something does not exist since the factors for not experiencing that thing are limitless.
With regard to the Italian study, based on degrees of thickness of vaginal lining Jannini came to the conclusion that if a woman has thick lining she has a G-spot; if she has thin lining she does not. A better interpretation to me would be- if a woman has thick lining stimulation is easier to achieve; if she has thin lining stimulation is harder to achieve. In other words, his study does not prove that women don’t have a G-spot, only that they do. Again, hard to prove that something doesn’t exist.
In sum, we shouldn’t conclude that if a woman doesn’t have a G-spot orgasm or if she has thin vaginal lining, neither does she have a G-spot nor can she experience a vaginal orgasm of different sorts. Another area that can cause vaginal orgasm is the A-spot: an area deep inside the inner end of the vaginal tube, thought to be the “female degenerated prostate,” Desmond Morris, The Naked Woman: A Study of the Female Body, Jonathan Cape, London (2004).
I am fortunate to be able to experience A-spot orgasms. These orgasms are incredibly intense and mind-altering, and are something I believe every woman should experience, along with all the other pleasures sex has to offer.
A recent study published by King’s College London denies the existence of the “G-Spot,” quote: “The women in the study, who were all pairs of identical and non-identical twins, were asked whether they had a G-spot. If one did exist, it would be expected that both identical twins, who have the same genes, would report having one. But this pattern did not emerge and the identical twins were no more likely to share a G-spot than non-identical twins who share only half of their genes.”
-BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8439000.stm
Damn. Apparently what I experienced is all a “figment of my imagination.” My man is not really manually skilled. A river of fluid didn’t actually come gushing out. I didn’t experience a pseudo-orgasm. And that particular physical area the size of a quarter was not, in fact, stimulated. There goes my sex life!!!
In a study conducted by Emmanuele Jannini at the University of L'Aquila in Italy, an ultrasound was used to identify distinct anatomical differences in women who have a G-spot. “[J]annini's team took a different approach, and used vaginal ultrasound to scan the entire urethrovaginal space - the area of tissue between the vagina and urethra thought to house the G spot.” NewScientist Print Edition, 20Feb08, Linda Geddes. "The authors found a thicker vaginal wall near the urethra and hypothesized this may be related to the presence of the controversial G spot."
Well there you go. Scientific evidence of a G-spot. Need I say more?
----------
Unfortunately, both studies fall prey to egregious generalizations. Like, do we really need to make a generalization about all women- more than half the world-wide population- based on a tiny population (British study) and on flawed conclusions (Italian study)? Do we really need to take the conclusions so far as to say if women don’t have a G-spot, they can’t experience a vaginal orgasm? Really?
With regard to the British study, perhaps their mate just stunk in bed and they should have hired Don Juan to participate in the experiment as an alternative. Perhaps the overall negative attitude the British carry toward sex made it hard for the twins to want to experience a G-spot orgasm. (The latter is well documented in a book by Paul Ferris, “Sex and the British: A Twentieth-century History.”) In other words, it’s really hard to prove something does not exist since the factors for not experiencing that thing are limitless.
With regard to the Italian study, based on degrees of thickness of vaginal lining Jannini came to the conclusion that if a woman has thick lining she has a G-spot; if she has thin lining she does not. A better interpretation to me would be- if a woman has thick lining stimulation is easier to achieve; if she has thin lining stimulation is harder to achieve. In other words, his study does not prove that women don’t have a G-spot, only that they do. Again, hard to prove that something doesn’t exist.
In sum, we shouldn’t conclude that if a woman doesn’t have a G-spot orgasm or if she has thin vaginal lining, neither does she have a G-spot nor can she experience a vaginal orgasm of different sorts. Another area that can cause vaginal orgasm is the A-spot: an area deep inside the inner end of the vaginal tube, thought to be the “female degenerated prostate,” Desmond Morris, The Naked Woman: A Study of the Female Body, Jonathan Cape, London (2004).
I am fortunate to be able to experience A-spot orgasms. These orgasms are incredibly intense and mind-altering, and are something I believe every woman should experience, along with all the other pleasures sex has to offer.
Original Photography by Dr. Evile, copyrighted material.
Wednesday, January 6
Alcohol is legal, pot is not: which is 'safer'?
For my first post, I will address an obvious hypocrisy in America...the fact that alcohol is legal and marijuana is not. Amid current debate regarding the legalization of marijuana for public consumption we find those who like to resort to the "safety" argument.
The "safety" argument is a very popular form of argumentation used by people who have no real reason with valid points to support a conclusion to which he or she has drawn. As the argument goes, folks say something like "we should not make marijuana legal for the safety of everyone because it hurts people" or "it is not safe to make marijuana legal because we don't want crime to go up, since it will if pot is legal..." so on and so forth.
These people tend to make claims with little support, irrelevant support or no support at all. In other words, they are talking out of their ass. A short scan of the internet regarding deaths in the United States will reveal, for example, that in 2000 85,000 people died from alcohol related deaths. An additional 16,653 people died from drunk drivers. Thus, at least 100,000 people died due to alcohol that year...on first glance.
How many people died in 2000 due to marijuana? A big whopping 0. Yes, folks, that's not an "o" but rather a zero.
Here again our illogical friends may go ahead and attempt to argue that the reason the number is zero is because less people smoke pot than drink alcohol. Quite unfortunately for them, the reason the number is zero has nothing to do with the percentage of the population who consume marijuana but rather from the fact that marijuana as a drug is far less dangerous than alcohol as a drug. Do I need to point out that 17.6 million Americans are alcoholics? (I'll go into detail about this topic in a separate blog.)
The purpose of this post is simply to show how the "safety" argument against the legalization of pot does not work. It is overwhelmingly clear that alcohol consumption is less "safe" in terms of crime and personal well-being than marijuana consumption. People don't die from an overdose of pot; they do die from an overdose of alcohol or from asphyxiation (vomit from too much booze cutting off air supply while asleep ). Not to mention crime would actually go down if pot were legal, since all those who would be arrested for marijuana possession and distribution would not be arrested anymore.
Perhaps our law enforcement agency should spend more time arresting drunk drivers than arresting pot smokers. This would actually make our society "safer" since less drunk drivers would be killing people.
So, we wonder- would our society really be less safe if marijuana were legal? Like, really?
The "safety" argument is a very popular form of argumentation used by people who have no real reason with valid points to support a conclusion to which he or she has drawn. As the argument goes, folks say something like "we should not make marijuana legal for the safety of everyone because it hurts people" or "it is not safe to make marijuana legal because we don't want crime to go up, since it will if pot is legal..." so on and so forth.
These people tend to make claims with little support, irrelevant support or no support at all. In other words, they are talking out of their ass. A short scan of the internet regarding deaths in the United States will reveal, for example, that in 2000 85,000 people died from alcohol related deaths. An additional 16,653 people died from drunk drivers. Thus, at least 100,000 people died due to alcohol that year...on first glance.
How many people died in 2000 due to marijuana? A big whopping 0. Yes, folks, that's not an "o" but rather a zero.
Here again our illogical friends may go ahead and attempt to argue that the reason the number is zero is because less people smoke pot than drink alcohol. Quite unfortunately for them, the reason the number is zero has nothing to do with the percentage of the population who consume marijuana but rather from the fact that marijuana as a drug is far less dangerous than alcohol as a drug. Do I need to point out that 17.6 million Americans are alcoholics? (I'll go into detail about this topic in a separate blog.)
The purpose of this post is simply to show how the "safety" argument against the legalization of pot does not work. It is overwhelmingly clear that alcohol consumption is less "safe" in terms of crime and personal well-being than marijuana consumption. People don't die from an overdose of pot; they do die from an overdose of alcohol or from asphyxiation (vomit from too much booze cutting off air supply while asleep ). Not to mention crime would actually go down if pot were legal, since all those who would be arrested for marijuana possession and distribution would not be arrested anymore.
Perhaps our law enforcement agency should spend more time arresting drunk drivers than arresting pot smokers. This would actually make our society "safer" since less drunk drivers would be killing people.
So, we wonder- would our society really be less safe if marijuana were legal? Like, really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)