"This is a really important time, because the FDA is realizing that women deserve the same sexual rights as men," Dr. Leah Millheiser, director of female sexual medicine at Stanford University, told Yahoo Health.What exactly is the right here?
The 'male sexual dysfunction' they are likening to low female libido is erectile dysfunction. So you have someone who wants to have sex, but physically cannot. Does he have a right to have sex if he wants to? Is that being argued by anyone?
Meanwhile, by definition, low libido means that you don't want to have sex. So it seems like the analogous right would not be to have a drug to make you want to have sex, but to have your wishes on the subject respected.
The only thing that makes any psychological condition a "dysfunction" is that it causes some sort of trauma in their lives. So the reason this is a dysfunction is that it is causing women some relationship problems with, presumably usually, the men in their lives who want more sex.
I can understand how some women might come to the conclusion that it would just be great if they could want more sex too. Still, others might just as reasonably decide that they want to have their wish not to have sex very often respected. Declaring this condition a dysfunction means telling that second kind of woman, in the name of 'equal rights for women!', that they're sick and need to be medicated until they can better match their male partner's level of desire.
After all, if women aren't exactly like men in some way, it's injustice.
8 comments:
OMG - I saw that in passing and hoped someone would mock it mercilessly :
Not to be too flip but there already is a drug to treat low female libido. To quote that great benefactor of humanity, Ogden Nash:
Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.
(When used as directed this treatment is unlikely to impair the patient's ability to differentiate between the colors green and blue.)
Is it her "right" to demand that the male or female of her desires satisfy her? Exactly how far does this "right" go?
Does anything one person has, and another has not, become a "right" to be taken from the one and handed to the other?
I once read a statement to the effect that totalitarian regimes would be comic if they were not so damned tragic. The laws they make would be farce anywhere else, but when they have the guns and the will, comic idiocy becomes life and death. In France circa 1792, the government passed a law mandating the death penalty, for asking if one was to be paid in paper or coin. This was an attempt to get hyperinflation under control.
Currently Venezuela requires a fingerprint to buy food....
The disorder is real. It isn't something to mock.
Not mocking it. If it causes dismay, a woman might well want a solution along these lines. Another woman might not. We both have wives. I trust you know what I mean. We take the good with the bad. So do they.
If there's anything to mock here, it's the idea that the absence of drugs is a violation of some kind of right. Somehow no one has yet invented any drugs that solve any of my problems; presumably Viagra's success in solving erectile dysfunction means that's a violation of equality too.
Umnnhhhh....why, do you suppose, are MEN the most fervid (albeit silent) supporters of "abortion rights"?
It's always been, and always will be, that men prefer sex without consequence, and a lot of it.
Unfairness, not injust.
It's not fair that people can discriminate between 2 forms of behavior, because it implies that one is superior and the other is inferior. Differences do not make a utopia, it makes a hierarchy and a working thermodynamic system.
Thus things like a lobotomy or a zombie indoc program, are needed to ensure that people can no longer tell the difference between males and females. The Artificial Gender project is right under the Deus Ex Machina project of the Left's, from which their Messiah Divine and Furious Hussein O was born in.
If there's anything to mock here, it's the idea that the absence of drugs is a violation of some kind of right.
I think that hits the nail squarely on the head. I saw an article last week lamenting the fact that we can't somehow force companies to create drugs for poor 3rd world countries without the money to pay for them. Because.... FAIRNESS!!!! HUMAN RIGHTS!!!
I am somehow failing to see how I have any right to demand that the owner of a pharmaceutical firm invest money in a drug I want (but for which no profitable market exists).
Post a Comment