This is
a bizarre statement from our Stanford scholar. It's on the importance of a conference to deal with pursuing drugs to treat low female libido.
"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.