To the New York Times Magazine Editorial Staff –
Today you published an article with a deceptively casual title: “Unexcited? There May Be A Pill For That”. On its face, the article bears a simple enough premise: Studies have shown that levels of sexual arousal for women drop off after about one to four years of being in a committed relationship, whereas for men they tend to plateau but remain largely the same. This leads to all sorts of tension, anxiety, and lack of connection between partners. So a few researchers are doing clinical studies to find out whether there is a pharmaceutical compound that could boost these poor women’s libidos and make them desire their partners more, so that their marriages and relationships are happier and no longer in jeopardy.
At first, it seems innocuous enough: Women want better sex lives. What’s wrong with that? Why not, then, create a pill that could increase their arousal and stimulate sexual desire so that they – and their husbands – can enjoy a happier, more harmonious life together?
Here’s the first problem: the basic assumption that the lack of sexual desire is naturally the woman’s fault, that the man cannot possibly be to blame for the lack of his wife’s or girlfriend’s arousal, that the man could not possibly suffer from the same, or even a parallel, lack of interest or sexual arousal. The entire article acts as though it is only the woman’s fault.
Furthermore, not only is it the woman’s fault, it is also a disease that warrants medication and possibly therapeutic intervention. In fact, there’s a name for the disorder: “Hypoactive Sexual-Desire Disorder”. Not wanting sex wouldn’t seem to me to be a medical issue, but somehow, it has become one. It’s another example of the over-medicalization of ‘women’s issues’ – by taking things that are perfectly normal for women but don’t fit into a man’s view of how the world should work (i.e. my wife should want sex with me all the time), and turning them into actual diagnosible diseases. I’m no doctor, but the idea of turning a lack of sexual desire into a medical condition is, on a basic level, offensive. Especially when the article (and the surrounding science, apparently) proceeds to assume that this is a condition that applies only to women.
Yes, dear readers. Nowhere is the problem of “Low-T” addressed, the disease that has been made infamous via terribly-acted commercials that we all hate; nowhere is the issue of erectile dysfunction for men addressed (except in the context of discussing how Viagra is similar to the drug being tested to increase women’s arousal); nowhere is the basic possibility addressed that men might also not want sex sometimes. Speaking purely anecdotally, I know of men who don’t always want sex, and I know women who want sex pretty much all the time. The assumption that it is always women who are rejecting sex and that it is always men who are seeking it, is not only reductionist and stereotypical – it is also wrong.
Not only is it wrong, but it enforces cultural stereotypes that are a part of the basic problem to begin with. The article goes so far as to address this – but refuses to talk about how to fix these stereotypes, instead choosing to focus on the option of medicating away the behaviors that are drilled into little boys’ and little girls’ heads from the day they’re born.
If boys and men tend to take in messages that manhood is defined by sex and power, and those messages encourage them to think about sex often, then those neural networks associated with desire will be regularly activated and will become stronger over time. If women, generally speaking, learn other lessons, that sexual desire and expression are not necessarily positive, and if therefore they don’t think as much about sex, then those same neural networks will be less stimulated and comparatively weak. (47)
So true! Great point! So why, instead of changing the way that women are taught to be ashamed of sex, through “slut-shaming” and rape culture, and the way that men are taught to worship it as symbolic of their manhood, are we sidestepping the cultural problem altogether and instead blaming it on female biochemistry and the biochemistry of desire and the lack of female libido? Why, instead of focusing on these cultural problems of upbringing, education, and gendered double-standards, does the article instead scapegoat women as a whole and insist that we need to change our basic chemistry – with a pill? Instead of addressing the way that women and men are taught to view sex, we’re insisting that women change their bodies to serve a value system that fundamentally does not value them.
And furthermore, we’re acting as though it’s a good thing. Throughout the article, the author is careful to emphasize that these pills, this libido boost, is something that the women want. It’s taught to us in the article as though it’s good for us, it’s a power thing, it’s going to make us more in control of our own bodies and our sex lives. But there’s a great quote at the end of the article that tears that whole argument down:
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, social splintering. […] Andrew Goldstein, who is conducting the study in Washington, told me … “There’s a bias against — a fear of creating the sexually aggressive woman.” (49)
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the problem. Men want their wives to desire them but not to desire too strongly, because they could be encouraged to infidelity. Men want their women to need sex, but not too much, because they might become sexually aggressive. Men want their women to fit inside a tiny, prescribed box of what female sexuality ought to be, and ladies, here’s a hint: that box is less of a box and more of a cage. It’s a cage that tells you that if your sexuality is too big, then you’re a slut. It’s a cage that tells you that if your sexuality is too small, then you’re a prude. It’s a cage that tells you that if you step inside or outside of that box, then your value as a human being has disappeared.
I’ll grant you that the article’s subtitle does a much better job at beginning to elucidate the many problems I had: “The pharmaceutical quest to give women a better sex life”. Because women are too weak to do it themselves; because women are not in control of their own emotions or desires; because women must rely on doctors and medical professionals to make them into who they ought to be – because of all these things, women must turn to pharmaceutics in order to attain complete fulfillment and happiness (that is, according to the patriarchal standard of what female fulfillment and happiness should be).
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, this is why patriarchy is so dangerous, so insidious: because the author of this article was able to paint all this as being good for women, as being a step forward, as being another step towards equality – when really, all it does is add on another layer of chains binding us to a false ideal of womanhood.
The Z-Axis 
Wow. Brilliantly argued. You’re absolutely correct: “It’s a cage that tells you that if your sexuality is too big, then you’re a slut. It’s a cage that tells you that if your sexuality is too small, then you’re a prude. It’s a cage that tells you that if you step inside or outside of that box, then your value as a human being has disappeared.” That was like an eye-opening punch in the gut. Thank you.
Thank YOU for commenting! It was a punch in the gut to read that article that morning. Everything in my mind was screaming in opposition from the very beginning of the article. I’m glad you shared my feelings.
I might not of, had I read the article first. I’m one of those women who has struggled with this in the past (depression and antidepressants made years of my life misery in this respect), so my instinct might have have been to follow their reasoning. I’m not always the most critical thinker when presented with something that sounds desirable to me, so I really appreciate you posting this publicly to help me see angles I might not have seen on my own. You’re a fantastic blogger. 🙂
Your words mean so much – thank you so much for saying that. I personally have never taken any kind of psychoactive or therapeutic drug, so thats something I have to learn about vicariously. I’m hopeful that one day we’ll all learn how to look past the deception and see the true intent in instances like this one. Thanks for your words
Reblogged this on disregard the prologue and commented:
“It’s a cage that tells you that if your sexuality is too big, then you’re a slut. It’s a cage that tells you that if your sexuality is too small, then you’re a prude. It’s a cage that tells you that if you step inside or outside of that box, then your value as a human being has disappeared.”
Really interesting thoughts on this topic, and a beautifully expressed argument.
“It’s a cage that tells you that if you step inside or outside of that box, then your value as a human being has disappeared.”
Precisely what I experienced more than once. Don’t want to sleep with your boyfriend of three weeks? Prude. Don’t want to make out with random drunk stranger? Prude. Don’t want to show your boobs in public and let the guys touch you? Prude AND slut. How creative. And now a wondrous pill would solve all of my problems! :O
Except, why is this a problem? I’m wired that way, it doesn’t hurt anyone (not even me; despite what people might think, I am shockingly uninterested in “solving this problem”), and it should be up to me to decide whether I want to do something about this. I mean, it’s totally fine to give women a choice; when a woman would really like to sleep with her man/woman more often, but can’t get “in the mood”, no matter what they do, she should have the choice to take that pill, IF she really wants to. But telling women that if they don’t want to go down that road that they are, essentially, sick? No. Just no.
Not a rabid feminist, but this shaming of women’s sexuality, no matter what form it takes, has to stop.
Thank you for commenting! I wholeheartedly agree. “Shaming of women’s sexuality, no matter what form it takes, has to stop.” Yes. Absolutely. We need to educate our children, both men and women, that their sexuality can take many forms, that they can be free or reserved, modest or open, and there will be no judgment.
You’re absolutely right. Nice work. Glad to see this get called out.
That said, the following paragraph proceeds to issue sweeping generalizations of male behavior, that same vice which male writers exhibit toward women so often. To advance our cause, we must learn to not let our advocacy function as a self-serving shield of our own own tendency to stereotype men (a problem as real, if far less pervasive, than men’s tendency toward the same).
“And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the problem. Men want their wives to desire them but not to desire too strongly, because they could be encouraged to infidelity. Men want their women to need sex, but not too much, because they might become sexually aggressive. Men want their women to fit inside a tiny, prescribed box of what female sexuality ought to be, and ladies, here’s a hint: that box is less of a box and more of a cage..”
Thanks again, you do great work here.
Thank you for your comment and critique. You bring up a great point. I did over-generalize by using the word “men” as a category and rather than as a set of individuals. Thanks for calling me out on that.
Yes, there is often a significant difference between the sexual drive of partners in a committed relationship. Do we need medication to “fix” something that has always been, will always continue to be, and almost certainly has a fundamental physiological cause? I think not.
I think the same of the chronic over prescription of medications that “treat” so called hyperactivity disorders. What has happened to our common-sense? Have we forgotten what it’s like to be children, and flooded with the joyous energy of such? Instead of letting our children be children, we have medicated them into submission. {I have not, my kids are free to be kids, and frankly I don’t give a damn if they challenge their teachers.} Mark my words, we’ll pay a dear price for that when the current generation of over medicated individuals have to take a meaningful place in society. Everything comes at a cost, I fear the cost of these types of ill-thought, financially motivated medicines is a permanent change in the way people’s brains work.
Society has been brainwashed to idolize sex. Why? Because sex sells. What about relationships, of the committed kind? {Please note I don’t say marriage.} Unfortunately, relationships are not as easy to depict, and therefore not as easy to manipulate to suit whatever material message you’re trying to sell.
As a collective, humanity needs to take a good long look in the mirror and ask, “At what point will we pay the cost of instant gratification, or in the case of ADD medications, instant calm.” Unfortunately, I think we already are.
As always, your thoughts and opinions are on point and on par with my own. I consider this new sex drug to be in the same vein as the ADD medication we give to our children – the only problem is that with the drug I discuss in this particular post is that it’s targeted only towards half of the population, and it tells that half that if they don’t feel a certain way sexually, they are mentally ill and need a chemical to change their basic biological function.
It does indeed, and is more offensive for that. Frankly, the rather crude attempts to make our most intimate moments into someone else’s business {literally}, appall me.