To me, that question only matters for insurance purposes. Who pays for how many pills a month? Viagra has a similar issue where insurance will only pay for so many pills.
Assuming this pill actually works and there’s no down side or side effects to taking it, if a lady wants medically-boostness horny-ness every day via a pill then it’s her own damned business and we should mind our own.
But I someitimes awaken with one of those “urinary” erections wanting to “DO SOMETHING” with it. I can’t be the only one.
This misses the point that said man can be turned OFF by NOT having the erection. So while the Viagra is not necessarily directly turning him ON, its results can surely help in preventing him from being turned OFF.
Mine definitely would, as too much sensitivity isn’t a good thing (as per the definition of “too much”).
So if a woman can’t get aroused it’s a mental problem. Right. It can’t possibly be a physical issue. Right. Got it. Thanks for mansplaining it to me.
nm
In other words, both Viagara and Addy are for men who want to have sex but can’t. 
I think it matters in a philosophical sense. If we say people should be turned on X times a month that will cause concern in anyone below X. I think there’s an inherent downside in defining something as an issue. We really should only be doing so when it facilitates treatment or better living.
In a general sense I agree with you. The government should leave it to doctors and whoever’s paying for it. But if we apply the current standards this drug shouldn’t have been approved. It barely works and has very serious side effects.
Not even close. It’s like you didn’t read my post at all.
well, actually, this makes perfect sense. In most cases women who are not getting aroused don’t have a physical problem at all; what they have is a psychological problem with their partner. So the doctors don’t want to prescribe a drug when a divorce or an affair would work far better. Whereas in men, being unable to get an erection when aroused is always a physical problem for which a pill is the best answer.
I not only read it, I quoted it. A woman not being arroused is a behavioral thing. Not physical. So now what is your point?
One might assume that if the woman’s doctor is ready to prescribe this drug then physical issues have been ruled out. Many psychoactive drugs have negative side effects so it seems prudent for the doctor to want to make sure the patient isn’t on anything that might interact badly with it, or have psychological issues that may be worsened.
I think your accusation of “mansplaining” is misplaced here.
It’s on a show called Being Human on WNYC. From the transcript:
( MH = Mary Harris, the host. NP = Nicole Prause, the guest)
The snippets of quote are accurate, but they don’t relate to each other and are out of context.
It’s an interesting interview and a good listen. Basically the drug only works 10% better than placebo and it has dangerous interactions with antibiotics, birth control, antidepressants, and alcohol. Serious enough that patients must sign a waiver.
well, all I can say it’s about time they started studying women’s sexuality instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.
Word.
That’s it - thank you!!! I tried searching on WNYC’s site, but didn’t get a hit from Being Human. Argh!
Okay - a bit more clear; well, clear in that it supports spamforbrains’s point - seems like a lot we don’t know about women’s sexuality…
One might if one had not heard the quote I was speaking of. The woman said before all that she would have her female patients psychologically evaluated. Thanks for your mansplaining.
I think I’m gonna have to insist on a cite for both of your points. Defining the entire scope of both male and female sexual disfunction in one poorly puncuated paragraph just isn’t enough to convince me.
Exactly. Thank you.
This thread is discussing a particular radio program. From the transcript of that particular radio program:
Feel free to listen, read the summary, and/or read the transcript. It’s really very interesting.
Do you have a link for this quote you heard about a doctor requiring psychological evaluations before prescribing Addyi? You’re throwing around offensive (to me, anyway) accusations of “mansplaining” (god, I hate that term) and demanding cites to refute your own unsupported hearsay “quote.” I’m genuinely interested in the topic and would really like to hear or read more about it if you could provide a link.
I was driving and heard an interview on the radio. It may well be “hearsay” in a legal aense. But I didn’t make it up and I am not lying.
And my request for a cite was on the statement that most women’s sexual disfunction is psychological and all men’s sexual disfunction is physical.
Do try to keep up.
I heard the OP’s referenced interview while driving and it wasn’t much trouble to find documentation. Do you have any more information besides “on the radio” such as the name of the show, the host, any guests, when it aired, what network it might have been on, etc? I’d be delighted to keep up - help me find a cite and I’ll definitely read it. As I said, I’m genuinely interested and want to read more.
And please do read or listen to the show in question. Here’s the link again. It really is interesting.
I’m not accusing you of making it up or lying, I’m looking for more material. I don’t think your tone of adversarial condescension accomplishes what you think it does.