Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

For discussion of issues pertaining to sexuality. Warning: Topics within this forum may contain frank discussion of a sexual nature.
pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 16:15

Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby pretzelboy » 01 Jun 2010, 13:41

I'm copying a post that I made on AVEN. I think it is very important that people in the asexual community get the word out.

The New View Campaign has created a petition that they're encouraging people to sign:
Please go to Change.org and look for the Low Sexual Desire petition and sign it and circulate it to others. ASAP, please. We will take these petitions to the June 18 Flibanserin hearing.


This is a matter that I think people in the asexual community should be VERY concerned about, and I strongly encorage people to sign the petition. If this drug is approved, expect massive "educational" campaigns telling people just how distressing not being interested in sex is.

The text of the petition:
This is a petition to advocate against FDA approval for Flibanserin, a so-called ‘female Viagra’ recently produced by the drug company Boehringer Ingelheim. It is extremely important that the FDA does not approve Flibanserin, because this new drug:

1. offers only TRIVIAL benefits to women's sexual lives, as shown in the company's clinical trials.

2. might have serious ADVERSE EFFECTS when marketed to a large population.

3. comes with an AGGRESSIVE MARKETING campaign to convince women that sexuality is located in the brain, and that low sexual desire suggests chemical imbalances in the brain.

4. contributes to UNDERMINING and CONCEALING social and cultural issues that lead to women's problems with sexual desire.

5. tends to pathologize normal sexual diversity and therefore NARROWS the ‘cultural ideal’ around female sexuality.

6. represents a classic case of the pursuit of PROFIT rather than women's sexual pleasure and scientific knowledge.

We will take this petition to the upcoming FDA hearing on Flibanserin on June 18th, 2010 as part of our grass-roots campaign of sex scholars, practitioners, and activists. We will be face-to-face with the experts and allies of Boehringer Ingelheim, a global corporation that we believe has engaged in practices of "disease-mongering" with regards to women's sexuality.

Please sign the petition and support our campaign for diverse sexualities.


For more information, check out the following posts:
Meet Your New Experimental Sex Drug: Flibanserin by Cory Silverberg
One pill makes your libido larger at Neuroskeptic
New trials of female sexual dysfunction drug (Flibanserin) will be reported this week by Petra Boyton.

I've blogged about it my blog and the blog Shades of Gray (from whom I got the link) also encourages people to sign the petition.

User avatar
Noskcaj.Llahsram
Regular Member
Posts: 179
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:40

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Noskcaj.Llahsram » 01 Jun 2010, 18:32

ah f***, I've heard about this drug years ago on the various tubes as a joke Never though they'd get this far.
I actually broke my one year hiatus from AVEN for this
What is love? Well, you know that feeling you get when you've been locked in a tiny dark space alone for a year? It's kind of the opposite of that.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 19:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Siggy » 01 Jun 2010, 21:13

A little link collecting: This is being discussed on AVEN and Livejournal. Look at the reactions that this topic is getting.

Many people are bringing up the objection that this there really is a category of people who have sex drive problems or HSDD, and who would benefit from the drug. The main counter-objection is that the drug is marginally effective at best. So obviously no one is going to benefit from it.

I'm curious, what is our position on the supposed group of people who really do have sex drive problems or HSDD? Does this group really exist, and how big is it? If Flibanserin were actually effective, would we still oppose it?

Another objection brought up is that the petition will be useless. Do we have any evidence for the effectiveness of a petition?

I have an objection of my own: the petition should be useless. This is especially the case if the only purpose of the petition is to say that Flibanserin is ineffective. I believe that the FDA is far more qualified than I am to decide whether Flibanserin is effective, so why should they care what I have to say on the matter?

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 19:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Siggy » 01 Jun 2010, 21:39

Okay, here's a bit of a response to my own objection:
The problem is not so much that Flibanserin is completely ineffective, but that it is only marginally effective. Its benefits do not justify the risks. By risks, I don't mean the medical risk that comes with any powerful drug, but the risks at the societal level, such as misdiagnoses and over-pathologizing. The FDA cannot necessarily judge these risks at the societal level, and a petition from society would help inform them.

I'm not sure that I've convinced myself yet. Does the FDA really concern itself with risks at the societal level? Should it? Does it use petitions to judge them?

Question for pretzelboy:
Every time someone brings up the existence of people who might benefit from the drug, your main response is to say that the drug is not effective enough to justify the risk. If that's the tact you want to take, then why have you titled the post, "Low sexual desire is not a disease"? Is that the claim that you wanted to make and argue for?

pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 16:15

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby pretzelboy » 02 Jun 2010, 01:55

To start with, the title of my post was the title of the petition.

Yes, the danger is that it is marginally effective. The risks (both to people and at the societal level) greatly outweigh the benefits, but this is being strongly pushed by powerful people with lots of money.

At the FDA hearing, some of the New View people will be there making their case against FDA approval. The purpose of the petition is to give them additional backing in their claims, and to show support for their position.

If the drug was actually effective, I would be more ambivalent about it. The effects of the ads will be negative, but if the drug actually helped people, that would be a positive; in that case, as with this, I think it should be a matter of weighing the pros against the cons.

I have lots more to say, and I'll probably be saying it over on AVEN, but I have to go to class. (Stupid freaking 8:00 summer class! But if you have to stick a full semester of German into 4 weeks, 4 hour a day classes is what you get...)

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 19:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Siggy » 05 Jun 2010, 08:55

The blogger for Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction left a comment on Asexy Beast offering a different perspective on Flibanserin.

I would like to see some serious discussion between asexuals and people with sexual dysfunction. I think there is a danger, one that has not yet been realized, that the two groups will become adversaries due to a failure to communicate. Let's nip it in the bud.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 05 Jun 2010, 15:15

Siggy wrote:I would like to see some serious discussion between asexuals and people with sexual dysfunction. I think there is a danger, one that has not yet been realized, that the two groups will become adversaries due to a failure to communicate. Let's nip it in the bud.


I agree, I think that would be beneficial. It would be a shame if our actions somehow marginalized a lesser-known group. According to K's comments, people with sexual dysfunction seem to be even more invisible and less organized than asexuals (and we all know how few people even know about asexuals :roll: ). Since there doesn't seem to be any sexual dysfunction organization to get in touch with, any ideas for how to get such a discussion going?

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 19:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Siggy » 05 Jun 2010, 20:40

Well, how do we ever motivate the asexual community to do anything? It's too big to have much of a central leadership. Oh, if I had that kind of power... ]}:) I would make everyone on AVEN to come out to everyone they know! And then we would take the queer movement right out of the hands of white gay cis men! No one would be able to stand in our way as we achieve ultimate cultural power! Mwaahahaha!

Ahem. :shifty:

Maybe someone could interview K. and blog it. We could come up with interview questions here (or on AVEN). And once the interview is done, we could put it on AVEN.

The Gray Lady
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 May 2008, 14:08

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby The Gray Lady » 06 Jun 2010, 07:31

Well, I offered her a guest post on my blog, but actually, I think the interview idea might be better, since it's more directed, so she might have more of an idea of what to say. Or if she has something in mind to say on her own, we could work with both ideas.

I think it'd be really interesting to see this go forward, especially since I know there is an overlap between our two communities that hasn't really been acknowledged yet. I've met a couple of asexuals with sexual dysfunctions, but they've been rather quiet overall about it, and I'd guess the reason is the desire for asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. The desire for good press does tend to put people in a double-bind with regard to acknowledging certain issues, but how can we resolve that? Maybe this can take all of us a step closer.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 06 Jun 2010, 08:05

I saw that, good call! To ask about the interview, we might want to post on K's blog to be sure she sees it. Siggy or Gray Lady, would you want to do that? I'm unsure of my interviewing skills but would definitely be down to help formulate questions.

(It's true, is there any group that asexuality doesn't overlap with, aside from people who already have other orientations? And even then, there's asexuals with other romantic orientations. It's a similar thing to people who have been sexually abused. There are asexuals who have been sexually abused, but it's because no one is necessarily safe from that, not because sexual abuse causes asexuality.)

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 19:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Siggy » 06 Jun 2010, 12:23

Okay, let's come up with questions already. Here are a few ideas.

Some basics:
What is Female Sexual Dysfunction? What kinds of FSD are there?
How do doctors currently classify FSD, and in particular, the desire disorders?
From the point of view of FSD, do you think the definition of HSDD is adequate?

Specifically about Flibanserin:
Critics allege that Flibanserin is only marginally effective. Do you think this is a valid point or not?

Intersectionality:
What are the issues facing someone who has a non-standard sexual orientation and some form of sexual dysfunction?

And the million dollar question:
If we see asexuality as an orientation, this implies that it is not chosen, and that asexuals are not necessarily happy with every aspect of their orientation at all times. This may mimic sexual dysfunction. How can asexuals assert themselves as a group without erasing the experiences of people with desire disorders, and vice versa?

BTW, if K is unwilling to be interviewed, I'm sure you could ask her to recommend someone else.

pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 16:15

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby pretzelboy » 06 Jun 2010, 16:51

Please forgive me for what I'm about to say, but I'm going be something of a contrarian here.

FSD (under that name) was an invention of big pharma in the late 90's in the wake of finding out how profitable Vigra is. They wanted to create the "pink pill" but had the problem "what problem is it supposed to fix?"

Obviously, sexual problems (and associated distress) have been around since the beginnung of time, but this conceptualization is new.

Big pharma has had a fairly aggressive push for it and there have been way more articles on it than on asexuality. And from the numbers they publish, FSD is way more common than asexuality.

It seems that somw people, including K, have found this to be a useful identifier, but just how "small" that community is suggests that the number of people who find it a helpful identity is really quite small compared to the number of people with sexual problems.

I have my doubts about whether there will ever be much of an FSD community to speak of.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 07 Jun 2010, 09:12

pretzelboy wrote:Please forgive me for what I'm about to say, but I'm going be something of a contrarian here.

FSD (under that name) was an invention of big pharma in the late 90's in the wake of finding out how profitable Vigra is. They wanted to create the "pink pill" but had the problem "what problem is it supposed to fix?"

Obviously, sexual problems (and associated distress) have been around since the beginnung of time, but this conceptualization is new.

Big pharma has had a fairly aggressive push for it and there have been way more articles on it than on asexuality. And from the numbers they publish, FSD is way more common than asexuality.

It seems that somw people, including K, have found this to be a useful identifier, but just how "small" that community is suggests that the number of people who find it a helpful identity is really quite small compared to the number of people with sexual problems.

I have my doubts about whether there will ever be much of an FSD community to speak of.


Well, if we did do some kind of dialogue with people with sexual dysfunction, it would be cool to get your input, since I know you've worked a lot on the DSM stuff (isn't that its formal name? ;) ) In some ways it's pretty unusual that FSD lacks any community-- most other chronic illnesses at least have an online forum, if not real-life groups. So maybe you're right, there's a lack of interest, for some reason.

But people with FSD and asexuals might have a similar situation, come to think of it, numbers-wise...the amount of people interested in openly identifying with FSD or asexuality is far below actual numbers. Obviously the numbers differ greatly (1% vs., what, 40-something%?), but still, there should be hundreds of thousands of asexuals in California alone-- where are they? And for people with FSD, there seems to be a lot of information about them, but not so much by them. (For us, there's the opposite-- more by us than about us.)

Yesterday, I was thinking about the interview idea, and I think that if we were going to do it, it would be important to talk to multiple people with FSD, be they sexual or asexual. If we only talked to one person, I think there's the danger of having that one person represent everyone in their group. Even if you explicitly state that that won't be the case, it might still seem like a lot of pressure. But yeah, obviously that would be a much harder project. :/

The Gray Lady
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 May 2008, 14:08

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby The Gray Lady » 07 Jun 2010, 12:24

Well, I think the "43% of women have FSD" statistic is definitely BS--it came from a survey that measured low desire without asking whether or not people were distressed by it, for one thing, so I'm sure they were counting asexuals and probably a good number of other people who wouldn't agree that they have a dysfunction/disorder/disability/dis-anything.

What I wonder about is that "FSD" seems to be a catch-all term, and is it really useful to use such a term with regard to research? I mean, wouldn't it be more useful to pick, say vaginismus, and study that separately? And do the same with vulvodynia, etc. I think that might lead to a great deal more credibility in the research, which would lead to doctors and therapists taking each issue more seriously. For something like intersex conditions, the umbrella term makes more sense, because of the necessity of fighting infant genital mutilation and rarity of most of the individual conditions... but in this case it seems to me that perhaps that approach is doing more harm than good overall, because of the strong push to include people who do NOT have dysfunctions within that umbrella. Despite the large amount of research on FSD, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of research that people consider to be particularly credible.

To be honest I'm not sure how it's be politically useful to keep using the term FSD myself, so I'm interested in hearing K's views on that. We've exchanged emails and I let her know what we've been thinking, and linked to this thread, but she's about to go out of town, so it'll probably be a little while before we hear back from her.

Ily--how many people do you think we should get? For that matter, how would we go about conducting the interview(s)?

pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 16:15

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby pretzelboy » 07 Jun 2010, 12:48

Pretty much everybody who have seriously thought about the 43% stat thinks it's BS. However, giving inflated rates of prevalence is a standard disease mongering tactic, as is emphasizing how incredibly distressing things are--rather than saying that some people find it distressing, some people aren't so bothered by it but are concerned for their partner, some people are basically fine with it, etc.

Politically, it's a complicated issue because there clearly are people who would benefit from medical treatment, and there clearly are people who would benefit were there better medical treatment available. But a big driver of research is big pharma, and they have a vested finincial interest in convincing healthy people that they're sick and slightly ill people that they're very sick (to use the classical definition of, I think, medicalization).

A big issue is that "HSDD" is the common most "problem" among women (it's what all articles say!) HSDD is itself a ridiculous term--there are tons of reasons people might not be interested in sex. A major part of calling something a disorder is that it should be a syndrome, not a symptom. For instance, a fever is a symptom of many disorders, but it itself is not a disorder. (In fact, it's part of your immune system's response.)

For low sexual desire, sometimes it's the consequence of some disorder, sometimes--far from being a disorder--it's an adaptive response to a bad situation (e.g. someone's partner is a jerk), and sometimes it's "normal variation." From what I hear, the diagnosis is pretty worthless for treatment because of this problem. (The purpose of a diagnosis is that it's supposed to give you an idea of how to treat someone.)

However because low sexual desire is the most common "problem" among women, it's the one for which there is the biggest potential market should a drug ever be created.

Also, I think that DSM is planning on getting rid of vaginismus. Evidently, it's pretty much impossible to distinguish from dyspareunia, and there's the question of why it's even considered a sexual dysfunction rather than a pain disorder. Here's the proposed replacement.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 07 Jun 2010, 13:21

...As for how many people, I hadn't thought that far. I thought Siggy's idea of a discussion was great, but my mind is sort of boggling trying to think of how we could actually put it together as intended, "a discussion between two groups" (typical theatre major..."BUT HOW WILL THIS WORK IN THE SPACE?!?!"). I tried searching the internet for people (outside of the drug trials) who are in support of Flibanserin, and couldn't find any. Well, there must be some, but they don't seem to be writing about it. Same situation with the HSDD diagnosis.

It's official, I'm starting to confuse myself. :drool:

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 08 Jun 2010, 13:43

Me again, talking about Flibanserin itself this time. I finally got to talk to an MD about it (okay, it was my mom, but still ;) ) and she had some interesting things to say about it. She seemed to think that it would have a hard time getting approved, and also told me about some other points in history that she thought were relevant:

-- Before Viagra, apparently people thought it was normal for men to lose their sexual ability over time. So while Viagra has helped a lot of people, it has also changed the way that men think about their sexuality, and the expectations they have of themselves.

--When the first anti-depressants were being marketed in Japan, they ran up against the problem that at the time, there was no Japanese word for "depression"-- so they made one up. I'm sure that there were depressed people in Japan. But coming up with a name for it inevitably framed the issues people had in a different way. (HSDD, anyone?)

So yeah, drug companies definitely have to power to radically alter the way we think about health. That's been said, but I thought these examples show that even the language we use to talk about our health, matters. :read:

The Gray Lady
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 31 May 2008, 14:08

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby The Gray Lady » 09 Jun 2010, 16:28

Grr... Have been trying to reply to this post for a few hours now, but my internet keeps cutting out. Here's hoping it's back for good.

Some of you have probably already seen it, but K posted something new about the study we were just discussing, which the 43% statistic came from here.

Ily--the example you mentioned about Japan is definitely interesting, though not totally accurate. You may have seen this since it was just posted on AVEN, but if you haven't, there's an article here that explains it in detail. There actually were multiple words for depression, but all of them referred to something very severe. The word that they made up was "kokoro no kaze," which literally translated means that your heart/spirit has a cold. Depression, gloom, and melancholy are all things that Japanese culture sees as inevitable and in fact values (people are encouraged to patiently suffer through grueling ordeals, and seen as valiant for doing so, whereas people who quit are disparaged and derided--as my friends who work as teachers there would say, having a shitty job is "shou ga nai"--nothing you can do about it--so you just have to suffer). It's difficult to explain this mentality to people who aren't familiar with it, and I find it frustrating myself, because I think it leads to a lot of huge cultural problems (Chuocide suicide by throwing oneself in front of the Chuo line a train is so common that the train lines have started charging the families of the deceased). But nobody ever thought of depression as a problem before they started promoting SSRIs in Japan. Now they've started treating mild depression as a problem, but the focus is entirely on treatment by drugs, as if it were really comparable to a cold, and actually going to see a therapist is still EXTREMELY stigmatized. I think it's a case of trying to treat symptoms, but not actually addressing the real problem... And yeah, that's exactly what I would fear would happen with Flibanserin or similar drugs, without an educational campaign to balance it.

Anyway, K wants to do an email interview first (so she has time to think about the questions & respond well), and then see if there is anything else she wants to say. So... any more suggestions for questions?

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 27 Jul 2009, 19:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Siggy » 09 Jun 2010, 21:11

An e-mail interview was actually what I was thinking of. What other option is there? Skype?

Maybe add a question about the 43% statistic.
"According to blah blah blah, 43% of women have FSD. Why do you think the statistic so high?"

But we don't necessarily need to keep all these questions. I'm afraid it will be tl;dr (too long; didn't read).

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby KAGU143 » 10 Jun 2010, 06:20

I haven't added anything to this thread because I already have a full plate and NO time to take on anything else, but I just wanted you all to know that I'm standing on the sidelines cheering you on! It sounds like a great idea, and well worth trying.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 30 Jun 2010, 17:02

It looks like flibanserin was rejected by the FDA...

User avatar
Noskcaj.Llahsram
Regular Member
Posts: 179
Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:40

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Noskcaj.Llahsram » 06 Jul 2010, 14:17

yey? Did we (the petition) have anything to do with it?
What is love? Well, you know that feeling you get when you've been locked in a tiny dark space alone for a year? It's kind of the opposite of that.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: 24 Jan 2008, 16:55

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby ily » 06 Jul 2010, 15:41

Noskcaj.Llahsram wrote:yey? Did we (the petition) have anything to do with it?


I don't think so.

pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 16:15

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby pretzelboy » 06 Jul 2010, 15:55

I think this is one of those counter-factuals that is pretty much impossible to answer. The data was right there and the right decision was fairly obvious. The only doubt was that the FDA could potentially cave to pressure, which is why it was felt to be important to have counter-pressure from consumer advocacy groups.

User avatar
Typical P. Pinecone
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 05:49

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Typical P. Pinecone » 26 Sep 2010, 12:33

expect massive "educational" campaigns telling people just how distressing not being interested in sex is.


How is this different from living in the modern world?
Flying what now? Sorry you've got the wrong person.

pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: 21 Jan 2008, 16:15

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby pretzelboy » 26 Sep 2010, 14:13

It would be more concentrated and would have the aura of medical/scientific authority behind it.

User avatar
Typical P. Pinecone
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 05:49

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Typical P. Pinecone » 26 Sep 2010, 15:11

So what! I don't think people are really going to force us to take the pills.
Maybe I'm being rather Naive, but It seems like people wouldn't stand for that.
Especially if the pills don't do everything they claim.

And IF someone did need these pills, (Assuming they work) well great they can have their pills.
Flying what now? Sorry you've got the wrong person.

disjointed

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby disjointed » 27 Sep 2010, 04:15

cup egg storm in a

User avatar
Typical P. Pinecone
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 25 Sep 2010, 05:49

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby Typical P. Pinecone » 27 Sep 2010, 05:30

...? You been taking these new drugs disjointed?
Clarity please?
Flying what now? Sorry you've got the wrong person.

fridayoak
Regular Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 07 Jun 2010, 05:45

Re: Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Fli

Postby fridayoak » 27 Sep 2010, 05:35

I remember this from AVEN, and I agree that I couldn't see what all the fuss was about. If people want the drugs then let them have them (as long as they're safe of course). I think it's really arrogant for asexuals to see "WE don't want that, WE think this and that" cos people can make up their own mind about these sort of things.


Return to “Sexuality”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest