Dysfunction or Dissatisfaction?

words by Pseudo-Adrienne posted November 14, 2005 - 7:02pm

When it comes to discussing Female Sexual Dysfunction (or perhaps Dissatisfaction), all the medical jargon and scientific theories as to why women "don't like sex and are therefore dysfunctional" come out. Some doctors and pharmacists think FSD can be easily solved with a pill or patch-- no big deal. However does this "just give 'em a pill or a patch, and they'll start happily humpin' and climaxing" line of thinking conveniently gloss over the larger issue that some women are perhaps dissatisfied in their intimate relationships? What about stress from working, having to take care of children, and running errands all day? What about their past experiences with sex? Were some of them sexually abused or raped? What if the environment within their relationship and their partner make them feel uncomfortable about discussing their sexuality? What about society's stigmas around women being open and frank about their sexuality? Does a male-dominated medical and scientific field have anything to do with the lack of human-oriented (as in actually talking to women and getting them to be more open and frank) research of FSD? Don't these other concerns matter in the debate over FSD? Or are some women just doomed to remain sexually dissatisfied or dysfunctional for various reasons? Sigh-- just keep on faking it, ladies (or visit your local sex-toy store). Well Planned Parenthood has recently put out an interesting article on FSD and the issues surrounding the "controversy" of women's sexuality and women being open and discussing their sexuality.

[...]FSD: New and Improved!

One thing is clear: the FSD of today is not what it used to be. FSD was originally defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible of the psychiatric world, as a psychiatric disorder that was usually treatable with therapy for the individual or the couple.

But the staggering market success of Viagra, a drug prescribed for erectile dysfunction (ED), prompted pharmaceutical companies to consider treating female sexual problems in the same manner. The first hurdle, however, was that female sexual problems are not as clearly defined or as objectively measurable as (ED), or impotence. Female complaints tend to be more vague, like lack of interest or problems with arousal '


( words about: )
kactus's picture
Comment by kactus posted November 14, 2005 - 9:16pm

Let's not rule out disability and medication as factors affecting women's sexual response, too. I'm on a medication that has the very unfortunate side affect of leaving me with almost no sexual desire whatsoever. On the other hand, not having to deal with all that stuff I used to consider so important leaves me a lot of time to do other worthwhile things.

I do remember, though, the days when getting some was uppermost in my mind. When can I get laid? And where? And with who? LOL. Oh my god, I used to be so feisty.


(1)
Thalia's picture
Comment by Thalia posted November 15, 2005 - 7:51pm

As far as the meds go. I can't say it's bothered me, though--like you, I'm finding lots of other things to do with my time. I'm in a place in my life, anyway, where I don't want a relationship just now (I'm living with/looking after my elderly parents). I remember not too long ago before I was on the medication, all I used to do it seems was have sexual fantasies. My god! To the point where I was like, what is wrong with me? It finally hit me that I was after all in my "dirty thirties". I also read somewhere that the mid-thirties is the only time when women have as many sexual fantasies as men.

Well no wonder they're so screwed up! I think we've got to give them a little more credit--I mean, how can men get anything done?

I wish I were the fiesty type. I'm just too shy.


(1)
kactus's picture
Comment by kactus posted November 15, 2005 - 8:26pm

I don't miss em at all! They were so freaking distracting--I swear I probably neglected my kids in the pursuit of sex, lol.

I was talking with a friend today about being single and how happy I am--I ended a long-term relationship almost 2 years ago and have NO desire to have another. I just like having my house and my time and my life and my bed to myself. I don't have to worry about pleasing anybody but myself. I can read in bed with the light on til 3 a.m. without anybody complaining. And as far as companionship goes--well, I don't miss that either. I like my own company pretty well.


(1)
Thalia's picture
Comment by Thalia posted November 15, 2005 - 10:47pm

Oh I am so with you on this again, kactus. I can't even stand having a roommate around, and the time I lived by myself in a little rented house (not even anyone upstairs, just the whole place all to myself) was just the best (save for the working at the stupid corporate job bit). Just me and the cats. I can't even imagine living with some sort of significant other. Having the entire bed to myself is such a blessing; sometimes I have to kick the cats out cause they're crowding me!

The parents I'm used to by now, but on the rare occasions both of them are out at the same time, it's like heaven...


(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 15, 2005 - 12:28am

so much of this so called research (speculation) about female sexuality never even acknowledges that many women do not have sex with men. heterosexuality is just assumed.

what would be interesting to me is comparing so-called "dysfunction" between straight, queer, and bi/omni-sexual women. my guess is that many of the so-called dysfunctions are in fact primarily a reaction to having sex with men. how many women fake orgasms when having sex with other women?


(1)
Comment by Pseudo-Adrienne posted November 15, 2005 - 12:46am

Thanks for the comments Kactus and Artemisia. I agree Artemisia, that when it comes to many of these women's sexuality studies and research "findings," they greatly focus (and only focus) on heterosexual relationships. (Because women should only be interested in having sex with men and pleasing men--right? Whatever.) They are biased against Queer women, and marginalize their sexual/intimate relationships.

(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 15, 2005 - 1:06am

in marginalizing queer relationship they skew their results. i mean from my lesbian perspective, its men that make sex with men dysfunctional. if you want to know about female sexuality, subtract the men!


(1)
kactus's picture
Comment by kactus posted November 15, 2005 - 12:43pm

Astute as usual, artemisia. Let's not forget, too, the relationship between body image and sexual response. I hardly think it's realistic for an entire society to tell women "hey, be as sexy as you can be, UNDER THESE STRICT BARBIE-DOLL GUIDELINES," and then fail to understand when women lose interest. I mean honestly, who wants to be bothered with all of that when chances are you're not going to fit the ideal anyway? And that's the marketing aspect of sex, women's bodies being sold as prettily-packaged receptables to men and to themselves. I know for a fact that I don't fit that pretty-package, barbie-doll guideline. And I don't want a partner who expects me to.


(1)
Comment by LisRiba posted November 16, 2005 - 12:17pm

What research are you reading, or are you just looking at the mainstream press coverage?

Much of the medical research trying to understand women's sexual function (only in the last decaade has the medical establishment realized how much they don't know about the basic physiology) actually tends to examine women masturbating so they have fewer external variables to deal with.

(1)
Comment by Wendryn posted November 15, 2005 - 4:37pm

A previous partner thought I was frigid (I hate that word, when applied to women) but I wasn't interested in sex because, to him, I wasn't sexy, and he made that abundantly clear. He wanted sex all of the time and expected to be pleasured, but he was very bad about making sure that I was enjoying myself, and whatever I suggested was labeled boring and did not turn him on, making the whole interlude pointless because he didn't get what he wanted.

I think a fair amount of sexual dysfunction in women is associated with the whole Barbie image, and also with the virgin/whore piece. We are supposed to keep the house clean and make everything perfect, be perfectly behaved in society, and then be a sex fiend at home. I didn't have the energy at that point. When I was involved with a woman we had several interesting discussions about perceptions of sexuality and sex drive. I can't get turned on as easily as a guy can, in general - it takes more than a visual stimulus, and it takes a little longer for me to get started.

Maybe one of the things to ask women about if a study happens is how much discussion they have with their partner about sex and what pleases them. It should not just be hetero women, either. That leaves out too much.

I managed, luckily, to get involved with someone with whom I am very compatible, and I am not disinterested at all. I get teased about having a one-track mind, in fact, which amuses me no end.

(1)
Comment by Morgaine Swann posted November 15, 2005 - 11:20pm

What does exist is female sexual trauma - as many as two in three of us is violated at some point in our lives; and side-effects of med.s, as mentioned by others; and exhaustion from having primary responsibility for everyone in our households, no matter how able-bodied they might be, as well as primary care of children and the elderly; and frustration for being paid less than a man for equal or better work; and repression from being told from birth that we are inferior, the source of original sin, temptresses, whores, and sluts who must be controlled with religion, laws, beatings, rape, marriage, and various forms of terrorism; and rage at being expected to fit some predetermined role that has nothing to do with whom we are and what we want. And finally, there's the simple fact that most people know little or nothing about sex in general, and women's sexuality specifically, because we live in such a tight-assed culture.

I'm omni-sexual - I've only ever had a lack of desire for a particular partner, not in general. I've had medicines that had side-effects - most women in this culture are put on anti-depressants at some point, which can kill a healthy sex drive. I believe, based on my own experience, that women are just as horny as men, if not more so. The idea that women are either madonnas or whores is just another lie to control us. Patriarchy's primary goal is to control women's sexuality, and use it as a commodity to be bought and sold. We need to realize that we're all goddesses, and anyone lucky enough to be with us should act like s/he knows it.

It's about freedom. Freedom to say 'no.' Freedom to be ourselves, without airbrushing and photoshopping and aerobicizing and full body make-up. Freedom to demand not just what we need, but what we want as well. Freedom to be an independent person who gets paid what she earns, is appreciated for what she does and has the support she needs to take care of herself and her family. Freedom to know our own bodies better than anyone else. Freedom to walk down the street and feel safe. Freedom to make our own decisions, sexual and otherwise. Freedom to have sex when we're the only ones in the room, and thoroughly enjoy it. Freedom to simply not want to have sex at a particular time, if ever. The simple freedom of know that what we want is valid.

Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements

(1)
Thalia's picture
Comment by Thalia posted November 16, 2005 - 1:49am

I hate this dichotomy crap. The thing that causes so many problems is trying to split mother and whore. You don't get to be a mother without being a "whore". It's like the palm and the back of your hand--you cannot separate one from the other.

Understand that I come from a Goddess and Woman-honoring perspective, and I use the word "whore" in the meaning of "sacred prostitute", and more generally, "sexual woman". Whores, symbolically, represent compassion, in that they are willing to give so much of themselves to people in need.

"Whore" comes from the same root as Latin carus, meaning "dear" (incidentally where the names Charles and Carolyn come from). I like this word--I think we should take it back, like "hag" (which means "holy one").


(1)
Comment by LisRiba posted November 16, 2005 - 12:13pm

[Pardon me for butting in; I found this through a search engine.]

I don't believe FSD exists - it's a myth

Bully for you.
I have at least five years of lab results from bloodwork that can prove otherwise, not to mention my own subjective experiences for the past decade, which includes my personal history, studying the latest medical research, sharing stories with other patients, and the fact that every time I do open my mouth about FSD, female acquaintances come out of the woodwork to share their sexual history and ask my advice because they can't get adequate information through their doctors/therapists/current channels.

Consider yourself lucky that you and your partners haven't had to go through what we have. But just because you haven't had to deal with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And making such comments harms women who do have legitimate physical problems by deterring them from getting the help they need.

I apologize if my tone seems harsh, but it's very difficult to sit by and watch others try to invalidate what I'm going through. Curious, isn't it, how often this happens with ailments that predominantly affect women. Of course, it was the medical establishment that dismissed fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, while attacks on FSD tend to come from other feminists.

When Viagra first hit the market, I don't remember hearing anybody argue that impotent men couldn't possibly have a physical problem, but the primary fault lay in ignorance, culture, or inconsiderate sexual partners.
Physical bodies can break down. Why is that so hard to accept?

I'll keep poking my head in here for any responses to this comment, but since the topic is in the news yet again, I'm going to be writing about it all week on my blog, Riba Rambles. Drop on by, read what I've written, and feel free to ask questions.

(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 16, 2005 - 2:27pm

riba, thank you for sharing your perspective and personal experience about this. i recognize that many women have trouble getting aroused or reaching orgasm. and i have fibromyalgia, so i understand the frustration of having a condition that people don't recognize.

it's not that i have a hard time accepting that physical bodies break down. it's just that i see so clearly the overwhelming cultural burdens placed on women's sexuality. (and if you read my post faking it, you see that given my background it is astounding to me that any woman can enjoy sex with a man.)

i'm also leary these days because big pharm corps have been trying to use fsd as a means to sell more viagra by marketing it to women. as if overprescribing it to every guy who wants a 4 hour hard on isn't profitable enough.

i'm glad there is real scientific research going on about the biology of women's sexuality. and i hope that research yields good info and treatment for women who need it.

i just don't want to see that used as an excuse to not deal with the pervasive cultural burdens that adversely affect female sexuality. after all, we still live in a culture of male defined female sexuality.

i'm glad you joined up and responded to this thread. i hope you'll continue to post on subjects of female sexuality and on other topics that interest you.


(1)
Comment by LisRiba posted November 16, 2005 - 4:56pm

riba,
fwiw, I prefer to go by Lis.

i'm also leary these days because big pharm corps have been trying to use fsd as a means to sell more viagra by marketing it to women.
But a lot of that pressure is coming from the other direction.

I was already experiencing problems when Viagra was released. I followed the news avidly looking for the slightest hint of something applicable to my problems, or even mentioning women as something other than the partner of someone in need of Viagra.

And apparently I wasn't alone. I've been a patient of Dr. Goldstein, former head of the Institute for Sexual Medicine and leading the way in FSD research and treatment. He was an expert in sexual health among men, and reports that women started contacting him hoping his knowledge was transferrable. (2003 news story) He soon discovered how little science knew about female sexual health and it's been his crusade ever since.

So don't assume this is externally imposed, industry taking advantage of women. A lot of women have been frustrated for a long while and agitating for attention.

i just don't want to see that used as an excuse
While self-actualization and self-awareness are admirable goals, I too often hear of friends advised to seek therapy to resolve their problems as a first resort, when a one-time blood test of hormone levels could provide a much quicker diagnosis.

If the problem is at root hormonal, then supplements and medications are far more effective than therapy.
In contrast, blood tests can also quickly rule out hormonal problems and direct patients away from pharmeceutical solutions if they do need theraputic help.

And, no matter how helpful its intent, much of the mainstream advice adds to the patient's guilt more than it helps.
Too stressed? Overtired? That means I'm not relaxing enough. A friend who approached me after reading my blog said her (female) doctor told her she was "thinking too much" [I got that one, too.] I wracked my brain fruitlessly trying to think of any possible time I might've been abused as a child, in case I was subconsciously repressing trauma.
My husband felt a lot of guilt that maybe he was a bad lover or unattractive or just too insensitive to my needs. [Look at the comments here and other feminist boards about FSD. How many people make snide remarks that the guy is a lousy partner or needs to help more around the house?]
And meanwhile, we spent years and thousands of dollars scrutinizing every aspect of our lives with couples therapists and then sex therapists. Nice to gain the tools and awareness, but none of that brought us one step closer to resolving the problem. And we were lucky enough to have the money to burn at the time.

Why put people through that misery unnecessarily?

We didn't even notice how much of this baggage we were carrying around until I was diagnosed with hormone deficiency, and we realized that it wasn't our fault! It was such an amazing relief. If a blood test and medications can save others from that grief, I say woo-hoo!

i hope you'll continue to post on subjects of female sexuality and on other topics that interest you.
I mostly post on my own blog so I can make sure to see any responses I get. This seems to be FSD week for me, and I've got a whole bunch of links for further reading there, if you're interested.

(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 16, 2005 - 5:59pm

fwiw, I prefer to go by Lis.

thanks for clarifying that. i assumed that since your blog was called riba rambles that you prefered riba.


(1)
Comment by Morgaine Swann posted November 18, 2005 - 6:43am

I'm not saying that you don't have a physical problem. The point I'm trying to make is that FSD is a combination of physical and sometimes psychological problems that all get lumped together, and then used against women who have nothing wrong with them. Of course, bodies break down, and that's tragic - I deal with it myself. I'm sorry if that statement upset you, but I was making a point. When the doctors find out what is wrong with you, if they ever do, it will not be a "dysfunction" it will be an illness. It will be an organ malfunction or a hormonal imbalance or nerve damage, but it won't be the same reason that causes the next "FSD" patient to have problems. They're too willing to throw a very general term at women and use that as a blanket to describe all of our problems. Calling it FSD is only a little more helpful than telling us our cramps are imaginary or that we're hysterical.

I'm not "attacking" you - I'm attacking the medical establishment, and the larger culture, that thinks it's ok to neglect women's problems when you know they would move heaven and earth to solve a similar problem in men. I'm attacking the idea that a woman not wanting sex is a "problem" but her having orgasms isn't a priority.

I'm curious about your diet though - not that this is the problem, it's just the first place I always look when someone has any kind of sexual or reproductive problem. Do you eat meat or dairy? If so, are they organic? I've seen women solve a lot of problems by getting all of the rGHB out of their systems. There is also a huge variety of problems that can be caused by food and chemical sensitivities that a doctor will never tell you about, because they don't know about it themselves. We live in such a toxic environment - i'm surprised everyone doesn't have fibromyalgia or chronic fatigue syndrome.

Anyway - it wasn't intended to diminish your suffering. It was meant to support your need for real medical solutions instead of judgement, condemnation, and neglect. Sorry if I was unclear about what I was trying to say.

Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements

(1)
Comment by LisRiba posted November 19, 2005 - 10:12pm

I wrote up a lengthy reply to this comment and now it's gone! What happened!?! Does anyone have a backup copy of this post they can restore from!?

I responded in detail point-by-point to many of the issues raised by parent comment, and don't think I can recreate it from memory.

I find it really distressing that my post yesterday has vanished like this.

(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 20, 2005 - 4:49pm

lis,

i'm sorry your post is missing. let me assure you that no one deliberately deleted your post. we'll do what we can to find it. can you describe what happened? did you see it posted after you pressed "post comment? did you ever see it posted? any specifics would be helpful.

-artemisia


(1)
Comment by LisRiba posted November 20, 2005 - 5:40pm

I wrote the post about 2 days ago, shortly before my "Hello, Is this thing on?"

I think there were duplicates of the parent comment, and one of those duplicates got deleted (dunno by the poster or someone else). Unfortunately, they must've removed the copy which I responded to which erased my comment.

(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 20, 2005 - 10:54pm

i'll look into it


(1)
bayprairie's picture
Comment by bayprairie posted November 21, 2005 - 1:59am

and i am so terribly sorry! as you mention, morgaine had a duplicate post which i removed a few days ago. in so doing i removed the wrong one and also deleted the thread tied to it. i wasn't even aware until this evening (sunday) that i had done so, when i read your new comments. I beg your forgiveness. i cannot believe i was so stupid as to remove the wrong one.


(1)
artemisia's picture
Comment by artemisia posted November 21, 2005 - 5:46am

but i checked with laura and there is no way to retrieve your post. this is the first time something like this has happened. again, sincere apologies.


(1)

» "Dysfunction or Dissatisfaction?"