![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 26. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by gilbert on May 28, 2001, at 20:20:23
I hate to beat a dead horse....no pun intended but I have tried buspar,remeron,serzone,celexa,prozac,effexor,trazadone,pamelor and elavil for anxiety and minor ocd. I am currently on xanax and am a little depressed am reducing the dosage from 1g to .5g per day but feel I will need something for the panic and ocd other than xanax. The ssris do work somewhat but I get the usual side effects...I have tried adding remeron and buspar to the mix.....no go...pdoc will give me viagra....getting up aint the problem.....I have tried ginko too.......still sawing logs......even serzone gave me anorgasmia which you don't see often so I tried wellbutrin geeked me way up had to pound xanax to stabilize........I am obsessed with finding a decent drug which I guess is good. I am not willing to settle for a sexless life I would rather be obsessive.....The only ssri I have not tried is Luvox and the posts on this board for luvox aren't positive. Plus that bogus sexual study by Walldinger about Luvox not causing anorgasmia is bogus and I know it........What is my next try.......any suggestions.....my doc thinks a stabilizer is too extreme what the hell should I do wait for a new drug...
Helplessly Hoping.......isn't that a song....LOL
Gil
Posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 9:24:09
In reply to I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by gilbert on May 28, 2001, at 20:20:23
Man, I hear ya...feel the same damn way...
__Please__ god, let there be a new drug that
let's you have a sex life. Some people think
I should just be grateful to feel good, and
I am...but I'm sorry, I can't feel good about
having to reliquish an important part of my
mind, body and spirit to do so. I get mad when
people try and poo-poo that aspect of ad's and
say it's not a big deal. It's a huge deal.
Posted by Willow on May 29, 2001, at 11:33:10
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 9:24:09
With all the ADs I've taken none had affected me sexually, but then none of them had worked. Now that I find one that works it has me in a constant state of arousal. Do men live like this?
Okay here comes the whine: GP laughs and says enjoy it, I'm not a teenager anymore, with three children in the house it's not that simple either; the psych smiles, I can't recall exactly how that conversation went but I got a little empathy when I said I would be getting sympathy from you guys if I said I had blue balls; the husband loved it at first but after months of this as he puts it my need is greater than his, a girl likes to be chased once in awhile; turn to mom for advice, have an affair or do it yourself. I tried myself but it's just too much effort so I can understand a little how the hubby feels.
I will not give up the med though because it enables me to be a mother, spouse, etc. Maybe in another ten years once the children are older if I still feel the same physical urges I can go paint the town red? Or start a group for well adjusted people on Ad's who need a little help down below.
Bring your own whip cream!
Willow (did not post this, the nutty oak tree did! )
Posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 11:43:57
In reply to How about a Fine Finnish Whine, posted by Willow on May 29, 2001, at 11:33:10
What are you on? I want some a that!
Posted by paulk on May 29, 2001, at 14:09:48
In reply to I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by gilbert on May 28, 2001, at 20:20:23
Don't over look the MAOIs
Posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 14:21:39
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........one that won't make me . » gilbert, posted by paulk on May 29, 2001, at 14:09:48
Which MAO's don't have sexual side effects?
Posted by paulk on May 29, 2001, at 15:03:09
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 14:21:39
> > Which MAO's don't have sexual side effects?
All ADs can have sexual side effects - it depends on your neuro-chemistry and how much you are taking. The incident is lower for MAOIs - some of them very low. It is a percentage thing - some people can take high doses of Paxil and have no problems - we are all different - and our neuro-chemistry is probably more varied than the way we look.
There is no shortcut for trying a med for 6 weeks and see if it works as an AD without sex side effects. The choice of the first MAOI to try would be based on your symptoms - some MAOIs are more stimulating than others. There are diet restrictions.
Posted by Willow on May 29, 2001, at 15:22:38
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 9:24:09
"I can't feel good about
having to reliquish an important part of my
mind, body and spirit to do so. I get mad when
people try and poo-poo that aspect of ad's and
say it's not a big deal."Who told you that it's not a big deal? Are you a woman or man? Just wondering because I have this theory that if men talk about it, it is a big deal but woman aren't so suppose to in this "North American" society (or is it British.) (Viagra's production before a male contraceptive.)
I am taking Effexor. I don't know if it's so great this side-effect, imagine being in a total state of frustration.
Willow
Posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 16:08:50
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by Willow on May 29, 2001, at 15:22:38
Hey Willow,
No one came right out and told me, but it's just
a vibe I get. The p-doc I'm seeing right now is
great, but even she seems to think weight gain is
a bigger deal than sex. I guess sex is important
to some people, and not so important to others.
I'm a woman, by the way. But even other women doctors,
(and my p-doc is female), seem to poo-poo the sex
thing. Ai, ai...
I haven't tried effexor yet...lots of folks experience
difficulty with orgasm on it...guess you got lucky.
Maybe you could add a little bit of good ole libido
killing prozac to help with your frustration :-)
Posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 16:13:10
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by paulk on May 29, 2001, at 15:03:09
I've been kind of curious about MAOI's, but my
p-doc is very reluctant to try them since they
are more complex to take and have so many restrictions.
I wonder if they have less sexual problems than the
ssri's...
Seems like most of the sexual complaints come with
the seratogenic drugs, but then a lot more people are
on ad's now that they invented SSRI's, so maybe that's
why we're hearing more complaints than before. I don't
know.
Posted by gilbert on May 29, 2001, at 16:56:33
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........paulk, posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 16:13:10
Willow,
You make a huge point.....The vast majority of pharmaceutical decisions and higher ups in the medical industry are men. The majority of anti depressant users have always been pre menopausal and menopuasal women. It has been and will never be a priority for these higher ups to produce a drug that takes care of your orgasm. It simply is not important enough to them. Look at all the hysterectomies and God awful choices for hormone therapy for women. I am watching my mom go thru this right now. The point being when enough men in this businesses and the higher ups instituionally get depressed and can no longer get their rocks off......Then it will become a main stream issue. I say all this and I am a guy because I have researched this and the vast amount of antidepressants are being prescribed by OBG's and GP's to women. Besides which men are awfull at asking for help they usually just drink or gamble to cope rather than look for legitimate solutions for their problems........Now guys please don't gang up on me for supportin the ladies........LOL
Gil
Posted by Willow on May 29, 2001, at 20:49:29
In reply to Re: re; male sexual dysfungtion vs female dysf., posted by gilbert on May 29, 2001, at 16:56:33
"It has been and will never be a priority for these higher ups to produce a drug that takes care of your orgasm."
I laughed so hard my poor worn bladder almost ... Uups, sorry! The companies go for the big bucks. Now with an aging population you see them advertising "bladder control meds." Maybe the problem is that women don't talk about it out in the open. I would to a girlfriend but here is how the conversation went with my doctor. He asked about any problems with the medication. (I try to only mention the most trying thing because I could probably keep the poor guy going all day unless he asks a specific question.) So I say I'm having a sexuuuualll prooooblem. He says losing interest. No the opposite, I answer and look out the window. You're horny he blurts out. My jaw drops, this guys probably younger than me and this isn't something I want to discuss with a man other than my spouse. He explains how it delays the big O. So I say it's just a vicious circle. He says to enjoy it. I don't say anymore.
Perhaps I should have explained more. I'm just ranting now. I guess it is true that the squeaky wheel gets oiled! No pun intended if someone can imagine one.
A Blushing Willow
Posted by paulk on May 29, 2001, at 22:22:36
In reply to Re: I want a new drug.........paulk, posted by roo on May 29, 2001, at 16:13:10
MAOIS are often effective for atypical depression but are used as a last resort partly because we live in a country that thinks we can sue ourselves to prosperity and utopia. Docs are afraid of the potential use of MAOIs for suicide – and the lawsuit that might follow. They are also afraid of the somewhat exaggerated drug/diet interactions that can be fatal to a non-compliant patient.
If you want to try a MAOI, you need to reassure your doctor you won’t OD and you can follow the dietary restrictions. Tell your doctor you understand the concern. Hey, most psy docs are almost as screwed up as I am; they need reassuring too. As a group, Psy docs are doctors that were timid about surgery (or even touching patients) in med school, and not the most courageous lot. I knew one who refused to try ANY sexual side effect remedies because that would be “poly pharmacology” . The one I see know is quite different, gutsy – you would never guess he was a psy doc.
I have heard (here and other places) that MAOIs can be a very good choice for some patients.
Posted by paulk on May 29, 2001, at 22:28:41
In reply to Re: re; male sexual dysfungtion vs female dysf., posted by gilbert on May 29, 2001, at 16:56:33
>
You make a huge point.....The vast majority of pharmaceutical decisions and are men. The majority of anti depressant users have always been pre menopausal and menopuasal women. It has been and will never be a priority for these higher ups to produce a drug that takes care of your orgasm. It simply is not important enough to themI strongly disagree – If the “higher ups in the medical industry” can find an effective AD that dosen’t cause sexual dysfunction – they know it would be a huge money maker. Not only that – some of these “higher up” males have depressed wives – that they would give anything to see happy and sexually functioning.
Posted by Thrud on May 30, 2001, at 1:23:48
In reply to I want a new drug.........one that won't make me ., posted by gilbert on May 28, 2001, at 20:20:23
I totally understand what you guys are going through.
I have tried every AD and crazy elixir that claimed to relieve depression without sexual side effects. This includes the "fringe" stuff like St Johns Wort, L-Tyrosine, Gingko, Phosphatidylserine and NADH....and they ALL gave me sexual dysfunction to various degrees!!!!! Not to mention your standard "call me droopy" ADs (like you Gilbert, including the ones that aren't *supposed* to give you that problem).
This has been going on for ten years straight and now I am seriously considering ECT in order to escape sexual dysfunction. Obviously it has it's own set of problems too. And I am seriously wondering whether I will get sexual dysfunction from ECT. That wouldn't surprise me at all.I really hope that you guys find something that works before having to choose between celibacy and "riding the lightning".
It is a bummer of a choice!Thrud
Posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 11:17:59
In reply to Re: I want a new drug -Gilbert, Roo, posted by Thrud on May 30, 2001, at 1:23:48
>
I appreciate your point but my opinion is not just theory...there are vast numbers of studies showing huge discrepcies in the way women get treated and medicated by a mostly male field. The huge number of valium scripts being dished out in the 70's was another example of my same point. Your point about the drug comapanies wanting to find a sexually effective AD so they could make money......Last time I looked Prozac was the number 3 drug selling in this country with Zoloft not far behind. Consumer demand is very high for these chemical castraters what motivation could there be. I have relatives in both the health insurance field and the pharmaceutical field and beilieve me they are happy with the drugs currently out. If you think there is some giant race by all the differnt pharmaceuticals to invent some sex effect free drug your in for a long wait........Thanks for the spirited debate.
Gil
Posted by grapebubblegum on May 30, 2001, at 17:56:36
In reply to Re: In response to Paulk, posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 11:17:59
Gil, I think you're my new best friend.
I won't even get into the hormonal methods of birth control that ob/gyns nonchalantly recommend, and never think twice about the fact that virtually any form of tinkering with female hormones makes one into a eunuch who thinks about sex less often than she thinks about clipping her toenails. And of course, as you said, hysterectomies, etc... all done under the premise that women's sexuality doesn't really exist or that it is a frivolous bonus that women don't really need and maybe shouldn't enjoy anyway.
And as for the doc who said in reference to orgasmic delay, "Just enjoy it," my response is:
>:o[
Everyone has something to say about this topic. Obviously, the side effect no one really wants to discuss with their doctor is more of a prevalent problem than anyone knows, probably precisely because we don't always bring it up with our doctors.
Posted by paulk on May 30, 2001, at 21:31:52
In reply to Re: In response to Paulk, posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 11:17:59
>I appreciate your point but my opinion is not just theory...there are vast numbers of studies showing huge discrepcies in the way women get treated and medicated by a mostly male field.
It is true that men get more serious attention – but one of the causes is that men tend to wait until they are in a medical emergency before seeing a doctor. I guess my point is, do you really think men sit around trying to find some way to shortchange women?
> Your point about the drug comapanies wanting to find a sexually effective AD so they could make money......Last time I looked Prozac was the number 3 drug selling in this country with Zoloft not far behind.
True and they would lose their market position in a few weeks if an effective AD without sexual side effects came on the market. BTW over half of the stockholders in pharmaceuticals are women.
I guess I don’t get it – last time I checked – sex is often between 2 – that means that if a drug has a nasty sexual side effect it short changes BOTH a man and a women whoever is taking the drug (yes, I can think of exceptions< grin >)
I just don’t see a conspiracy by men to deprive women of sex by not coming out with better AD drugs.
I know some folks at the University nearby who are involved in Drug research. One of them, I know for a fact, was motivated to go into research because of the loss of his mother to depression. Researchers are not at all happy with the AD effects of the current drugs – most ADs just don’t work that well.
The amazingly complex sexual response is intimately tied into our brain (I remember hearing the brain called the largest sex organ). Any drug that crudely changes the level of neuro transmitter is bound to effect sexual response. It is pretty amazing that the drugs work at all considering that they affect transmitter levels all over the brain (and even body) instead of targeting particular areas.
>If you think there is some giant race by all the differnt pharmaceuticals to invent some sex effect free drug your in for a long wait........
That race is now about 10 years long, and costs over 1,000 million dollars to enter. Why? – Is it because men trying to deprive women???? I don’t think so. It is because of lawyers and politicians. The bureaucrats have no reason to take chances – taking a chance that only risks their federal pension. Drugs that have risks are under used – (I don’t think MAOIs would be approved if submitted today – neither would aspirin.)
We now have a schizophrenic system where herbal medicines don’t have to prove safety or effectiveness, are put up for sale. While the hoops the drug companies have to jump through continue to grow.
It would seem to make a lot more sense to put herbs and pharmaceuticals under the same standards – standards that would be somewhere between those of herbs and drugs. As it stands, the only reform I have heard of is one that would shorten the exclusive rights to a drug – a move that will increase drug costs and slow the introduction of new drugs – but a move that will buy votes.
My hunch is that you are turned of by your psy doc – most of which are pretty screwed up themselves. I have seen more than 20 psy docs in my life of depression; most would not try anything that was not very conservative. This is due to fear of litigation. You probably need to see 4 or 5 to find a competent one with a bit of backbone.
We keep electing lawyers to Washington that see to it that the cost of a drug is at least half consumed by legal fees of their buddies. I would gladly sign an agreement to limit the liability of a drug company if I could have more drugs to choose from - Washington won’t let that happen.
Posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 22:04:20
In reply to Re: In response to Paulk » gilbert, posted by paulk on May 30, 2001, at 21:31:52
paulk,
You make some very valid points and I am sure they are true as well but did you notice within the last 10 years how many drugstores are being built. I am somewhat synical in that there seems to be such a humungous infusion of cash in the drug business. Now I am not foolish enough to think that drug companies arent' doing research on new ssri's with dopamine antagonist properties or 5ht2 recepter blocking better than that loser serzone. But the bulk of drug company money being earned from overly patented overly priced drugs is not in research. Those 1000 of millions of dollars being spent on research....bahh humbug the majority of drug company money is spent on warm fuzzy marketing schemes and buying doctors dinner and vacations. I have friends who are drug reps....their lee way for expense accounts would make you cream your jeans,,,unless of course you were currently taking one of their drugs because then you couldn't cream your jeans.
The annual budgets of drug companies are so heavy into the pushing side of the equation it isn't funny. I have a friend who has Paxil as a product...you should see what is available to her to caox Doctors and Pdocs. If the drug companies could get away with sending hookers into doctors offices they would. If they were serious they would put that money in research and let the product sell on it's own merits. The marketing side of this business is not only dehumanizing it is unethical. The people who suffer from mental illness are ever hopefull and very suggestable for relief...and to have some high profile Madison Avenue ad agency seduce people into using their products because they can portray what the sick person would like to feel like in a commercial nauseates me. So yea there is research and yea there is new drugs coming but the effort is weak at best and the money grossly misused.Again I love your spirited response and am glad every body not only has their own opinion but is willing to respond with it....good luck
Gil
Posted by grapebubblegum on May 30, 2001, at 23:14:22
In reply to Re: to paulk touchee, posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 22:04:20
Y'all are both sort of ignoring what I said (I'm your new best friend Gil, so don't ignore me!)
I don't think there's a conspiracy, Paul, but I think that many people including both halves of many couples don't understand women's sexuality and therefore women do get shortchanged. It's mostly the responsibility of women to speak up for themselves, and it's a complex historical and sociological problem that women don't understand their sexuality AND don't feel entitled to speak up about it even if they do understand it. Like I said, witness the hormonal birth control methods that not only give women a permanent case of PMS, but, as the joke goes, work by making the patient uninterested in sex. Sure, some will say they are just as interested but that's not true sex drive, that's societally conditioned receptivity which differs from having a true female sex drive. Unless you're a female, Paul, you'll just have to take my word for it that I know what I am talking about.
Why do both men and women not make a big deal of the problems caused for women with hormonal birth control or antidepressants? (Remember, brain chemistry affecting depression is closely tied in with progesterone which is why I keep mentioning B.C.; it's like giving women a permanent case of the mental heebie-jeebies to prevent pregancy and I think it's a hellish way to live at worst and a eunuch-like way to live at best) The reason is because traditionally women are recipients of sex and therefore their response/enjoyment is often poo-poohed as insignificant and unimportant. How is male sexual dysfunction treated? With the wildly popular viagra, amongst other popsicle-stick-and-duct-tape-like apparatuses found at the drug store... How is female dysfunction treated? With K-Y.
And finally, since I'm very tired and should go to bed, I have to end on a note of levity, as I like to do. You mentioned, Gil, that pharmaceutical companies would send in hookers to physician's offices to hawk their products if they could... Well, have you ever actually SEEN some of these "representatives"?
(I really hope no one here is employed in that function; if so, please accept my apologies; I couldn't resist.)
Posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 23:32:49
In reply to Re: to paulk touchee, posted by grapebubblegum on May 30, 2001, at 23:14:22
Grapebubblegun,
Please forgive me I am not ignoring I am just caught up in my favorite topic....me.....LOL. You're killing me some of the reps do look like hookers and is it a suprise that they use more and more women every year to go visit the male dominated medical field. To even assume that it is a top priority for the pharmaceutical and medical profession to take care of any one's orgasms is a joke. They simply develop another drug like viagra. More scripts mo money, more patents more ridulous prices. All the false promises.....celexa....no sexa, effexa...no sexa, serzone...numb bone, remeron...fat and sleepy with a hard on, and coming soon new celexa stronger seratonin uptake....ummm I bet that'll be good for sex just what I need stronger seratonin uptake with reportedly no side effects according to Forrest Gump Labs.......Next they'll have a commercial with couples in a giant orgy
on the beach with beatifull waves in the background and everyone laying on a giant new and improved celexa blanket moaning and groaning and some lady will say My Gilly he just can't get enough on his new celexa not only is he not depressed or anxious he has a permanent erection............in my dreasms...LOLGil
On a personal note I know our symptomolgy is almost identical and we need to stay in touch because there may be med choices you try or I try that will be good for the both of us.
Posted by SLS on May 31, 2001, at 7:04:43
In reply to Re: In response to Paulk, posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 11:17:59
> >
> I appreciate your point but my opinion is not just theory...there are vast numbers of studies showing huge discrepcies in the way women get treated and medicated by a mostly male field. The huge number of valium scripts being dished out in the 70's was another example of my same point. Your point about the drug comapanies wanting to find a sexually effective AD so they could make money......Last time I looked Prozac was the number 3 drug selling in this country with Zoloft not far behind. Consumer demand is very high for these chemical castraters what motivation could there be. I have relatives in both the health insurance field and the pharmaceutical field and beilieve me they are happy with the drugs currently out. If you think there is some giant race by all the differnt pharmaceuticals to invent some sex effect free drug your in for a long wait........
>
> Thanks for the spirited debate.
>
> Gil
Have you seen the new advertisements in T.V. for Wellbutrin? The theme of the ad is that it doesn't cause sexual side effects. There must be some importance placed upon the lack of sexual side effects, at least in the marketing department.No, I should think that the drug companies are now scrambling to R & D ADs without SSEs.
- Scott
Posted by grapebubblegum on May 31, 2001, at 8:16:44
In reply to Re: my newest best friend grapebubblegum, posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 23:32:49
quote: "celexa....no sexa, effexa...no sexa, serzone...numb bone, remeron...fat and sleepy with a hard on, and coming soon new celexa stronger seratonin uptake....ummm I bet that'll be good for sex just what I need stronger seratonin uptake with reportedly no side effects according to Forrest Gump Labs......."
Not often that I have a true LOL this early in the morning and reading this board. :o)
Posted by paulk on June 1, 2001, at 18:11:43
In reply to Re: to paulk touchee, posted by gilbert on May 30, 2001, at 22:04:20
>You make some very valid points and I am sure they are true as well but did you notice within the last 10 years how many drugstores are being built.
Yes – More Americans are taking more drugs. Many new drugs that are much improved (I take prylosec a MUCH improved antacit pill that is almost due to come out as a generic. I can fly down to Mexico and buy the same drug and my trip if I do it every three months).
> I am somewhat synical in that there seems to be such a humungous infusion of cash in the drug business.
Big business and big government are two sides of the same coin. It is the businesses themselves that ask for regulation to keep out competition. Yet we keep sending the same egomaniacs to Washington (both parties are dirty).
> Now I am not foolish enough to think that drug companies arent' doing research on new ssri's with dopamine antagonist properties or 5ht2 recepter blocking better than that loser serzone. But the bulk of drug company money being earned from overly patented overly priced drugs is not in research. Those 1000 of millions of dollars being spent on research....bahh humbug the majority of drug company money is spent on warm fuzzy marketing schemes and buying doctors dinner and vacations. I have friends who are drug reps....their lee way for expense accounts would make you cream your jeans,,,unless of course you were currently taking one of their drugs because then you couldn't cream your jeans.
I don’t know about their marketing –(I don’t watch TV – Rent a movie now and then.) All I know is 10 years and a billion dollars will keep competition and innovation from reaching our medicine cabinets.
>The annual budgets of drug companies are so heavy into the pushing side of the equation it isn't funny.
Of course it is on the pushing side – there is no competition that isn’t politically connected.>So yea there is research and yea there is new drugs coming but the effort is weak at best and the money grossly misused.
I would disagree that the effort is week – because of the FDA drugs that would have cost $.50/day cost $3-4/day. The researchers have to work extra hard because of the litigation and regulation. I have been told that many promising drugs don’t get fully evaluated because of litigation and regulation and the size of the patient population that may have use for the drug. Government is the problem – it is what created pharmaceuticals as big business and no one will fix it.> If the drug companies could get away with sending hookers into doctors offices they would.
Doesn’t that sounds like women manipulating men instead of the other way around?>Again I love your spirited response and am glad every body not only has their own opinion but is willing to respond with it....good luck
Maybe it’s me – I just don’t know of any guys that conspire to hurt women. Perhaps I hang out with a different crowd; mostly nerds and science types that the media would make fun of.
Here is one thing that I’m sure we can agree on: It has come to my attention that the FDA has agreed to let the drug companies omit information that you would expect to see in the PDR. (Big government in bed with big business) The drug companies agreed to present this information at medical conferences and talks if they could leave it out. With this development PDR becomes a legal document instead of a Reference (lets call it the PDL Periodical Drug Legalize). For instance, suppose a drug has a secondary dopamine effect, it may now be left out of the PDR if the FDA gives them the alternative to present it at a conference. The motivation escapes me at the moment (probably to help aoid litigation), but this slight-of-hand or omission of truth is not in our best interest. It can cause mistakes to be made by everyone from doctors to researchers.
Posted by paulk on June 1, 2001, at 23:46:59
In reply to Re: to paulk touchee, posted by grapebubblegum on May 30, 2001, at 23:14:22
>It's mostly the responsibility of women to speak up for themselves, and it's a complex historical and sociological problem that women don't understand their sexuality AND don't feel entitled to speak up about it even if they do understand it. Like I said, witness the hormonal birth control methods that not only give women a permanent case of PMS, but, as the joke goes, work by making the patient uninterested in sex. Sure, some will say they are just as interested but that's not true sex drive, that's societally conditioned receptivity which differs from having a true female sex drive. Unless you're a female, Paul, you'll just have to take my word for it that I know what I am talking about.
I don’t have to be a woman to know what you are talking about. First, when my wife used BC pills – I - hated it. I am quite concerned that she enjoys sex rather that endures it.
Second, My father was an Ob-Gyn and I often heard concerned conversation about the tradeoffs – He thinks it VERY unfortunate that women have lost the choice of the variety of IUDs that worked quite well for many women. (This is because of law suits - not that IUDs are a poor form of birth control).
Not all women have a terrible time on BCs – but way too many women endure the loss of sex drive without a thought to how it is affecting their lives as well as their marriage.
>The reason is because traditionally women are recipients of sex and therefore their response/enjoyment is often poo-poohed as insignificant and unimportant.
I just don’t know – I’ve never personally known any men that expressed that they really didn’t care if their partner wasn’t enjoying it – I know I’ve heard many wonder what would help with arousing their partner for both their sakes – on the other hand (“put some ice on it”) B. Clinton sure would be a good counter example. It could be I’m not objective on this – I’m an atypical depressed guy – who is overly sensitive – I might filter out a lot of the jerks out there.
>How is male sexual dysfunction treated? With the wildly popular viagra,
Viagra – like so many technical discoveries, was not due to directed R&D to develop a sex aid for men, but an accidental discovery while trying to find a heart medicine.
>How is female dysfunction treated? With K-Y.
If that is all your doctor is talking about you need to find a better one. Estrogen can help with dryness, Yohimbine can help with arousal (my wife’s included), I think Ginko may also for some. Lower anxiety from some AD can actually help with sex in some men and women. (I never knew I could enjoy sex as I found I could on Effexor – yet at the same time it robbed me of orgasm The ultimate double edged sword.) There are sex enhancing drug trials in progress for women. You can get some kind of testosterone drops (taken 4 hours before sex) that seem to work wonders for some women.
BTW I’m not Paul – I’m Paulk
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.