[–] puddlewonderful 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I read somewhere that 90% of the trial participants experienced no changes in sex drive. Sounds likes the developers are just trying to ride a media wave and make $$$
[–] dtuck 3 points 5 points 8 points (+8|-3) ago
It doesnt fix the problem, it removes a symptom of said problem. In the same way some get medicated for depression without doing therapy that could resolve the issue.
It will come to a point where the underlying problem would get worse and cause more symptoms.
[–] LOLThatsJustRetarded 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Maybe, or maybe there will never come any such point, and it's irrelevant anyhow as a doctor is not just going to prescribe a pill with no follow up. So either they will get the symptom treated and then the problem itself, or there is no treatment for the problem at all and treating the symptom is the only option available.
Either way, just another feminist looking for a nonsense reason to whine about how horribly women have it, when they don't have it bad at all.
[–] DashingLeech 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I'm not sure why people use band-aids as examples of things that don't solve problems. Band-aids are actually functionally quite useful. Ironically, they work by dealing with immediate problems (open wounds) so that process of healing can more easily take place.
Even in the context of somehow "masking" a problem, that still doesn't justify the criticisms here for several reasons:
There can be more than one cause of a problem. If some are relationship-based it doesn't mean that all are. Some can be physical and hormonal issues, for example.
Pharmaceutical solutions to not preclude one from addressing relationships separately, which can then lead to weaning off of the pharmaceuticals.
Permanent use of pharmaceuticals can be a workable or even preferable solution.
As an example, my wife has acid reflux and takes Esomeprazole daily, for decades now. It also doesn't solve the root problem but that's irrelevant; it allows her to function without pain and suffering. The alternative is the possibility of some surgery that doctors are not sure would fix it, that comes with long recovery, comes with risks (including making things worse), and is very expensive itself. Even doctors say that it's a reasonable medical choice to take the pharmaceuticals daily for the rest of her life. Some say it is medically preferred and advised at this point.
[–] LOLThatsJustRetarded 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
You don't really know this. There could be no underlying problem beyond hormonal shifts or a reactive sex drive, in which case it isn't a 'band aid' at all. There could be no real problem to address, and if there is a real problem to address, one would assume that the doctor involved would be the one to address it, not feminist critics from the CBC.
[–] Uptonogood 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Maybe the problem is that they're just not attracted to their partner in the first place.
Perhaps instead she should have chosen someone who she actually wants to spend time with. Or just stayed alone.
[–] psychoch0mp 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
My uncle was on viagra because he couldn't maintain an erection. Like magic after he divorced and got with someone else problem went away. So yes I see what ReedOwl means as viagra doesn't increase sexual desire but it did allow him to have sex with his wife. Sexual desire is an issue that effects men and women. Did these critics comment that male Viagra distracts from the causes of low male libido?
[–] shinybedpan 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I think this headline could be applied to most big name pharma products on the market.
[insert drug name] detracts from the real causes of [insert condition, real or made up].
You shouldn't have to take a drug that gives you anal seepage so that your legs stop bouncing. (The last part is not based on fact only a overblown version of the crap I hear on pharma commercials) I feel like I might be going off topic.