NSRC: National Sexuality Resource Center

i'm having a sexual problem

Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:23:53pm   ►by ann whidden   ►

I believe in sexual pleasure—yours and mine. From hawking sex toys to telling teens about the clitoris, I have spent my adult years proselytizing on the subject of pleasure. And no wonder; desire and pleasure--especially for women--are the stepping stones to sexual knowledge, rights and justice. For teen women, as Deb Tolman revealed in Dilemmas of Desire, knowing when you want to have sex is the pre-cursor to knowing when you don’t, and helps women assume self-protective behaviors. For adult women, desire and pleasure allow for a more equitable and satisfying relationship with self and others.

So let me say it again. I want you to get off, I encourage you to get off. In fact, go get off right now and get back to me.

Hi. Feels good, right? Which is why it might come as a surprise that I am so angry about a recent study looking at sexual dysfunction in women. Decreased libido=decreased pleasure=not so good, right? Sometimes, but that’s not where the real problem lies.

The study, published in the November 2008 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology, aimed to examine self-reported sexual ‘problems,’ such as decreased desire, arousal and orgasm, in US women (nothing that in my house wouldn’t get fixed by SOMEONE finally taking their turn with the dishes). The results, as trumpeted by the Washington Post, “Almost half of women have sexual problems.” 40%, to be precise.

Sounds like a problem to me. But wait—only 12% of women actually reported having a problem with their problem. If an orgasm doesn’t fall in the forest and there’s no one around to not hear it, did it really not fall? As any budding psych student can tell you, self-reported distress is one of the key components to actually having a problem. And these women didn’t think they did. At least not yet. Wanna hear the questions they were asked to be labeled as having a problem?

Response of “never” or “rarely” to questions:

 

  •     * “How often do you desire to engage in sexual activity?”
  •     * “How often do you become sexually aroused?”
  •     * “Are you easily aroused?”
  •     * “Do you have adequate vaginal lubrication during sexual activity?”
  •     * “How often do you experience an orgasm?”
  •     * “Are you able to have an orgasm when you want to?”

And response of “no enjoyment or pleasure” or “little enjoyment or pleasure” to the question,

  •     * “How much pleasure do you get from your orgasms?

 

Who has the problem? 40% answered rarely or never to any of those questions—not being easily aroused, not lubricating enough—but they didn’t see it as an issue. I wouldn't mind having an orgasm right now...but I wouldn't say it's a problem that I'm not having one. And easily aroused? Compared to what--or whom? Those measures--in the sexual information vacuum in which virtually all of us exist--mean nothing without desperately needed context.

Meanwhile, the 12% who did report some concern over their ‘dysfunction’ were much more likely to be in poor health, exhibiting true problems such as depression, anxiety, irritable bowel system and urinary incontinence. Making not being able to lubricate seem like a drop in the bucket. I can imagine that, with a touch of urinary incontinence, I might not get a lot of pleasure from my orgasm—and I don’t think that it is the orgasm part that needs fixing. So who’s having the problem, again?

Maybe it’s their partners. Perhaps their partner—particularly if they’re all hopped up on Viagra—wants to hit it all night. But that isn’t any one person’s problem, per se—in sex therapy talk it’s called a desire discrepancy, and seen as a couple’s issue. Kind of like cinematic discrepancy, where he wants to watch Dark Knight and she wants to see The Notebook. You don’t blame anyone, you just work it out. Christ, no one wants to see The Notebook All Night Long.

If it’s not her, and it’s not her partner, who could it be? Surely not study author Dr. Jan Shifren—she’s an associate professor at Harvard Medical School (I’ve heard of it), so she’s gotta be objective. That’s good enough for me. But wait, what’s that fine print on the front page of the study?

“Dr. Shifren has received research support from Proctor & Gamble (Cincinnati,OH) and consulting fees from Proctor & Gamble, Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim, Germany), and Eli Lilly & Co. (Indianapolis, IN)."

That would be P&G Pharmaceuticals. Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals. And yup, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals.

I don’t want to go out on a limb here, or some other appendage, but it makes me wonder just a little bit. Could it be possible that someone was looking for problems—even, creating them? After all, there are incredibly easy ways to deal with decreased lubrication. Babelube, a little more sex warm-up, even just some info about how vag lubrication fluctuates according to menstrual cycle and peri- and menopause transition. Could it be that big Pharma has a stake in turning normal sexual variation into a problem, just so they can create a little pill to fix it? Could it be that they are actually playing on the lack of sexual knowledge and resources that exist in order to create shame, embarrassment and perceived dysfunction just so they can get a little more bang for their buck?

The real problem I’m having is with how sexuality is increasing being framed as problematic, and the people who are having—or not having—sex are being labeled as inadequate. The real solutions, those that build communication, intimacy, trust and pleasure, are being submerged behind a wave of medical interventions (women can boost their flagging libido with this testosterone patch, but oops, watch out for the breast cancer!) that are, at best, expensive and inadequate bandaids for the complexities of sexual expression.

I’m not buying it, and neither should you.

 

Comments

Lube!

I'm so glad you are questioning the assumptions underlying sexual dysfunction research. I'm particularly happy that you brought up the lack of information about lubrication available. In my thesis interviews with heterosexual women, I couldn't believe how many women were uncomfortable with the idea of using lube and the negative feelings they had about it. Some participants were so anti-lubricant, they would endure painful sexual intercourse in order to avoid using it. Luckily a few participants did use lube and saw it as a technology that would allow them to have sex when they were interested in sex but were not adequately lubricated. I certainly hope that women don't resort to using medication (with potential side-effects) to increase lubrication in order to avoid using lubricant.

Elizabeth Shafer McClelland on Dec 05, 2008 02:32pm

yes, and it hurts worse when bandaids are ripped off slowly rather than quickly

all of this reminds me of women and obesity. millions of women resort to diet pills to fix their problem of "being fat". i should know i was one of them for decades. i tried everything short of surgery to band my stomach. i lost weight quickly then gained back more. once i got real about it all, and i took on actually being responsible for my health in a holistic way, learning food and exercise literacies and addressing food addiction through ongoing therapy... i realized the only way to obtain health is to eat nutritious food and exercise every day for the rest of my life. NO FAST, EASY SOLUTIONS....no miracle pills or surgeries (which in my opinion perpetuate a never ending cycle that conveniently yields huge revenue for the companies that push them while ripping off people like me--financially and physically-- throughout life).... no bandaids. they don't work because as you say--they don't address our human complexity and they don't address the need for us to take responsibility for ourselves as hard as that might just be. the sooner that women (people in general) become responsible about their own sexuality rather than trying to fix (what might not even BE a problem to begin with) it with drugs, the sooner they will find pleasure and health and happiness and freedom. sometimes, it is a lot of work. you have to be open to seeking out and using new knowledge and resources that might make you face yourself in ways that are uncomfortable at first. that inconvenient facing of self that we like to avoid--the very thing the drug companies like to exploit in us-- is exactly what needs to happen. the bandaids promote ignorance and bankrupt us from knowing who we really are and exactly what we are capable of achieving in this lifetime.....100 years from now historians will likely look back at today's bandaids in a similar way that we now look back at the crazy snake oil solutions of the 19th century. the day i ripped off my diet related bandaid in 2004 and sought out becoming literate around food and exercise...i actually started my own personal revolution--focused not on the problem of "being fat" but on the possibility of "being health literate". 4 years later, i've lost over 100 pounds and am about to become a certified personal trainer so i can motivate others to do the same....i'm not likely to ever see those old pounds or ghosts again ....now that i know me and i know better. there isn't a single drug on the market powerful enough to do all of that. there never will be.

Joy O'Donnell on Dec 09, 2008 12:24pm

Add a comment


CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.