Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Sex and Relationships

Why Is Big Pharma Trying to Tell You How to Have Sex?

By JoAnn Wypijewski, The Nation. Posted September 14, 2009.


Female sexual dysfunction was wholly created by drug companies hoping to make even bigger money off women than they have off men.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the beginning there was sex. And sex begat skill, and skill (or its absence) begat judgment, and judgment begat insecurity, and insecurity begat doctors' visits, which begat treatments, which have flourished into a multibillion-dollar industry, so that sex between men and women is today almost inconceivable without the shadow of disorder, dysfunction, the "little blue pill" or myriad other medical interventions designed to bring sex back to some longed-for beginning: a state of certified healthfulness, the illusion of normal.

Sex has been missing from the healthcare debate. A shame, because sexual health, and disputes over its meaning, reveals most nakedly the problem at the core of a medical system that requires profit, huge profit, hence sickness, or people who can come to believe they are sick or deformed or lacking and therefore in need of a pill, a procedure or device. Case in point: female sexual dysfunction (FSD), said to afflict great numbers of women--43 percent according to some, 70 percent according to others, an "epidemic" in the heterosexual bedroom according to Oprah. Ka-ching!

More on that in a moment, but first a bit about FSD's precursor, hysteria, and the rustic science of bringing women off.

In my room is a curious artifact of late-nineteenth-century medicine: a heavy wooden chair with a cast-iron lever extending up to each arm, within easy grasp of the sitter. Pull the levers, and powerful springs activate a mechanism below to rock or jolt the sitter (depending on the vigor of the thrust) in a manner intended to produce the healthful effects of horseback riding for ladies suffering from "pelvic congestion."

This particular jolting chair was discovered by an antiques-dealer friend, Gilbert Ruff, in Chester, Vermont, but its provenance as an invention reaches back to a fabled arena of psychosexual medicine, the Salpêtrière hospital in Paris, and to Jean-Martin Charcot, teacher of Freud and father of modern neurology. Charcot was an enthusiast for the idea that women with a grab bag of complaints, from irritability to sleeplessness to sexual fantasies and ungratified desire, were diseased. Hysteroneurasthenic disorder was the name for their sickness then. For some, he prescribed long train trips over rough track beds. If they took another doctor's advice and sat in the rail carriage "so as to be leaning forward," they might have got surprising relief. But such journeys were impractical, so Charcot and his colleagues devised a more homely vibration therapy.

Various iterations of the jolting chair entered commercial self-help markets. Mine was manufactured in New York, and contemporary advertisements promoted it to strengthen "the parts that are usually most neglected by the fair beings." Now, a woman might enjoy the humpy bounce of this chair, varying the intensity, parting her legs, leaning forward and breathing deep, even calibrating her motions to the rhythms of a French dance tune, or gavotte, written for the purpose, but the jolting chair never proved as efficient at achieving that "hysterical paroxysm" of relief that doctors had been inducing in their female patients since at least the first century AD simply with their fingers. Nor could it compete with pulsing water cures or that ultimate women's aid, the vibrator, also invented by a doctor and first used on hysterics at Salpêtrière.

 As Rachel Maines demonstrates in her delightfully illuminating history The Technology of Orgasm, making patients out of sexually unsatisfied women was good business. The afflicted would neither die nor be cured but required regular massage treatments, weekly, sometimes daily, for an hour or even three. By one 1863 estimate, such therapies accounted for three-quarters of physicians' business, but doctors seem to have got no pleasure out of diddling women. It was, Maines says, "the job nobody wanted." And bringing women off was work, abstracted from sex (i.e., the robust progression from male hard-on to vaginal penetration to male orgasm) and requiring time and skill. With the vibrator, doctors' productivity exploded, as sixty-minute visits shrank to ten, raising more revenue from more patients per day, until the device became so popular and multipurpose (Sears marketed a home vibrator with attachments for beating eggs, churning butter, operating a fan) that the medical profession had worked itself out of a job. Miraculously, the sick were healed as soon as the first vibrator popped up in porno in the 1920s.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex, women, drug companies

JoAnn Wypijewski, a former senior editor of The Nation, is based in New York City.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Sexuality Changes
Posted by: sinlesstouch on Sep 15, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true sexuality has been acting in a progressive way with a lot of modifications from the beginning, but I feel that it makes part of the normal humanity evolution, a vibrator would correspond to the evolution about the use of tools as well our ancestors made the progression by using tools. But of course as anyone would think conscientiously the tools may not replace the humanity hand, so sex toys will remain always being just a "help" to ignite the passion between a willing adult couple.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

m2ts converter
Posted by: yiranfanpeixi on Sep 15, 2009 6:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe
Posted by: Red State Gal on Sep 18, 2009 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I, too, do not believe that low sexual desire is any sort of pathology in women. It's clear this rhetorical move is meant to make somebody a heap of money.

On the other hand, low sexual desire can indeed become a relationship problem. A woman who doesn't want sex is irritated by a man who does. Her choices are to say no, or to submit to something she really isn't interested in for the sake of the relationship. I could see why a woman would want a third option--taking a pill to match the desire of her husband or lover so that the sex can be mutually interesting. It really kills a relationship for a woman to keep having to submit to something she isn't interested in.

Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Maybe Posted by: srdavid
trouble is contraception?
Posted by: luzmejor on Sep 19, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those pills that are again under attack by the so-called religious right, are very expensive. On again, off again use of them is definitely a prescription for an unwanted pregnancy.

I think there would be no problem with women's desire if they were sure they or their partner were sterile. Solve this problem for people and you will never want for wealth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the problem no-one talks about
Posted by: littlepitcher on Sep 21, 2009 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a world full of HIV, it would be foolish to attempt this behavior, but my personal suspicion is that women in estrus originally invited the entire male population of the tribe to satisfy her. With the discovery of the male role in reproduction, men decided to treat women as property and women acceded in order to get her brood through famines and crop failures.

Given that acknowledging this problem would create social havoc, the best alternative is self-satisfaction during coitus, or afterwards.

No, I don't do gang-bangs. Just exposing a little more social hypocrisy. Remember, ancient societies had dildos, so someone wanted penetration and wasn't getting enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pharma Pathologizes Life
Posted by: Gravitas on Sep 21, 2009 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not one bit surprised that this was created by Pharma. Pharma either invents or exaggerates disease to sell pills. Most of the obesity hysteria is coming from pharma, and they lowered "ideal" weights against good science to sell more diet pills. Acceptable blood sugar was also lowered, which is one reason there is more diabetics. 120/80 used to be perfectly acceptable blood pressure, as was a low bottom number and your age on top. But those numbers were lowered to push more pills down our throats. Or course the pills themselves create side effects which can sell even more pills.

I have to laugh when people harp on how much a specific condition costs. Obesity is costing us billions the politicians say with moral outrage. As does Michael Pollen. As long as medicine is a FOR PROFIT industry, those costs (however exaggerated) are black on some investors sheet. If they went down, another disease would be invented to get the profits back up. There is no saving money on disease prevention for the many when the point of the system is to generate as much money as possible for the few. Lets open our eyes!

Want to hear something really sad? A Canadian news station reported on a inexpensive low side effect drug that has the potential to really help fight cancer. But because the drug can't be patented, and therefore generate megabucks, no want wants to fund further research. In this system, physical, emotional and psychological health all take a back seat to profit!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pharma Pathologizes Life Posted by: Dartagnan
Of Libido and Conformity
Posted by: 0d1um on Sep 21, 2009 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Typical. More fake horseshit to justify the marketing of...more fake horseshit. Does anyone really buy the idea that all these 'cures' are about serving women's sexual desires at all? Thought not. Once again we have put undue focus on the libido of one sex when the real motivation is satisfying the overvalued libido of another, men.

Hey, corporate dipshits? Y'ever think that women don't really want to screw, not because of chemical imbalances and medical problems, but because of a sick society that instils values of self-loathing and solipsism? Of overwork in the public and private spheres? That she can only choose from any number of identikit inconsiderate horndog jerks? Well shit, of course you have...you just conveniently 'forgot' to show the evidence...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE WILD AND CRAZY SIXTIES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 21, 2009 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone's body parts seemed to work just fine. In cars, in the woods, on park benches, hallways, the list is endless. Suddenly all sorts of things have gone wrong. It was very inexpensive to be a young woman back then. No make up, no hair spray, no underwear. Didn't hear much complaining from the menfolk either. What happened. All these new afflictions that we never heard of before take all the fun out of being a woman. I'm not suggesting that we all become sluts. But I resent the intrusion. The Women's magazines are the worst offenders. They're enough to make a woman think twice before going out the door. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's strange to read this
Posted by: politicky on Sep 21, 2009 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because I just finished reading a post an a video on FGM (female genital mutilation) being imported into Europe from backwards countries.

Scandinavia steps up the fight against genital mutilation

Big Pharma is a greedy animal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexual Health
Posted by: maxsmart on Sep 21, 2009 4:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Pharma can cash in on sex I see no reason why sex work and prostitution shouldn't be covered by our health insurance...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe orgasm isn't an unconditional benefit
Posted by: A Friend on Sep 21, 2009 6:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it just feels good, like shooting heroin. A Dutch scientist in fact said brain scans of people climaxing looked like brain scans of people shooting heroin. Is it possible that orgasm also sets off *subsequent* subconscious feelings that aren't so great before the brain returns to balance. Have a look at: "Sexual Energy and the Single Woman"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drugs to treat LIFE more drugs to treat the side effects of the first
Posted by: sandy55 on Sep 22, 2009 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several sites on the net about ssri/snri induced sexual disfunction. This is just one of the many drug induced problems or "illnesses" induced by these drugs.

I have to wonder where doctors fit into all of this do they now just deliver wares for the drug companies? Perhaps it is time for an adjustment in how we think of doctors. As these treatments and pills are coming from them.

There is an interesting post on paxilprogress that speaks of how the side effects of one drug are treated with many other drugs. I went to the trouble to find it a post it here:

"When drugs are sold to merely treat "life"..yup, you can sell these "life" drugs forever.
Look at the whole potential scenerio:

Mild depression- Paxil

Paxil side effects:
Impotence-Viagra
Twitching/restless leg-Requip
High blood pressure- any of the drug available
High cholesterol- Lipitor/Mevacor etc...
Parkinsons symptoms- Symmetrel
Fibromyalgia- Cymbalta(the irony here is amazing)
Insomnia- Ambien
Agitation- Ativan/Klonopin
Acid reflux- Nexium
Psychosis- Seroquel/Risperdal/Zyprexa
Mood Swings-Lamictal/Lyrica

All of these drugs for what was original "mild depression".

Boggles the mind, doesn't it!

http://www.paxilprogress.org this post can be found under a site search for fibromyalgia

Hope this opens some eyes and provokes some thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1 in 3 children under 16 can "EXPECT" an unwanted sexual encounter
Posted by: what-it-is on Sep 22, 2009 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that means...if it's not YOU...and it's not the neighbor on the left....THEN, it HAS to be the neighbor on the right ! ! So...lets feed this guy more friggin viagra....

how blatant does it have to get? Billions in profit to MAKE you sick, and billions more to TREAT an "induced" illness. A corrupt FDA is not about to step in....H E L L O ! ! ! ! The war on illegal drugs would stop abruptly if the powers that be were making the same kind of money as they do on big pharma. Apparently, drugs have become better than GOD to control the masses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

'hallowed be thy name... "
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Sep 22, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just say'n.

enjoy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No way
Posted by: WoodoMomo on Sep 22, 2009 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dude you have got to be kidding right? Tell me it aint so!

Jess
http://www.online-privacy.us.tc

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I took paxil
Posted by: dadanbetty on Sep 23, 2009 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
about 10 years ago. My libido died and I gained about 30 lbs. I had no worries however. I have since enlightened myself and discovered the incredible benefits of cannabis. No wonder cannabis is demonized and must be stopped at all cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement