[ big tw for rape culture and more flibanserin junk ]
While looking through the notes of an anti-flibanserin post, I found two senseless responses that literally sound like they come from paid shills and make me want to throw a scarlet sash at them, so for the sake of my own sanity that’s more or less what I’m going to do.
No, the pill is not “better than nothing,” it’s worse than nothing, people have been over the “doesn’t work/not safe” thing a million times by now. No, no one “needs” something like this. And even in the ~hypothetical~ where this pill did work/wasn’t dangerous, it’s still worse than nothing. Rotten-zucchinis has a good explanation of that here (see the second/longer bullet point list). Also check this out for a list of incorrect assumptions that keep popping up.
As for the more grotesque one:
What gives aces the right to deny non-asexual women the remedy to the low libido that causes them distress?
First of all, yikes, and second of all, here’s what happening here. Aces objecting to the drug and its marketing have explained, again and again, how the approval of flibanserin will enable medical and sexual abuse. That question up there? It’s not disputing that.
So what we’ve got is a group of people saying “we don’t want anyone to face these unnecessary threats to their health and we don’t want anyone to be raped” met with a response of “what gives you the right?”
Because somehow, being distressed by low sexual desire — an experience many aces have been through, by the way — takes priority over these basic safety concerns. And that distress is not to be alleviated the way aces have alleviated it for each other, finding consolation in community, but by making women want sex more, i.e. they’re arguing that making women want sex more > keeping women safe.
In reaction to the concerns raised in the original post, the exact wording of this reply pits the prevention of abuse and “remedying low libido that causes distress” against each other as opposing goals — or, in context, actively values enabling consensual sex over the prevention of rape, meaning that, between the two, this person would sooner pick the former over the latter. And not only that, but they question the “right” of anyone to choose differently. They’re treating aces’ concerns about abuse as a breach of conduct and an infringement on others’ freedoms. They’re saying that sedating someone into sexual submission is not as evil as saying “people shouldn’t be sedated into sexual submission.”
And I don’t know how to make it any plainer than that.