>>

“Lifelong lack of sexual interest, though a recognized entity, is unlikely to produce distress” (quote from Pipeline | S1 Biopharma, found via redbeard’s post)

Citation needed.

Advertisements

6 responses to “>>

  • paminam

    Here: http://s1biopharma.com/rd/sexual-dysfunction

    Para #3.

    – All I did was input the quote to Google :-)

    • Coyote

      You misunderstand me.

      I know who made the statement (as indicated in the post, which already has a link).

      What’s not so obvious is where they’re getting that idea or what data (if any) they’re basing the claim on.

  • luvtheheaven

    One of the problems may be that asexual activists who worked to change the DSM and the way asexuality was treated in the psychological and medical communities were fighting by saying things along the lines of “Lifelong lack of sexual interest” isn’t always a cause for distress and maybe instead of curing it people should just be looking for ways to make it not distressing, and the way it was currently being treated (both in the medical sense and the “attitudes towards it” sense) was a big part of what WAS causing distress??

    Maybe whoever ended up writing this got convinced, without any scientific data to back up this claim, that “Lifelong lack of sexual interest” doesn’t cause distress because of this rhetoric?

    I am surprised that Lifelong lack of sexual interest is even being acknowledged as “an entity” at all, honestly. That is pretty rare to see mentioned anywhere. Like I said here:

    when I read stories about the women for whom Flibanserin (Addyi) is supposedly designed, when I hear those NPR interviews with women who have lost their sex drives, I just keep waiting for people to bring up the women who have NEVER, ever, in their lives, not even as a teenager, had a sex drive. The 25-year-old like me who hasn’t lost their libido, but rather never had it. I keep wondering if anyone in the entire world — or specifically in the medical community — even knows people like me exist.

  • Libris

    definitely concurring with luvtheheaven, but I feel like another part of the problem may be that everything in the DSM has the tagline ‘and these symptoms produce significant distress or impairment of functioning’, so people are going by the logic that ‘distress makes it a problem, so if it’s not a problem, it can’t cause distress’.

    This is ridiculous both ways round! Firstly, you can obviously feel like shit about things which aren’t a problem with you, such as being ace, because society is terrible. Secondly, making it so you have to seem like you have no insight or coping mechanisms in order to get a diagnosis contributes to underdiagnosis and disbelief of actual issues.

  • Sennkestra

    Some of this may come from the definition of distress used in DSM stuff – distress is (theoretically) supposed to refer only to distress caused directly by a condition, and not by society’s reaction. (of course, separating the two is pretty hard).

    Also, re:luvtheheaven, a lot of these pharma-based discussions of HSDD deliberately downplay the lifelong and situational subsets of HSDD because their drugs most likely won’t work for those people, and they want to be able to pump up HSDD prevalence numbers while avoiding the realization that their drugs probably won’t even work for many of the people categorized as having HSDD.

WP account not required to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: