Female arousal - finally a priority?

Viagra, an erectile dysfunction and pulmonary arterial hypertension medication created in 1998 for men might soon have a female counterpart! The findings published recently in the British Journal of Pharmacology (pharmacology is the science of drugs, including their composition, uses and effects), explained that researchers have discovered more about the underlying mechanisms of female arousal. It's only 2010 and they're discovering that women's sexual needs aren't just to treat "hysteria." (Read about "female hysteria" at Wikipedia.)

Pfizer's labs in Sandwich, Kent (hungry yet?) shows that there is an specific pelvic nerve which when stimulated (with electricity - which doesn't quite sound kosher) will increase the flow of blood to the genitalia, and when given a prototype of this female arousal drug, it is enhanced even more. Science explains that when a woman becomes aroused, the vagina, labia and clitoris get a rush of blood; this causes the organs to swell, increases the lubrication to the vagina and causes a vagina to relax. This new drug may help the 40% of women living with female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD)!

Lead researcher, Chris Wayman says "before this work, we knew surprisingly little about the processes that control all of these changes [in a woman's genitalia, during arousal]. Now we are beginning to establish the pathways involved in sexual arousal scientists may be able to find ways of helping women who would like to overcome FSAD." The results are promising especially because the prototype medication doesn't "affect arousal in the absence of stimulation or the rest of the body's cardiovascular system. This suggests that this sort of drug would have a good chance of being safe to use in women, and would only work when combined with sexual stimulation." (emphasis mine) A woman could take this medication daily knowing that it would not affect her body until she was sexually stimulated - unlike the medical effects of Viagra and other pills like it.

My main question, for women's health Health Activists is: Why did it take an additional ten years to even begin this type of development for women? Are there other realms of health where advances for women are on the back burner? Why do you think that is? What can we do to make women's medical research more prominent?

Tags: female arousal, sex, sexual arousal, women's health

0 members like this

Comment by Ellen S on May 19, 2010 at 10:27am: This is really interesting information, and I'm wondering if this might be especially helpful for women going thru or past menopause? That's something all women across the board will someday face.

But oh wow, Sarah. You ask some truly volatile questions!

First I'd like to mention that, a famous DO university near me just graduated a class nearing 200. Of those 200, the vast majority of graduates were women. This is not necessarily the norm in past history, but indicates to me, a potential future where women may exert more influence in health care than ever before in past history. To me, a patient that suffers from "women's diseases", that's exciting!

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I'd also like to point out a worry I have: I really hope that with the influx of more female physicians doesn't come such focus on women's issues that men's issues are forgotten. Already there are many women's diseases (breast cancer as an example) that have had the stigma lifted and huge amounts of funds and time and advertising are directed toward it. This is all good, and necessary! But when was the last time you saw a commercial for Prostate cancer? Where is the nearest Prostate cancer fundraiser? What is the ribbon color for Prostate cancer? (I pick on PC because it's the only mens' disease I can think of right now!) There are precious few already, yet it kills more men than nearly all other diseases, and we know so little about it. Advances are few and far between and research funding is insufficient. Prostate cancer is the elephant in the room everybody worries about but nobody discusses.

As to realms of illness where women are on the back burner, this is a bit of a pet peeve for me. My main health issues all used to be considered (back in the day) "hysterical" problems.... diseases that affect mainly women: Migraine, autoimmunity, thyroid conditions, etc. To be blunt, patients like me suffer horribly because there simply aren't enough doctors out there who can get past the fact that these illnesses affect mainly women. There is terrible stigma where that is concerned, and it results in devastating consequences for the patients. Sometimes even death. One of my understanding docs reminds me frequently that if all male gynecologists had to undergo the type of examination women endure each year, they'd be much more thoughtful toward us. He tells me that if a man had to endure the pain of a mammogram with his particular body parts, there would be an invention out in a month for a better machine.

On the other hand, why is it okay for women to assume a male is being "manly" and pass it off as such when he ignores a health problem, doesn't go to the doctor, or chooses not to take his vitamins? Are we doing the same thing to our men that we resent them doing to us? Are we driving the focus of certain illnesses we suffer as women, too hard? Is it hurting our guys too?

Comment by Amy K on May 19, 2010 at 1:28pm: It is not surprising in many regards that the research in this area began with the men, and the womens issue was looked at much later, but why is that so and why am I not surprised?

We still live in a predominantly male driven world. That said, I agree with Ellen's comments. We need to make sure we are not pushing the men's issues back to the back burner as our response. But, hallelujah for the research and strides in women's health! To dismiss women's health concerns as "hysterical" is the worst kind of disservice.

Comment by JudeWest on May 19, 2010 at 6:48pm: Yes, I agree with Amy and truly I am not surprised by this after all women still make 70 cents to a mens dollar.
I really doubt that mens health issues are likely to get pushed in the background and if they do well perhaps it is time to change positions.

Comment by Marie on May 20, 2010 at 11:26am: Sarah - thanks for sharing such a thought provoking article. It did get me thinking about how we have a prescription form of birth control for women, but none for men.

I think this is an issue of awareness, and I hope that as more women are willing to discuss their experiences (and as Health Activists, we know that many women experience difficulties with sexual arousal as a result of health issues, or as a side effect of medications they're taking to treat a health condition) there will be more awareness, more recognition that this is something impacting the quality of life for many individuals. I'd like to think that more awareness leads to more research. And hopefully, will make topics like sexual arousal less taboo than they are today.

On a side note, while I don't think this is the main reason for the "gender gap" in research into sexual arousal, it's probably worth mention that Viagra was more or less "discovered" on accident. It was initially developed as a treatment for angina, and it wasn't until the clinical trials that they discovered it was much more effective as a treatment for ED.

There's still a lot we don't know about the human body, and how medications can treat it...I do think that also plays a role in how long it's taken for promising research to be made in the field of female sexual arousal. That's certainly not the whole of it, but I do think it's a piece of the puzzle.

Female arousal - finally a priority?

You need to be a member of WEGO Health to add comments!