Here's something I wrote last year on female sexual drive and the medical industry.

[Gravitycollapse]

What I'm at times arguing is kind of fringe. So it is understandable if many of you disagree with certain parts. But I hope that there is at least a general consensus over how the medical industry is male-centric and also how conceptions of female sexuality are often paradoxical and often portrayed in relation to mental illness.

For medicalization to work, the particular behavioral area must be divisible into good (i.e., “healthy”) and bad (i.e., “sick”) aspects and must be relatable (albeit often distantly) to norms of biological functioning (Tiefer 198).

Divisibility is crucial to the implementation of effective (read: profitable) modern medical treatment. Granted, a necessary vagueness must exist in order for the diagnoses to be broad reaching (read: most profitable) . However, medical industry magicians must be careful not to provide such a vague description (read: invention) of illness that it becomes exceedingly difficult for patients to identify their own supposed dysfunction with the associated corporate backed treatments. At the very least, every possible digression away from the standard diagnoses must lead to another potentially mineable sickness (Tiefer 250). In the modern for-profit medical system, healthy individuals are walking symbols of missed income opportunities.

It would be suspicious if They (the medical industry) petitioned for the total removal of the “healthy” identity from popular vernacular. The healthy identity as an unattainable ideal must be maintained and even allowed to grow in order to keep patients perpetually in stasis between sickness and health.

With all its potential complexity, human sexuality is yet another frontier for the entrepreneurial capitalist. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders can be seen as the playbook for medicalization proponents. Let’s look at these three “distinct” disorders:

Sexual Aversion Disorder (302.79):
Persistent or recurrent extreme aversion to, and avoidance of, all (or almost all) genital sexual contact with a sexual partner.

Female Sexual Arousal Disorder (302.72):
Persistent or recurrent inability to attain, or to maintain until completion of the sexual activity, an adequate lubrication-swelling response of sexual excitement.

Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (302.71):
Persistently or recurrently deficient (or absent) sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity. The judgment of deficiency or absence is made by the clinician.

How do these disorders play into medicalization of sexuality? They provide a springboard for the jump from common, healthy variability to distinct and treatable illness. It’s important to identify the push for medicalization of sexuality as “man-centered” in that the medical terminology and, in actuality, the entire ideology behind the creation of these disorders revolves around the expectation of coitus as normative sexuality (Tiefer 193-194). Moreover, the terminology and intent behind these disorders is “not purely scientific” but instead the result of “social constructs that reflect social and political dynamics and concerns” (McGann).

In this sense, all of these supposed disorders, when placed in the context of female sexuality, revolve around the need to increase female sexual drive relative to the coveted male sexual drive. In forcing this comparison, the inventors of such disorders ignore two very real possibilities: the reduction or complete absence in sexual drive may be completely healthy; a truly unhealthy reduction or complete absence in sexual drive may be the result of forces external to the woman and her biology or mental health. To put that frankly, speaking purely of heterosexual relationships, it might be the male’s fault. Going back to the profitability of dysfunction, it would seem obvious that identifying a potentially strained relationship as the source for these “medical” problems must be avoided at almost any cost. Pushing the proper medical response towards therapy and counseling is useless for the pharmaceutical companies looking to make quick, large profits off the sale of drugs.

In an only slightly less obvious manner, these disorders and their respective descriptions also reinforce compulsory heterosexuality. Tiefer refers to this phenomena as descriptions revolving around “proper vaginal lubrication, orgasm, absence of vaginal constriction, desire, and absence of genital aversions” (194). Little or no thought is given to the possibility that a woman may seek another female as a sexual partner; a scenario making many of these man-centered characteristics partially or totally irrelevant to what would be considered a healthy person. Neither is much thought given to the emotional aspect of a relationship. Instead, sex research is “ about normal vs. abnormal function, and fundamentally about defining that in terms of physical performance” (Tiefer 250)

What can be taken away from this criticism is that the DSM and specifically these three disorders reflect a scientific and social message that is “culturally imperialist” (Lecture 4/15). It embraces sexist and heterosexist bends towards the medicalization of either minor problems or supposed dysfunctions that are entirely healthy ways to live one’s life. But the language involved is a symptom of the greater social and political dynamics at play that remove the agency of women to exist free from abject identities. The clinician, whoever that may be, is tasked with deciding whether or not the woman qualifies as healthy or dysfunctional. The same clinician who likely just spent an on-the-house lunch with the local pharmaceutical representative.

Now let’s take a look at these two terms; “blue balls” and “nymphomaniac.” At face value, the two terms already reinforce male sexuality as strong, constant and always needing of release as well as female sexuality as perverse; always perverse. What does the visual of blue balls symbolically represent? Could this be some odd attempt to equate the testicles with the “blue planet,” Earth? Spheres that are the epicenter of life and essence of strength and uniqueness. Or maybe it’s a more literal symbolism that the testicles, through lack of sex, are suffocating. The “nymphomaniac” is more obviously an attempt to invoke the grotesqueness of mental institutions. The woman, being part of an oppressed group, becomes a wild, disturbed and likely uncontrollable sex fiend (Lecture 4/15). This is in contrast to the conception of blue balls as pain and suffering associated with a man being unable to satisfy his sexual urges. Instead of being seen as a maniac, he is merely a victim.

In the totality of this discussion on disorders in the DSM and off the cuff terms like “blue balls” and “nymphomania” the sexual narratives for women and men became oddly apparent. Women exist within a double bind whereby they express a sexuality that meets the stereotypically elevated needs of men but also must present themselves as sexually pure, or, at the very least, “in control” of their urges (Kaye 116). In a way, this means that women can never win under any circumstances. The balance between these two binds is so fine and minute that it’s nearly impossible to achieve. This again is in contrast to the man who has but three essential responsibilities; maintaining an erection, “fucking” women and orgasming. Simple to diagnose and treat for the medical industry but potentially lacking in future areas of market expansion, men are the easy ones who get away with things like “hyper sexuality” precisely because they make the rules. Women on the other hand are portrayed as overly complex, a gold mine for a medical industry that thrives on the never-ending production and treatment of new disease. In turn, women not only see little or no benefit from medicalization, they are most often much worse off in the end as clinicians (read: men) are the only ones capable of sifting through the complex, “confusing” world of female sexuality. Beneficial for the profit margins of clinicians and their industry overlords. Not so beneficial for women and their autonomy.

I reference several texts, as well as a few lectures, in this essay response for one of my classes. But the most important source is Leonore Tiefer's Sex is Not a Natural Act.

[seattledo]

1. I love that analogy

The Earth is mostly water so it is a blue ball so we're all on a blue ball so those males need to get over it.

[ismnotwasm]

2. I have to go to bed dammit

But this is interesting stuff with a strong historical context, and an area of interest of mine.


Very well done

[nomorenomore08]

3. Relative strength or weakness of sex drive should only be bothered with if it's a problem in one's

relationship - otherwise it's individual, highly variable, and nobody else's business.

[Flatulo]

5. My wife and I haven't had intercourse in 24 years. After the birth of our son, she found

intercourse to be very uncomfortable. She also had a hysterectomy shortly thereafter due to a fibroid uterus. She can't produce any vaginal lubricant, and she doesn't find artificial lubricants to be particularly helpful or enjoyable.

This presented me with a decision, of course. I decided that I adore her and that that particular form of gratification just wasn't that important to me. There are other manifestations of physical love for us to enjoy.

The point of the post, which is relevant, is that most of the few people with whom we've shared this information are very quick to rush to suggest a medical 'fix'; "Surely there must be some pill or procedure that will make her want to enjoy intercourse!" Um, no, and even if there were, it's nobodies place to push this on her.

Meanwhile, we're approaching our thirtieth anniversary, happy as clams.

[redqueen]

4. I especially liked this part. The framing you highlight is so revealing.

The woman, being part of an oppressed group, becomes a wild, disturbed and likely uncontrollable sex fiend (Lecture 4/15). This is in contrast to the conception of blue balls as pain and suffering associated with a man being unable to satisfy his sexual urges. Instead of being seen as a maniac, he is merely a victim.