Hummm... the bold type seems... well, not bold at all in the above post, making "emphasis mine" obsolete. Let me try again:

Anti-depressants are notorious for decreasing libido and orgasmic potential. These reasons are, in fact, a major cause of medication non-compliance. (emphasis mine)

While I have a feeling that this Pfizer-funded "study" (which was with an extremely small group of subjects and did not take into account the effect of the drugs' side-effects on the data) is more of a way to market Viagra to the other half of the population than anything else, I agree that it's nice to see any kind of media attention on women's sexual needs.

It seems, though, that "women's sexual needs" should themselves be assessed (!) before we start trying to cure them; Viagra, a non-psychological drug affecting bloodflow, only addresses traditionally male sexual needs: achieving erection and orgasm. It should not be assumed that these are the primary sexual needs of women (obviously, in the case of erection - but even, I think, when it comes to achieving orgasm, particularly for women on antidepressants, who may have lower interest in sex in the first place.)

On the other hand, there are doctors who say shit like this:

"[Viagra] is probably going to help [women] orgasm, it will probably increase vaginal lubrication and blood flow, but how much that matters to the average woman is unclear. [...] It's not going to make you suddenly desire your overweight husband who is sitting on the couch, drinking beer and watching football."

So, yeah, thanks for attributing my lack of libido to my fat alcoholic husband, rather than a treatable chemical imbalance. This guy is a sexual dysfunction specialist. Kill me.

Here's my problem with the study: Pfizer paid for it. Beyond that, the study only contained 98 females, and of those 98 females, 72% of them responded favorably.

It's two main authors (H. George Nurnberg, M.D. and Paula L. Hensley, M.D.) admitted to being paid by Pfizer.

Also, the patent for Viagra is coming to a close soon, and almost always, when the patent ends, sales die off.

Besides that, Pfizer makes Zoloft, which is NOTORIOUS for creating sexual dysfunctions in it's users. So they're just pushing one of their pills to correct another one's side effects.

As Alternet stated: "About half of all people taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) like Zoloft experience sexual dysfunction such as loss of libido or anorgasmia, and as many as 90 percent go off their meds because of it, say researchers. That's a lot of lost patients."

Also, if they're so excited to make women's lives better: make birth-control more available. Don't give us magical orgasm pills.

I wonder if it will be covered by insurance companies when prescribed for women? How ironic would that be?

And is it just me, or does it seem like the Pill benefits men as much as women? I know the standard explanation for why insurance companies don't cover it while they do cover Viagra is that insurance executives and politicians are predominantly middle-aged men, etc. But in my experience, any guy, if given the choice will choose not to wear a condom. So then, doesn't the Pill benefit men as much as women? Hmmm...

I'm one of those statistical persons who went off of antidepressants in part because of anorgasmia. (Thanks, by the way, because I had no idea that that was a word.) I was able to find other ways to deal with my problems, and I seriously doubt that I ever needed to be on those meds in the first place.

The last thing I was going to do was take another pill to fix the stuff that the first pill was causing.

Plus, not being able to O was making me more depressed, so I don't know how I feel about the implication that orgasms aren't important to women.

Also, women do get engorged, which is very similar to an erection.