I need this pill.

When I first read the post, I thought it might be one of those research flukes where the drug they were studying had some interesting and unexpected side effects. I was a little disappointed to read that the scientists really are studying the effects of hormones on female libido (I do find it interesting that no research has been done on male animals), but I cling to the hope that the reduced appetite was an unexpected side effect. From a medical perspective, the seriously depressed appetite would be a pretty high hurdle to overcome to get a libido enhancing drug to the market. I'm very concerned about reducing a woman's appetite to about a third of normal. With a lack of nutrients and calories, you're not going to have the energy to enjoy that new libido. On the other hand, if the drug gets marketed for weight loss, the increased libido would probably not be considered a serious side effect.

The article did touch on the fact that most women experiencing a low libido do so because they are not happy in their relationship. But if that is true, then why develope a libido increasing drug? And it also brings up the whole argument of why women are somehow broken, either psychologically or biologically, if they do not want to have sex.

This is so depressing.

I agree, VT. My favorite part of this article are the last two lines: "When couples come to me and they are not having sex, the last thing they want to do is examine their relationship. They want to believe that it's nothing to do with their relationship."

So with this information, they decide that the best solution is to give the people what they want: a medication to solve their problem withour examining their relationship. As though what we really need is to medicate ourselves instead of communicating with our partner(s).

I'm very concerned about reducing a woman's appetite to about a third of normal.

It actually reduces it by a third, not to a third. This is still rather drastic, but perhaps not quite so terrifying.

Oh how I love the magic pill culture.

I see the incentive for this being a group of scientists walking in to a particularly unsatisfying night club. The following conversation went something like this:

"Well boys, there sure are a lot of fatties here tonight."

"Yeah, and none of the pretty ones are dancing. They're just sitting at the bar."

"I'm bored."

"We've got to do something about this."

There needs to be a group of women scientists to develop and pill that will make men find so-called unattractive women sexy and dance with them even though they aren't a size -8.

Certainly, though, there are relationships that are fine that could use this pill. Women's libido is affected by many things, including relationship problems, but also things like medication (especially birth control) and hormones.

I think I've seen commercials for this. The pill I saw being advertised on tv was described as the only libido-pill that causes weight loss. Or maybe it was vice versa.
Either way, it was creepy.

On a side note, as someone who lives in a relationship where there is a sexual barrier as well as trust issues, the last thing I need is something to increase my libido. I'm willing and wanting, and I'm sure he is to, but we just don't come together that way. And there's no pill that can make it happen. If anything, this pill would just cause more fighting.

Isn't it true that many women have low libido because they use the birth control pill? I hope so, because otherwise it means I'm just ugly.

oh goodie- cause society doesn't tell us enough that we need to be thin and give hot sex on demand...

This scares me. I mean it really makes a knot down deep in my gut. My first thought when I read this was, I hope I get old and die before a drug like this goes on the market.

Do you see what's happening? They are turning us into Stepford Wives. In real life. First it's the makeup and the clothes. Then it's Valium or Prozac* or whatever the drug-of-the-month is to make us complacent. Then breast implants. Then labiaplasty. Now a pill to make us skinny and ready for sex at all times, regardless of context.

They are slowly, but deliberately and literally turning us into their porn-fantasy sexbots.

This is deadly serious. Welcome to the virtual end of your existence as a sentient being.

As Twisty says, "Men hate you." It's never been more clear.

*I do recognize that some people suffer terribly from mental illnesses, and that pharmaceuticals literally and figuratively save their lives. I have no quarrel with that.

Isn't it true that many women have low libido because they use the birth control pill?
I don't know about that, i never had any problems when I was on the pill. I'm on antidepressants, though, & those have fucked with my libido & ability to orgasm, which is very depressing.

What really depresses me about this is the tie between being skinny and having a sex drive -- because obviously, if you're fat, you don't deserve a sex drive or a sexual partner. So the pill convinces you to shove less food in your gullet so that way you're more deserving of having sex, all the while gifting you with a new-found libido...

*sigh* Here's to another way of telling women when and how they should have a sex drive.

As far as I know, scientists don't have a very good idea of what causes high or low libido in women. (They've done a lot of research on men, though. Go figure.) So, I'm actually pretty happy some funding is going to it. Not that I aspire to nympho-waif status. I just like wanting to have sex, I like having sex, and you don't need to have relationship troubles to miss the high libido that you get with a new relationship.

I think some of the reactions to this are a little, um, reactionary. From what I understand, the scientists who created this were just looking for a libido-enhancing drug for women and the appetite supression was a side-effect. I don't think this means that men are trying to make us into sex-crazed anorexics or anything. And the fact that most libido issues are a result of bad relationships does not diminish the fact that some women also have biological reasons for a low libido that they would like to fix. I wouldn't want to deny any woman a satisfying sex life just because other people might use the drug irresponsibly or for the wrong reasons.

The way I see it, an increase in tongue-flicking and eyebrow-raising can only be a good thing.

I worry that if women in couples take this drug without bothering to fix any problems that may exist in their relationship, they'll just bury their problems in the present only to have them intensify in the future.

As far as the birth control thing goes (JenLovesPonies brought this up), this is one of the reasons I'm personally not a huge fan of hormonal birth control for women. I don't want anything messing with my hormones! My moods and level of sexual desire shift throughout the month, and I like that. It also seems really ironic to me that the second a woman can have carefree sex because she's on birth control, she loses her physiological desire to. (I realize this doesn't apply to all women, but I do have many friends who went on the Pill to start having sex, and then they lost all desire to...but still do...which seems ridiculously convoluted & messed up...)

Personally though, I'm not all that worried about this pill. Everyone in this forum seemed to jump to the conclusion that men will inevitably use it to control women, but I think it would be fun for us WOMEN to experiment with. A drug that would make me start winking cheekily at boys AND eat less? Sounds like the perfect solution to a booze-filled Saturday night at a club - I'd be less timid AND less likely to get the munchies! :)

A sincere, but incredibly stupid, question:

Would this help women with sexual dysfunction?

As I understand SD, many women are caught in a vicious cycle. A biological issue makes sexual interaction less satisfying, which decreases her desire for it, which, in turn, makes her less likely to have sex, even if the underlying issue is resolved. From what little I've read, it seems as if treatment of SD involves re-training a woman's body and psyche to both enjoy and crave sexual interaction.

It seems a bit hypocritical to be pro-choice (as most of us here are) and then object to this medication.

Do you really want to be saying 'scientists shouldn't be doing this research, because it starts with the assumption that there is something wrong with women with low libidos, and I'm uncomfortable with you saying that.' Do you really want to take a choice away from other women, because you are uncomfortable with their choices? Isn't that what the forced birthers want to do?

I have an extremely low libido, and always have. My libido goes even lower when I am overweight. So this kind of pill would be perfect for me. Do you really want to make that choice for me?

I would buy this. My libido has dropped HUGELY in the last year or so and I miss it.

It could be the change of pill, longer working hours, I'm not sure.

I also have weird eating habits, where I eat way more than I need then feel sick. I know it's psychological, but if I physically didn't want to it'd really help

Look, political reasons aside, other than the ickiness of thin = sex = happy, I am going to be honest here.

My first thought?

More sex.
Lose weight (as in combating my inclination towards obesity and attaining a healthier weight).

Ooh, where can I buy it?

Honest.

JPlum, I didn't hear anyone say anything about taking away anyone else's choice.

I read a postsecret last week, that was something along the lines of, "I just went though menopause and my libido went with it. Now I'm angry and would rather be bleeding." I believe thats what it said. So I'm sure there are women out there who would use this pill. I guess it just depends on your situation.

KateC my mother is 46 and I know one of the pharmaceutical issues that pisses her off is the fact that so much attention is being paid to ED, which is not that big of a problem, when female sexual dysfunction post menopause is not being seriously addressed. HRT helped with the loss of libido, but now it's being found that there's so many other problems with HRT, but there's nothing else out there help with the sexual issues. My mom hasn't gone through menopause yet, but I think the thought of losing that part of herself scares her a lot.

I think the MARKETING for this pill will be cringe inducing, but the idea of the pill itself doesn't bother me. A lot of pills have un-intended side effects that can be seen as positive. I take Beta-Blockers, which are a blood pressure medication, for anxiety when I have a musical performance. They lower heart rate without making me loopy the way something like Xanax or Valium would. Un-intended side effect that makes my life a lot easier.

You know what also increases libido?

Matriarchal society:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

The Bonobos are our closest living relative and we never fucking hear about them! Why? They have lots of sex, the females are in charge, and they are an almost entirely non-violent society. Gah.

Yeah, I've studied Bonobos. They're pretty awesome, and all the bisexuality is pretty interesting too. Actually, Chimpanzee males and females are also pretty hypersexual mammals, we just tend not to hear about that aspect of their behavior.

Anyway, I'm already skinny and libidinous, and I /still/ think a pill like this is fucking insane. I won't even take hormonal birth control, because I feel functional and I don't want to gamble with that. Did you know that in some countries women don't experience PMS or hot-flashes during menopause? Some scientists think diet may have something to do with it. I've heard the same thing about libido (not to mention having an f-ed up relationship, of course. I've seen women lose their libido b/c of that plenty)

Nina and bettie, I understand your points and I think they're important ones, but I'm also wary of moving this problem into the "it's all in their heads" end of the pool. I've had a few genuine medical problems dismissed that way, as I'm sure all women have. Not every women has the same kind of libido loss so I think we should keep ourselves open to the possibilities of the problem being tied to emotional, physical, or cultural problems on a case by case basis. Some women could gain a more active libido through counseling, diet adjustment, or through this pill. I think anything that helps a woman lead a happier and more complete life is a good thing, even if it's not something all of us need. I need my Seasonale to be happy, but I'm more than willing to concede that it's really not for everyone.

"it's all in their heads" end of the pool"

I don't think either of us said that. Rather, I think there's a big difference between something being related to nutrition, or lifestyle, or culture/self-confidence/relationship problems, than being some unexplainable biological phenomenon that can only be fixed with a pill. I think a lot of people question that latter diagnosis anytime it's given, and wonder with the frequency it's given if it isn't another excuse for not taking women's problems seriously. Even if you don't feel medication has any kind of negative affect on you emotionally, and the dependency doesn't bother you, it can have all sorts of unexpected health side affects later in life.

I'm definitely a believer that some things our culture labels as problems /are/ genetic, I just feel pills are assigned much more often than that, and moreso to women than men.

My appetite setpoint was permanently changed, twice, by hormonal birth control. I eat all the goddamn time now. And my choices are, obsess over food (even attempting to record the calories of everything I eat is so goddamn time-consuming that it makes me want to eat nothing but Lean Cuisines because at least the calories are printed on the box), starve, become more active than I have time in the day for, or find a medication that cuts my appetite without serious negative side effects.

Heightened libido would *not* be a negative side effect.

Having a high libido doesn't make you a sexbot, folks. I used to have a very high libido, and it didn't make me any less picky about *who* I had sex with... it just made me willing to have that sex a lot more often. Nowadays my libido is primarily depressed by my constant overwhelming need for sleep, so I don't *need* a pill for that, just more sleep. But man oh man, I sure could use a pill that suppresses my appetite. I do *not* need to eat enough to maintain 160 lbs when I'm 5'0" and was 100 lbs ten years ago. Cutting my appetite by a third sounds about right.

"Heightened libido would *not* be a negative side effect.

Having a high libido doesn't make you a sexbot, folks. I used to have a very high libido, and it didn't make me any less picky about *who* I had sex with... it just made me willing to have that sex a lot more often."

Who says being less picky about who you want to have sex with is inherently bad? And who says wanting to have sex more often is inherently good? I think people's concerns here, is that our culture has these sort of inaccurate generalizations that men want to have sex more often than women, so all this interest in increasing libido is related to pleasing men. I think, however, there would not be a lot of general support for increasing women's libidos to the point where they would want to have sex /more often/ than would their male partners (I realize that is theoretical because each person has a different libido, but you get what I'm saying...) I think what is good for women is focusing on what /they/ want. So if you don't /want/ sex more often, where are you getting the idea that that want needs to change? Culture perhaps? Pressure from partners, perhaps?

Um, I don't see how decreasing one's appetite by ONE THIRD can possibly be healthy. I'm sure there are some people who need that, but they're most likely a tiny minority. So instead of exercising, women will just be told by whatever company markets it that this is the cure to all their problems. As somebody earlier pointed out, if this hormone actually gets approved for use on humans, women won't have the energy to enjoy their higher libidos.

And, the point that several people made earlier about shitty relationships and their connection to low libido still stands. Not to mention how female sexuality is constantly denigrated, made fun of and looked down on -- hmmm, maybe that has something to do with why some women have low libido? Until I met a lot of women who were open to talking about sex and didn't seem to view the female body as shameful or purely as a sex toy, I had kind of a low libido. Now I'm fucking unstoppable, and I've seen the same thing happen with a lot of my friends as they become more comfortable talking about their bodies and viewing them in a positive light. Maybe this pill/hormone wouldn't be so creepy if there were also some serious efforts in society to also address societal causes of low libido in women. But as usual, people just want a quick fix that's going to bite us in the ass in the end. And yes, I do think this pill will be used by drug companies to turn women into rail-thin male fantasy sexbots, even if that's not what the women who take it intend.

Um, I don't see how decreasing one's appetite by ONE THIRD can possibly be healthy. I'm sure there are some people who need that, but they're most likely a tiny minority. So instead of exercising, women will just be told by whatever company markets it that this is the cure to all their problems. As somebody earlier pointed out, if this hormone actually gets approved for use on humans, women won't have the energy to enjoy their higher libidos.

And, the point that several people made earlier about shitty relationships and their connection to low libido still stands. Not to mention how female sexuality is constantly denigrated, made fun of and looked down on -- hmmm, maybe that has something to do with why some women have low libido? Until I met a lot of women who were open to talking about sex and didn't seem to view the female body as shameful or purely as a sex toy, I had kind of a low libido. Now I'm fucking unstoppable, and I've seen the same thing happen with a lot of my friends as they become more comfortable talking about their bodies and viewing them in a positive light. Maybe this pill/hormone wouldn't be so creepy if there were also some serious efforts in society to also address societal causes of low libido in women. But as usual, people just want a quick fix that's going to bite us in the ass in the end.

And yes, I do think this pill will be used by drug companies to turn women into rail-thin male fantasy sexbots, even if that's not what the women who take it intend. It's a marketing dream -- not only will it appeal to women, but their boyfriends and husbands will nag and haggle them until they get it, which means a lot of women who don't need it will get it nonetheless. And if they can't get it from their doctors because they don't medically qualify, believe me, they'll find it somewhere else, and who knows how safe that source will be?

Regarding Libido and Appetite:

The findings aren't surprising from a biological perspective.

There is a great deal of evidence that sex, hunger, and sleep drives are in direct conflict with each other - Dr. Jill Schneider has done most of the hormonal work examining this hypothesis. So as one goes up, the others go down.

For example, a recent comprehensive review of the literature showed that women's appetite decreases during the fertile phase of the ovulatory cycle. Presumably this occurs because this system would have been adaptive in the ancestral past for motivating sexual activity during phases of high fertility.

P.S. sorry, that last sentence of mine was unclear. It would promote sexual activity because a) decreased appetite shifts energy away from food search mechanisms and b)allows this energy to be devoted to mate search and mating activities [interest in sex is tied to peaks in estrogen and progesterone near ovulation).

"There needs to be a group of women scientists to develop and pill that will make men find so-called unattractive women sexy and dance with them even though they aren't a size -8."

Umm...
Viagra?
Cialis?
Levitra?
Jack Daniels?

"The findings aren't surprising from a biological perspective.

There is a great deal of evidence that sex, hunger, and sleep drives are in direct conflict with each other - Dr. Jill Schneider has done most of the hormonal work examining this hypothesis. So as one goes up, the others go down."

Perhaps these are the findings of this one researcher, but I've heard the exact opposite, personally.

Also, in a lot of early societies, women would not have their periods throughout the year. They would only be fertile when they had a minimum amount of fat on their body (like my roommate actually says she stops getting her period in the summer because she exercizes so hard). Being a certain minimum wait is crucial to being healthy and to being fertile (and I would expect to feeling sexy).

"Anyway, I'm already skinny and libidinous, and I /still/ think a pill like this is fucking insane."

The fact you're "skinny and libidinous" actually makes it more likely, not less, IMO for you to think it's insane

I'm not overweight, though I have put on weight in the last year. I have a problem not with how much I eat but with wanting to eat more than I need. I don't want to fight my body over something so basic, it is stressful

I've always had an extremely high libido(ie: felt genuinely irritable if I went more than a day and a bit without sex). I miss wanting sex.

So when I was slimmer and was actually interested in sex (barely there now :( ) I would have been much less interested than now

"I won't even take hormonal birth control, because I feel functional and I don't want to gamble with that."

I think that is probably the sticking point. I take the progestogen-only pill expressly so as not to get my period. I see my body and emotions being affected monthly by internal hormones as much more intrusive than keeping an "unnatural" flatline. I don't want to be dictated to by menstration

"Um, I don't see how decreasing one's appetite by ONE THIRD can possibly be healthy. I'm sure there are some people who need that, but they're most likely a tiny minority."

I think it's rushing to judgment about whether or not that is healthy. It reminds me of all the studies of rats who were give 70% of their daily caloric needs. Compared to rats given 100% of their caloric needs, they lived longer.

So really the pill might make you want sex more, eat less, AND live longer.

Sign me up.

"Perhaps these are the findings of this one researcher, but I've heard the exact opposite, personally. "

Sorry, I'll clarify, she has done a great deal of work doing meta-analyses and summaries of the literature, which all points to that conclusion. The review of the ovulatory phase effect was by a separate researcher in Quarterly Review of Biology

"The fact you're "skinny and libidinous" actually makes it more likely, not less, IMO for you to think it's insane"

Says who? I think you're working under this cultural assunption that we all think skinny and horny is the ideal. When I say I feel functional, I don't mean that /because/ I am skinny and horny I feel functional. (I actually mean that because I'm healthy and suffer minimum PMS, I feel functional).

I mean, I'm not trying to reduce my sex drive, but I also think having a high sex drive can be a distraction, and in that sense could be seen as negative. I also don't believe it's crucial to a high quality of life. I believe having sex as much as you /want/ to, not much more or much less, is what influences happiness.

"So when I was slimmer and was actually interested in sex (barely there now :( ) I would have been much less interested than now"

Just a question, but do you think it is possible that your insecurities about putting on weight are effecting your sex drive?

"Also, in a lot of early societies, women would not have their periods throughout the year. They would only be fertile when they had a minimum amount of fat on their body (like my roommate actually says she stops getting her period in the summer because she exercizes so hard). Being a certain minimum wait is crucial to being healthy and to being fertile (and I would expect to feeling sexy)."

I'm confused. The example you gave is directly supportive of the hypothesis I described, but you framed it as being in conflict.

What you are describing is "reproductive suppression." This can occur for a variety of reasons, but all of them are tied to cues that one would actually be better off to delay reproduction because of poor current physical condition or unstable resources in the environment. So things like chronic stress or hunger can down-regulate fertility. This is the extreme version of what I was pointing out: that hunger suppresses sex drive, particularly chronic hunger.

"Sorry, I'll clarify, she has done a great deal of work doing meta-analyses and summaries of the literature, which all points to that conclusion. "

If there are some studies that point away from that conclusion, than her meta-analysis cannot /totally/ point to that conclusion. And anyways, meta-analysis are not perfectly objective anymore than any other kind of scientific research.

I am not saying I think obesity is healthy. I am concerned more about the affects of using some artificial drug. I also think you have to keep in mind that skinny/not skinny are relative terms, and past a certain point losing weight is definitely going to reduce your sex drive. I haven't read those studies, so I don't know what weights this woman specifies as being optimal for libido.

"I'm confused. The example you gave is directly supportive of the hypothesis I described, but you framed it as being in conflict."

I guess I didn't find the statement of your hypothesis to be very clear then. It seemed to me, you were saying reduced hunger (like in the case of this pill, which would result in weight loss) was correlated with higher libido.

"And it also brings up the whole argument of why women are somehow broken, either psychologically or biologically, if they do not want to have sex."

I think that is a perfectly reasonable point - that people may be pressured into taking the pill because they (or their partner) perceive them as defective.

I do think, however, that there are many women and men who would benefit from this sort of intervention. There are many people who would like to be having more sex but can't because:
a) their psychological level of interest is higher than their biological response
b) they have a legitimate medical issue that doesn't allow sufficient arousal for sex.

These are issues that both men and women face, but currently only men have the option of (easily) addressing it (viagra, etc.).

Obviously there are other cases where it is a bad idea (e.g., when there is pressure, attempt to fix a broken relationship, etc.), but it seems like a valuable addition to the available toolbox for addressing sex-related issues in couples.

I think the problem some of us are concerned with, UCLA, is that whenever we have the option of a pill, the "b)" you mention, arguably gets way over-diagnosed.

Also people will always wind up taking it more liberally for other reasons as well.

"If there are some studies that point away from that conclusion, than her meta-analysis cannot /totally/ point to that conclusion. And anyways, meta-analysis are not perfectly objective anymore than any other kind of scientific research."

The point of meta-analyses/reviews is to summarize where the preponderance of the evidence lies. For some issues (e.g., black-white differences in body satisfaction), reviews reveal that there is a consistent but very small difference favoring black women. In other issues, such as this, there is a strong effect of hunger and sex drives being antagonistic on each other.

Here is a review you might find helpful:
Metabolic and hormonal control of the desire for food and sex: implications for obesity and eating disorders.
Schneider JE.

During evolution, the ability to overeat and store the extra energy as glycogen and lipids in specialized tissues must have conferred a reproductive advantage by releasing animals from the need to eat constantly, enabling them to engage in behaviors that improved reproductive success. Mechanisms that inhibited ingestive behavior might have been most adaptive when they caused individuals to stop foraging, hoarding and eating in order to find and court potential mates. Conversely, the ability to abstain from reproductive activities to engage in foraging and eating was probably critical for individual survival during severe energetic challenges because reproductive processes are energetically costly and can be delayed until the energetic conditions improve. The mechanisms that control ingestive behavior most likely evolved under conditions in which both food and mates were available, and thus, our understanding might be limited by our narrow focus on food intake in animals isolated from potential mates, and reproductive behaviors in the absence of food. Our understanding of obesity and eating disorders will be enriched by the study of the choice between ingestive and reproductive behaviors and by a renewed attention to "reproductive" hormones such as gonadal steroids and hypothalamic releasing hormones. Furthermore, leptin and reproductive hormones have both organizational and activational effects on the energy balancing system including those mechanisms that control appetite, body fat content and body fat distribution. Understanding these organizational and activational effects on body fat distribution might lead to a better understanding of sex differences in the propensity to develop obesity, type II diabetes and eating disorders.

"I guess I didn't find the statement of your hypothesis to be very clear then. It seemed to me, you were saying reduced hunger (like in the case of this pill, which would result in weight loss) was correlated with higher libido."

Yes. Exactly as I said before, the drives are generally in conflict. Hunger can suppress sex drive (and vice versa). Chronic hunger can have lasting effects in down-regulating sexual response. As you pointed out, a further factor is whether the critical percentage of body fat is present in order to support a pregnancy. Both of those factors can be lumped into "reproductive suppression" hypotheses.

I /know/ what meta-analysis are, UCLA, and what I said about them above stands.

Also, in that particular summary you gave me, I don't see anywhere where she's saying that the particular hormones that regulate hunger are /causing/ a higher sex drive (more like they are simply giving animals more free time from foraging, so that they may reproduce). Also, I don't know if the hormones she mentions that reduce hunger naturally, are the same as what is proposed in this drug here.

Either way, I don't think the average American female has a low sex drive as a result of being constantly hungry and feeling a need to forage.

"I think the problem some of us are concerned with, UCLA, is that whenever we have the option of a pill, the "b)" you mention, arguably gets way over-diagnosed."

Yes, many people on the blog have pointed that out several times, and it certainly is a reasonable concern. But I'm all for
not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

"Also people will always wind up taking it more liberally for other reasons as well."

That doesn't seem to be a problem to me, assuming you are referring to recreational purposes by people who fully understand th

??? I thought this was your original hypothesis:

"So really the pill might make you want sex more, eat less, AND live longer.

Sign me up."

"I think the problem some of us are concerned with, UCLA, is that whenever we have the option of a pill, the "b)" you mention, arguably gets way over-diagnosed."

Yes, many people on the blog have pointed that out several times, and the over-medicalization of women's sexuality is a reasonable concern. But I'm all for
not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

"Also people will always wind up taking it more liberally for other reasons as well."

That doesn't seem to be a problem to me, assuming you are referring to recreational purposes by people who fully understand the risks and benefits.

NINA "I thought this was your original hypothesis:

DAVE: "So really the pill might make you want sex more, eat less, AND live longer."

The original hypothesis was laid out earleir but the statement you cite is still directly derived from the original hypothesis.

If appetite is suppressed (i.e., hunger is suppressed), then that frees up one's energy budget. This energy can be devoted to other activities, such as sex and mating.

"If appetite is suppressed (i.e., hunger is suppressed), then that frees up one's energy budget. This energy can be devoted to other activities, such as sex and mating."

But if someone is on a pill that reduces appetite, they are going to be increasingly losing weight. So I don't see how the information about the "natural" hunter-gatherer cycles you provided proves anything about how this pill would work.

Just for clarification: when scientists talk about "energy budget" they are talking about the way an organism uses its stored calories. In the short-term, not expending calories on foraging will free up that energy for other activities. If you do not quickly return to foraging at normal levels, however, your "energy budget" is going to steadily decrease.

So if you don't /want/ sex more often, where are you getting the idea that that want needs to change?

Sex is fun?

Having high libido makes sex more fun?

I mean, I'm hearing this unbelievable level of judgementalism on the order of "if you wish that you wanted to have more sex, you're brainwashed by the patriarchy!" Uh, no. Isn't the whole point to sex-positive feminism that sex is *fun?* That most of us enjoy it? And having zero libido makes it damn near impossible to enjoy it?

Let's take an example. You really like to dance. It's one of your favorite things to do. But for the last two weeks, you've just had kind of lower energy and the idea of going out dancing feels sort of blah. Maybe if someone talks you into it, you might enjoy it anyway, but not anywhere near as much if your energy levels were normal. And you really *wished* you wanted to go dancing, because dancing's a lot of fun when you're in the mood for it, but you just haven't been in the right mood and you wish you were.

Yeah, some people might take this pill because they feel like they're pressured by partners. But you know, I am sick and tired of us trying to restrict everyone's freedom on the grounds that women are naturally slaves and will do things that aren't in their personal self interest because they've been brainwashed by men.

I was healthy when I was 100 lbs. I was slightly less healthy when I was 125 lbs. I am fucking unhealthy now. And the problem isn't that I sit on my ass significantly more than I used to, the problem is I want to eat all the goddamn time. Yes, maybe you are at a healthy weight for your body and screw the taboo on fat. I've known women who were overweight by cultural standards, even obese, and they looked healthy and strong. They looked like nature intended them to be that weight. I don't look like that. I should be at least 40 lbs lighter to not have my knees going out on me, to not suffer occasional shortness of breath, to not see diabetes staring me in the face. There are limits to how much more active I can get, and I don't have the free time to obsess over food. If there was a pill that just changed how much food I *want* -- which is how I got into this mess in the first place, a pill that changed how much food I wanted -- that would be fantastic.

And heightened libido is a good thing if a woman wants her libido to be higher. Sex is fun. Wanting sex makes it more fun. You don't need to be under pressure from our culture to have sex to *want* sex, intellectually, and wish you physically desired it more.

BTW, UCLABodyImage is probably right in that sex is a function of the sympathetic nervous system and hunger/sleep are parasympathetic functions. A stimulant activates the sympathetic, a depressant activates the parasympathetic. So yes, sex drive goes up as hunger goes down, if it's in response to a stimulant, except that too much stimulant can make you too wired to want sex and too much hunger can make you too weak. But yes, for moderate amounts of stimulation, sex drive going up as hunger goes down makes sense.

"Uh, no. Isn't the whole point to sex-positive feminism that sex is *fun?* "

I thought the whole point of sex-positive feminism was to get people away from the idea that sex was dirty or somehow bad for women or inherently anti-feminist. Also to make sure women feel they have a right to have good sex, when they have it.

I love dancing, and sex. But sometimes I'm not in the mood, and I think that's okay too. Sometimes I wish they would invent a pill so that we don't need to sleep, and then I could get everything done I want to. But then I'm like wait, *that's fucking insane*, and who knows what kind of side effects it could have?

I wasn't saying UCLA's explanation of a natural process was wrong. I was saying that since the pill was meant to be used continually, I don't think the pill could work in the same way.

I mean maybe you're right and I don't have this same experience with low-libido thing you're talking about. But are you basically saying that if you're well-rested, living a healthy lifestyle, and meet some hott guy who treats you well and is good in bed, you're still not feeling like sex? I think all women should have a right to those conditions, personally.

"I should be at least 40 lbs lighter to not have my knees going out on me, to not suffer occasional shortness of breath, to not see diabetes staring me in the face. There are limits to how much more active I can get, and I don't have the free time to obsess over food. If there was a pill that just changed how much food I *want* -- which is how I got into this mess in the first place, a pill that changed how much food I wanted -- that would be fantastic."

I mean I guess... women have the right to choose diet pills if that's what they want... But most of them are unhealthy and mess with your digestive system in pretty obvious ways, so I think it's sad that people turn from mistreating their body in one way to mistreating it in a different way that will be more acceptable to society and their own self-esteem, that's all...

I mostly stay thin and I think it's mostly genetic, so I'm not saying that everytime a woman is higher weight than our cultural ideal it's because of not caring enough about diet and exercise or something like that. But really, if you're worried about longevitiy, and having energy in a general way, healthy amounts of diet and exercise don't require a lot of time or effort (I think 3-6 hrs of intensive exercise a week is recommended, and lots of high-fiber foods like fruits and veggies make a big difference in diet). Then if you're taking good care of yourself, I think a woman should try and accept whatever her weight does as natural. I've got a female friend who is above average in weight but says she likes it, and says she likes her men that way too.

I'm no kind of health-food nazi or over-exerciser by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't think simply promoting for women's health is trying to take women's freedom away. I think it's a bit more complicated than that, personally.

Everyone else has probably long since turned out the light and left the room on this one, but I've been thinking it over.

And I think one of the things that's bothering me is this: This drug is going to be prescribed (I presume) based on a diagnosis of some sort of disorder. It will be marketed as some sort of cure for an illness.

Well, two objections.

One, as with any psychotropic medication, I am concerned that the symptoms are being treated without addressing the underlying cause.

There are a lot of very gender-loaded reasons why, in a patriarchy, women might not want sex as often as we "should," or as often as men do. To name a few: we're told to be ashamed of our sexuality; we're held to an unrealistic standard of beauty, which cause self-consciousness; we're frequently survivors of sexual abuse; we are frequently overtired from doing the lion's share of housework and childcare; we are not, unlike men, constantly sexually stimulated with visual images designed for our gaze.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that if we all just take a pill and get horny, there will no longer be any pressure to address the underlying problem.

Two, I like sex, quite a bit. Except when I'm not in the mood. So, would it be fun to take a pill and get horny and have hot sex? Sure it would. Just like it's fun to get drunk and sing songs.

But that's recreation, that's not treatment. Why does it make a difference? Because while calling it treatment may make it permissible in an otherwise drug-phobic culture, the message is that women who don't want to fuck all the time are broken. And need fixing. Women, not the system, not the patriarchy, not the situation, not our partners.

Sounds eerily like victim-blaming to me.

It reminds me of all the studies of rats who were give 70% of their daily caloric needs. Compared to rats given 100% of their caloric needs, they lived longer.

I've read those rat studies too, and I have to say that if the cost of living longer is being contantly hungry and undernourished, forget it. I'd rather not. Or as my mom said, "It just seems like longer because those rats were so miserable."

One of the things that's disturbing to me about this research is the way it denormalizes fluctuations over a lifetime. My libido now is a lot lower than it was ten years ago (I'm much happier now but I have no idea whether those two things are related). But the point is, I don't think that either my higher or my lower libidos were abnormal--I think they were both right for that particular part of my life.

"Just for clarification: when scientists talk about "energy budget" they are talking about the way an organism uses its stored calories. In the short-term, not expending calories on foraging will free up that energy for other activities. If you do not quickly return to foraging at normal levels, however, your "energy budget" is going to steadily decrease."

Just for clarification, you're wrong. Or more specifically, aware of only one use of the term.

The other definition that is directly relevant is how the terms is used among biologists in the behavioral ecology branch of biology.

In that field, people talk generally of the tradeoffs that organisms make in allocating their energy budgets. This could mean whether they are investing heavily in one activity now (e.g., immune functioning, development of secondary sexual characteristics) rather than another (mate search, etc.).

For example, some peacocks may allocate there energy budget heavily towards developing a spectacular tail. This necessarily takes away from the maintenence of the immune system, because the the mechanism that drives tail length (testosterone) also dampens the immune system.

Similarly, when organisms are hungry, they allocate more of their energy budget toward feeding behaviors and away from sex drive.

As you point out, over time the total energy budget can decrease if one doesn't feed. But what you fail to acknowledge is that this is supportive of the drive conflict hypothesis - hunger diminshes the sex drive so that animal can focus on feeding rather than mating, which allows for a greater overall energy budget.

"But what you fail to acknowledge is that this is supportive of the drive conflict hypothesis - hunger diminshes the sex drive so that animal can focus on feeding rather than mating, which allows for a greater overall energy budget. "

I wasn't disagreeing with the way the natural cycle works. I was /saying/ that with this pill people aren't going to go through the natural fluctuation where after a short period of particular horniness they then become hungry again and intake higher levels of calories again.

How is anything you said contradictory of the statement of mine you quoted? If a peacock is growing a spectacular tail at the expense of an immune system it is still it's /stored calories/ that are allowing it to grow the spectacular tail and the reduced immune system. Of course it's all about trade-offs, but in order to have the energy to do anything at all animals have to use stored calories. That is why behavioral ecology also operates under the theory that animals' foraging behaviors have evolved to maximize calorie intake while also allowing the organism to protect itself from predators and other hazards. Ecology as a field is totally about the exchange of calories and energy in our natural environment, and with a pill like this you are altering the normal human behavioral ecology, that's all I'm saying. You'll result in women who are thinner than they would be otherwise, and it might possibly be unhealthy for some of them.

Also, I still don't see anywhere that you've shown me the /mechanisms/ causing the lack of hunger and the horniness, respectively, are the same with this pill as they would be in natural cycles.

There are multiple physiological mechanisms controlling some for appetite, and multiple controlling some for hunger, you know...?

Kattybean I really understand where you're coming from, because I've thought it over too. The only solution I can think of is that should this pill hit the market, it should only be prescribed after a session with a therapist to determine that there's a real need and not just a desire to cover up other problems. Of course, after taking AP Psych and BioPsych in college, I think all psychotropic medications should only be prescribed after a session with a therapist or psychologist, but the American medical system does not agree with me. Still, it's an important step because I know in my first sexual relationship I had a lot of trouble with desire and sexual satisfaction and thought it was a problem with me, when really it was a problem with my partner, as I found out when I got into a new relationship with someone who treated me much better over all.

But, I know there are women who lose their libidos completely after menopause, one of my mother's friends did, and they would love if a pill like this were available. So... having a therapist or psychologist talk to the woman (and possibly her partner) about her sex life and relationships is really the only thing I can think of to insure that this drug would be properly distributed.

Like AlaraJRogers, I'm always hungry... and I do mean always. I eat every few hours, have trouble during that stretch from my lunch break until dinner (need a reasonably-sized meal in there), and often eat at night, too.

Then again, I'm hypoglycemic, and it's somewhat controlled through a meat-free diet. (Meat causes you to feel full after blood sugar drops.)

That's a long way of saying that my body NEEDS to eat all the time, so I don't mind the constant hunger, but I can really, really sympathise with someone whose body actually is not sending the right signals.

If you're tired all the time but don't actually need sleep, isn't it good to reprogramme your body to eliminate the bad signal? Likewise, why not with food?

I understand that Americans have a really weird relationship with food and, of course, thinness, but that's no reason to ignore legitimate complaints.

well, what are the chances that this pill will only be given to someone who's hungry all the time even though they don't need to eat, /and/ who is never horny even under the right conditions (i.e. living a healthy lifestyle and has a partner that they're attracted to who treats them very well?)

Obviously we know there are already diet pills out on the market. But I contend they aren't /necessary/ for most of the people who use them, especially considering they can cause health problems.