Sexuality

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I think that's why there are those people who think elderly couples don't love each other as much as before. As they're not quite as capable of having sex

They created viagra for men, and will soon introduce viagra for women if that article is legit (it's in french, sorry) http://www.rue89.com/2009/03/14/le-v...pour-les-labos (that article is interesting because it's about how the laboratories only do that for money, not for women well being and how they (and the medias) use studies to get the green light to commercialize it. It's also mentionned that the university of chicago actually went throught the result of a study that said that "43% of women have a sexual disfunctionment". Actually, if a woman said that she encountered one problem once like being tired the year before the study, she was included in the 43% The Dr Waynberg (from said university then commented:

The laboratories want to put diseases names on things that are part of a normal psychology. They do all of that to justify the release of their products"

There is also a talk about the propanganda from the feminine press about having sex till being 70yo. A woman (in this case, Nicole 59yo) reacted to the news since it seems that some women actually don't want to have sex anymore after a certain age (that doesn't mean they don't love their husbands anymore.)

So maybe they will create a viagra for very old people too since it's all about money

[Tsuyoshi]

See, this is why I don't trust pharmaceutical companies in general. They would make anything for the sake of money. For one thing, these people making these medicines should know that after a certain age, it's pointless to have sex in the first place because they lose any ability they have to bear children. I think it's a waste of money and dignity.

[MeoTwister5]

Unless of course they want to have sex solely for pleasure, which I assume is the mentality of most old people and almost all teenagers, and Viagra (which was originally not meant for erectile dysfunction) was marketed specifically for dem old folks.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Unless of course they want to have sex solely for pleasure, which I assume is the mentality of most old people and almost all teenagers, and Viagra (which was originally not meant for erectile dysfunction) was marketed specifically for dem old folks.

The vast majority of the elderly people I've met don't view sex the same way people of the new generation see it. We tend to look at things in terms of their surface value alone. The mentality the elderly have been used to regarding sexuality is vastly different from ours. I can't imagine anyone I've known using viagra. At least not the old ladies.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Tbh, all the things described as "masculine" and "feminine energy" here (not just you, but others too) strike more as stereotypes which were developed through a history of male dominance. A lot of that has changed in modern days so this "masculine energy" you speak of has lost some of the meaning it may or may not have had in the past. That term "energy" is a little too vague to me, even in the spiritual context. It sounds a little too convenient to me to categorize men and women in certain ways to try and make the world more simple than it actually is.

To a certain degree, you're right. Language and concepts change as life goes on, so what I said is true for the past, and some countries in the present. Life is changing, though, and definitions of these words will change.

Well, at their base, Masculine simply refers to male traits, and Feminine to female traits. What those traits are, is dependent upon time and location.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

The vast majority of the elderly people I've met don't view sex the same way people of the new generation see it. We tend to look at things in terms of their surface value alone. The mentality the elderly have been used to regarding sexuality is vastly different from ours. I can't imagine anyone I've known using viagra. At least not the old ladies.

I don't think old ladies should be using Viagra. I doubt there have been enough studies to conclude a beneficial effect of Viagra for women in general, but I suppose it should since the mechanisms of arousal are the same, except men aren't supposed to be capable of getting up consistently after every orgasm.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

To a certain degree, you're right. Language and concepts change as life goes on, so what I said is true for the past, and some countries in the present. Life is changing, though, and definitions of these words will change.

Well, at their base, Masculine simply refers to male traits, and Feminine to female traits. What those traits are, is dependent upon time and location.

That's the thing. Because times have changed so much, what would've been considered male traits back then aren't neccessarily as prevalent over other traits anymore. That's why I get the sense that these "energies" are nothing but stereotypes.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I don't think old ladies should be using Viagra. I doubt there have been enough studies to conclude a beneficial effect of Viagra for women in general, but I suppose it should since the mechanisms of arousal are the same, except men aren't supposed to be capable of getting up consistently after every orgasm.

They use Vizier. Not Viagra.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

See, this is why I don't trust pharmaceutical companies in general. They would make anything for the sake of money. For one thing, these people making these medicines should know that after a certain age, it's pointless to have sex in the first place because they lose any ability they have to bear children. I think it's a waste of money and dignity.

TBH, I don't care about the money part. The problem is that they have to prove that this product should be released to resolve a problem. But apparently, there are not so much mid-old aged women who ask for that kind of products, so to get approval, they have to prove that a certain percentages of women suffer from sexual disfunctionment. But they lie a bit in the process since that if a woman felt like not doing it only one time a year, they include her in the 43% of women who need help from them.

But not wanting to have sex is not disease. Same as not having high sex needs. problem is, a woman with low sex needs will be included by those people among the one who are ill and need this new product. Either way, poor nogistune will be included in the bag of women who need help as soon as possible (sorry nogi, couldn't resist )

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Unless of course they want to have sex solely for pleasure, which I assume is the mentality of most old people and almost all teenagers, and Viagra (which was originally not meant for erectile dysfunction) was marketed specifically for dem old folks.

As it is said in the article, women and men don't work the same way. And if for example the husband wants to have sex and use viagra and all to get erection, it doesn't mean the wife should take something to get aroused if she feels like not wanting sex.

I think that's part of a problem for certain couples. As I said in another post, when among a couple the man wants to have sex while the woman doesn't want, it's most of the time the woman who's accused of having a problem, while not wanting to have sex can be normal and again as i said, it doesn't mean those women don't love their husband anymore. It feels as if a woman has a problem if she can't give pleasure whenever her husband wants it. But I hope I'm wrong (Syn will say again that I am anti sex LOL )

So, those laboratories have to prove that there is a real problem like a disease or a malfunction. But they take some normal women with no malfunction as example of women who need to be treated for a non-existant problem. What's sad is that since it will make a lot of money (because you can imagine the machine named "advertising" being launched with it. Advertising that could start pointing fingers at some women who need hlep, but who are in fact perfectly normal), they get approval even if they lie in the studies.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I don't think old ladies should be using Viagra. I doubt there have been enough studies to conclude a beneficial effect of Viagra for women in general, but I suppose it should since the mechanisms of arousal are the same, except men aren't supposed to be capable of getting up consistently after every orgasm.

I said viagra, but IT'S NOT viagra. It's a new kind of product/medecine that is supposed to make women feel normal sex needs. AS IF, having a low libido was not normal.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by Narona

TBH, I don't care about the money part. The problem is that they have to prove that this product should be released to resolve a problem. But apparently, there are not so much mid-old aged women who ask for that kind of products, so to get approval, they have to prove that a certain percentages of women suffer from sexual disfunctionment. But they lie a bit in the process since that if a woman felt like not doing it only one time a year, they include her in the 43% of women who need help from them.

But not wanting to have sex is not disease. Same as not having an high sex needs. problem is, a woman with low sex needs will be included by those people among the one who are ill and need this new product.

What they see as a problem isn't a problem. It's proven scientific fact that after a certain age, women can't bear children. As such, they don't feel the need to physically have sex anymore. I know this because that's how my granma feels. As scientists, they ought to know that this is a perfectly natural transition for women and not a problem or disease. The fact they lie about it is the reason why I don't trust these pharmaceuticals, especially privately owned chains.

Originally Posted by Narona

said viagra, but IT'S NOT viagra. It's a new kind of product/medecine that should achieve the same result (making them aroused) but for women.

But the problem stays the same. Do women really need it? Given that the pharmaceutical sector has to rely on lies to get it released, I guess not a lot of mid aged, and onwards women ask for it.

The real question is if a middle-aged woman takes it, what will be the side effects?

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

What they see as a problem isn't a problem. It's proven scientific fact that after a certain age, women can't bear children. As such, they don't feel the need to physically have sex anymore. I know this because that's how my granma feels. As scientists, they ought to know that this is a perfectly natural transition for women and not a problem or disease. The fact they lie about it is the reason why I don't trust these pharmaceuticals, especially privately owned chains.

I'm not entirely sure childbearing has anything to do with libido....

I mean I can't have kids but I do have a libido...

Similarly, I know a few women who actually enjoy/want sex MORE because they can't have kids, and don't have to worry about contraception etc anymore.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by cheyannew

I'm not entirely sure childbearing has anything to do with libido....

I mean I can't have kids but I do have a libido...

Similarly, I know a few women who actually enjoy/want sex MORE because they can't have kids, and don't have to worry about contraception etc anymore.

I'm not really sure how to reply to this tbh. Much of it depends on who you're talking about I guess.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

What they see as a problem isn't a problem. It's proven scientific fact that after a certain age, women can't bear children. As such, they don't feel the need to physically have sex anymore. I know this because that's how my granma feels. As scientists, they ought to know that this is a perfectly natural transition for women and not a problem or disease. The fact they lie about it is the reason why I don't trust these pharmaceuticals, especially privately owned chains.

same as Che. I don't know if not being able to bear children can be linked to an absence of libido. Because that would imply that if a 55yo woman has high sex needs, she would be abnormal, but she can be perfect normal that way.

And it would imply that a young girl with low or no sex needs will be ill, but having very low libido can actually be perfectly normal. That's actually the problem, they try to make the sex needs of women a norm. Being normal would be to want sex Y times a week. Being above will be seen as normal, i guess, but being below that mark would make you abnormal.

I guess the Fear behind that new product is that any women from young years till +70 who has a low libido will be categorized as people with malfunction. All of that with heavy marketing about how mid aged / old women can't live happily without sex (same as the medias that make men guilty of something when they are unable to get an erection from time to time).

The real question is if a middle-aged woman takes it, what will be the side effects?

You'll get an answer when it will be released

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I'm not really sure how to reply to this tbh. Much of it depends on who you're talking about I guess.

Well it was more a response to "It's proven scientific fact that after a certain age, women can't bear children. As such, they don't feel the need to physically have sex anymore. I know this because that's how my granma feels."

Each woman handles menopause, etc (whether natural of prematurely caused by surgery etc etc whatever)) differently, but TBH, when I'm older, if I have no libido, I'm ok with it. I mean I am who I am, and if my husband can't handle that, then that's all on him LOL.

[Nogitsune]

There are also perfectly healthy men with a low sex-drive, or even none at all. In many cases, it might be a lot harder for them, because it's not manly to go without sex for too long, or - just imagine! - remain a virgin your entire life.
Even viagra doesn't solve everything.

Same goes for similar products for women. They won't, for example, magically turn an asexual into a sexual person - if it's just the libido, it might work in many cases, but strange as this may sound, sex isn't just about the libido, or even love and the libido. Hopefully, our society will become aware of that one day.

Not to mention that no one has an obligation to have sex, even if it's for their partner's sake, and regardless of whether they are a man or a woman. But I think at least that is starting to sink in already. Very, very slowly, but it's there.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

See, this is why I don't trust pharmaceutical companies in general. They would make anything for the sake of money. For one thing, these people making these medicines should know that after a certain age, it's pointless to have sex in the first place because they lose any ability they have to bear children. I think it's a waste of money and dignity.

Of course. They're a business. That's their purpose.

*facepalm* I can't understand why people vilify businesses for doing things with the intent to make money. It's not like they're volunteers or someshit... >.>;

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Unless of course they want to have sex solely for pleasure, which I assume is the mentality of most old people and almost all teenagers, and Viagra (which was originally not meant for erectile dysfunction) was marketed specifically for dem old folks.

Viagra is largely marketed to late-middle-age to early senior men who have ED. ED is most prevalent among this 45-65 age group. I've never seen it marketed to women at all (since I'm pretty sure it doesn't really do all that much for them, and probably causes some nasty side-effects).

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

The vast majority of the elderly people I've met don't view sex the same way people of the new generation see it. We tend to look at things in terms of their surface value alone. The mentality the elderly have been used to regarding sexuality is vastly different from ours. I can't imagine anyone I've known using viagra. At least not the old ladies.

Different people are different; plenty of older guys use Viagra because they cannot reliably maintain an erection. This is a problem for guys especially because it's a blow to their masculinity, and can hurt self-esteem and cause all sorts of insecurities and problems with a relationship--even if there's not a "lot" of sex happening.

Again, women wouldn't use Viagra to begin with. It just wouldn't work right.

Originally Posted by Narona

TBH, I don't care about the money part. The problem is that they have to prove that this product should be released to resolve a problem. But apparently, there are not so much mid-old aged women who ask for that kind of products, so to get approval, they have to prove that a certain percentages of women suffer from sexual disfunctionment. But they lie a bit in the process since that if a woman felt like not doing it only one time a year, they include her in the 43% of women who need help from them.

It does resolve a problem. It resolves the problem of women who want to get sexually aroused, and aren't getting sexually aroused. This is a problem, a big one for some people.

I know a girl who has a healthy libido, but she doesn't get much in the way of physical pleasure from sex. She hates it, because she gets horny, and it's extremely difficult for her to reach orgasm. A drug like this would not only allow her to reach orgasm more reliably, but it would also help to dispel all the little insecurities and emotional turmoil that goes hand in hand with the inability to orgasm reliably.

Originally Posted by Narona

But not wanting to have sex is not disease. Same as not having high sex needs. problem is, a woman with low sex needs will be included by those people among the one who are ill and need this new product. Either way, poor nogistune will be included in the bag of women who need help as soon as possible (sorry nogi, couldn't resist )

You're missing the point of the drug in the first place. The drug doesn't make you want to have sex. It makes it easier to have satisfying sex. This drug would be utterly useless for anyone who doesn't have trouble achieving an orgasm.

Originally Posted by Narona

As it is said in the article, women and men don't work the same way. And if for example the husband wants to have sex and use viagra and all to get erection, it doesn't mean the wife should take something to get aroused if she feels like not wanting sex.

Of course not. Look at the comparison. The man wants to have sex. He's only using Viagra to make sure his penis stays erect long enough to actually have sex.

The "female Viagra" isn't a fabled "horny pill" like kids in school used to talk about, something you slip in a cute girl's drink when she's not looking to make her insatiably horny. As I already mentioned, the drug is intended to help women who already want to have sex be able to actually enjoy the sex they're having.

Originally Posted by Narona

I think that's part of a problem for certain couples. As I said in another post, when among a couple the man wants to have sex while the woman doesn't want, it's most of the time the woman who's accused of having a problem, while not wanting to have sex can be normal and again as i said, it doesn't mean those women don't love their husband anymore. It feels as if a woman has a problem if she can't give pleasure whenever her husband wants it. But I hope I'm wrong (Syn will say again that I am anti sex LOL )

You're not anti-sex per se, you're just missing the point of this drug. It doesn't enslave women to their male partners. It just helps them achieve orgasm easier. A lot of women have problems with this, and yes it is a problem. Maybe not to you, or to an asexual who doesn't care about sex, but it's really awful to get extremely keyed up, be enormously aroused by... whatever... but be unable to do a single thing about it.

Happens to me all the time, when my girlfriend and I get a little too frisky in a place not suitable for sexual activity...

Originally Posted by Narona

So, those laboratories have to prove that there is a real problem like a disease or a malfunction. But they take some normal women with no malfunction as example of women who need to be treated for a non-existant problem. What's sad is that since it will make a lot of money (because you can imagine the machine named "advertising" being launched with it. Advertising that could start pointing fingers at some women who need hlep, but who are in fact perfectly normal), they get approval even if they lie in the studies.

Ask your female friends how many of them regularly fake an orgasm, and then ask them if they do it because their boyfriends suck in bed, or because they have trouble getting off. You'll be surprised with the answer, I think.

A lot of women have a hard time getting off. The aforementioned friend of mine has never had a satisfying orgasm in her entire life. They have always been difficult, frustrating and tiresome for her. A drug like this would be a godsend.

Originally Posted by Narona

I said viagra, but IT'S NOT viagra. It's a new kind of product/medecine that is supposed to make women feel normal sex needs. AS IF, having a low libido was not normal.

Broken record mode!

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

What they see as a problem isn't a problem. It's proven scientific fact that after a certain age, women can't bear children. As such, they don't feel the need to physically have sex anymore. I know this because that's how my granma feels. As scientists, they ought to know that this is a perfectly natural transition for women and not a problem or disease. The fact they lie about it is the reason why I don't trust these pharmaceuticals, especially privately owned chains.

Different people are different. Menopause doesn't always kill a woman's sex drive.

Originally Posted by cheyannew

Well it was more a response to "It's proven scientific fact that after a certain age, women can't bear children. As such, they don't feel the need to physically have sex anymore. I know this because that's how my granma feels."

Each woman handles menopause, etc (whether natural of prematurely caused by surgery etc etc whatever)) differently, but TBH, when I'm older, if I have no libido, I'm ok with it. I mean I am who I am, and if my husband can't handle that, then that's all on him LOL.

Precisely.

[Narona]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

You're missing the point of the drug in the first place.

I can't really get to the points made by that article without translating it all, but I don't have the time now. They talk about it better than I.

You're not anti-sex per se, you're just missing the point of this drug. It doesn't enslave women to their male partners. It just helps them achieve orgasm easier. A lot of women have problems with this, and yes it is a problem. Maybe not to you, or to an asexual who doesn't care about sex, but it's really awful to get extremely keyed up, be enormously aroused by... whatever... but be unable to do a single thing about it.

That doesn't explain the need to do studies with misinterpretation of what some women responded and how some normal women were put in the malfunction bag. If there were an enormous demand for it, they would not need that to get a green light. Something's fishy.

A lot of women have a hard time getting off. The aforementioned friend of mine has never had a satisfying orgasm in her entire life. They have always been difficult, frustrating and tiresome for her. A drug like this would be a godsend.

One question would be, do those girls all need to reach an orgasm everytime to feel pleased. Women are not all equal on that. Some of them don't need to reach climax to feel pleased. One of the thing pointed out about those laboratories/studies is actually how they decide who should need it or not. Do a girl who's pleased without recahing orgasm should be used to promote a product as if said girl had a problem? That's a question.

Anyway, I guess it will help some girls, yeah but I'm not worried about them ; I also know my country, somewhat, and I think I can already guess how it will marketed and presented to the public, and how that new norm will impact some minds of perfectly normal women. I hope I'm wrong though~~

[synaesthetic]

I think you don't give women enough credit. Even if the whole thing was some kind of tinfoil-hat conspiracy to make women more sexually beholden to their husbands, do you think everyone would just take it lying down?

[Mystique]

Syn's covered most of my points, although I have to read the article later.
Sexuality and older women?

(Dare I link you to some of the porn out there that involves women aged 50+, and they do not look as frail or old are you may envision)
Kidding, but amateur porn does feature a lot of ordinary couples, especially those who are middle aged having a good time.
Men need it to be able to perform and have sex in the first place, if what Syn is saying here in terms of helping women achieve that final kick in the first place (being able to orgasm), it'll actually help quite a few couples.
A man's pride can really suffer if no matter how much he tries and him and his wife work together towards her pleasure, but she cannot orgasm, it can emotionally hurt him.

That and as Chey said, post having kids or menopause, there's no need to worry about unwanted pregnancy anymore, a lot of women then enjoy sex as the pleasure that it is with their partners.

That and also, technically, a woman's libido typically evolves and can grow as she gets older, while men reach a 'peak' and then they lose it.
This whole Western culture of 'Stifler's mom', while American Pie movie is a parody of sorts, holds some truth in there.

People are obsessed with youth and health in the West, and this includes sexuality attitudes as well. Just cause they've reached a certain point in their lives, doesn't mean they can have ground breaking sex like before, but they'd still like to maintain that physical intimacy to some degree (if a couple are still into each other like that), no matter their age.

And technically, none of us can really use our older relatives or people we know as examples, cause it's not like they're gonna divulge their sex life to you now, are they?

edit:
Ah yeah, I've found the popular culture terms in regards to age disparity in sexual relationships

Cougar

Cougar—a woman over 40[5] who sexually pursues younger men, typically more than eight years her junior.[6] The origin of the word is debated; however, it is thought to have first appeared in print on the Canadian dating website Cougardate.com[7] and has been used in TV series, advertising and film. The 2007 film Cougar Club was dedicated to the subject and in Spring 2009 TV Land aired a reality show called The Cougar. A new show called Cougar Town, explores the difficulty and stigma of many so-called "Cougars".

Cub

Cub—a younger male who is going out with an older woman, often used with the term Cougar

MILF/GILF/FILF (personally, I replace the 'mum' for 'man' if being a little mischievous)

MILF (an acronym of "Mother [or 'Mom'] I'd Like to Fuck")—a sexually desirable older woman, though not necessarily one who has children. The term is used frequently as a descriptor of pornography featuring older women. It was popularized by the 1999 film American Pie, is also the name given to the pot sold by Nancy Botwin on the Showtime series "Weeds", by 2008, the term was familiar enough to be used on television series such as 30 Rock (episode "MILF Island"), Scrubs (episode "My Jerks") and Pushing Daisies (episode "The Norwegians") without necessitating its definition (which would have violated Federal Communications Commission rules). The 'M' is replaced by 'G' (for 'Grandmother') in the case of women who are in their mid-50s or older, and/or are actual grandmothers; thus, GILF (or G-MILF). The male counterpart terms are DILF (an acronym of "Dad I'd Like to Fuck")[11]–for Dad–within the gay community and FILF[12]–for Father–in the straight community. Other variations have also been used - 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin was described as a VPILF or GILF (Governor I'd Like to Fuck), although technically she was also a mother and a grandmother

So it kinda works both ways, not only may an older woman have a libido and want to continue having sex just for pleasure, there are younger men/women out there who also prefer older ladies as partners.
(The whole, she knows how to please herself already and can make me a sexual god by teaching me all sorts, yada yada excuse that some teens and young men in their 20's have)

PPS: I'll get back to you later Narona on your pm over the weekend~

[Narona]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I think you don't give women enough credit. Even if the whole thing was some kind of tinfoil-hat conspiracy to make women more sexually beholden to their husbands, do you think everyone would just take it lying down?

Let me fix that. You should say that I don't give enough credits to humans as a whole