Scientology CCHR Attacks The New “Female Viagra”

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
The CCHR article was really irritating, as if they are trailblazers for female issues, although it had all the hallmarks of a CCHR campaign, namely sex, female sexuality and that old chestnut, 'psych drugs...'.
I noticed that also, and it pissed me off.

Scientology CCHR presents its argument in feminist terms, perhaps trying to analogize to the position of anti-porn feminists in the feminist sex wars, while adopting a paternalistic position that women must be protected from making their own decisions, and denying women's agency.

When Scientology CCHR asserts --
There have long been obvious differences between the sexual drive and desires of men and woman, comically revealed by Billy Crystal in the film City Slickers when he explained “women need a reason to have sex, men just need a place.”
-- it appears possible that Scientology CCHR's position is not based on a devotion to feminist principles.
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
:surprise1:

Since I have experience of chemical experiments and sexual interest... I have taken several psych meds, and some, especially SSRIs such as Prozac, and those anti-psychotics that increase the level of prolactine (a hormone), can really make you dull. But it wasn't like the sex drive just went away and I never thought about it, I had this good man in my house and I really wanted to want to, except the body would not respond, and it was all very strange and frustrating. Or with some meds, I could get still excited, but a happy end would be nowhere in sight, which was of course also frustrating.

Then occasionally, some med would have the opposite effect. :p

...

No personal experience with what the Scientology UFO Cult would call a 'Psych Drug' but the thing that really f*cks me up every time is antimalarial drugs. In many trips into malaria risk areas, I've tried just about all the drugs there are, and. I've experienced side effects such as hallucinatory dreams, a throat so dry that I lose the ability to speak, hot flushes, stomach cramps, lost sleep, and messed up sex drive.

Can't wait for the Cult to say that their victims should endure malaria, instead of risking trippy dreams.

You know what? Blood-sucking little pests suck -- and not just Miscavige.
 

Sassy

Patron Meritorious
I agree to what you are saying.

Just one note: this particular drug is not for post-menopausal women.

But doctors will probably prescribe it to any women who asks.

Another point I'd like to make is if there are any ESMB women who intend to use this drug, could I get your phone numbers? (I kid the ladies)

The Anabaptist Jacques

Oh, you....um....you! Well as a JUST turned 50 year old, I guess I can't get in line as I'm probably considered too old. Huh??!?!?
 

Glenda

Crusader
Oh, you....um....you! Well as a JUST turned 50 year old, I guess I can't get in line as I'm probably considered too old. Huh??!?!?

Happy birthday for whenever it was Sassy. Welcome to fabulous at 50! :flowers:

Now turning to the issues at hand, sorry I can't actually read the article. Just had dinner and don't want to spoil it.

CCHR is not supposed to target pharmaceuticals. CCHR Int needs to pull its dumb head in and get back on tek. We got super handled after the prozac debacle. Off-target, not in alignment with tek. :eyeroll:

They are supposed to "bust psychs". Fcuk these people are stupid. Sad, sad, sad. :yes:
 

Sassy

Patron Meritorious
I wish some of the women on ESMB would contribute to this thread.

FWIW, and I know this is anecdotal and far from scientific, but I've known some women who after going through menopause experienced a lessening of sexual desire and missed it. It was a loss. And it was NOT to satisfy a partner. It for themselves. I think it was a memory of a pleasure that they no longer felt, or felt to the same degree or with the same frequency.

It might be different if the woman had never experienced a certain level or frequency of desire, and as a result had no sense of loss.

Ultimately, it is up to each particular woman to decide if something is wrong, or non-optimal, or could be better. It is her decision.

My take on it is it is irrelevant whether something is labeled a "disease" or a "disorder." As one gets older, deteriorating eyesight is the most common thing in the world, and indeed quite natural. Does that mean people shouldn't wear glasses? I think the questions are: (1) is it something that can make people's lives better? ; (2) is it entirely voluntary? and (3) does it meet the FDA standards re: both safety and effectiveness?


As a JUST turned 50 year old, I'll chime in by saying there is NO way I would take anything so recently approved by the FDA. And that's regardless of what it's for! I don't trust them and all I'll say is it's ALL about the Benjamins. Always has been, always will be.

That being said, I personally find that about 30 minutes of exercise a day does wonders for all sorts of "things female".....:clap:
 

Sassy

Patron Meritorious
Happy birthday for whenever it was Sassy. Welcome to fabulous at 50! :flowers:

Now turning to the issues at hand, sorry I can't actually read the article. Just had dinner and don't want to spoil it.

CCHR is not supposed to target pharmaceuticals. CCHR Int needs to pull its dumb head in and get back on tek. We got super handled after the prozac debacle. Off-target, not in alignment with tek. :eyeroll:

They are supposed to "bust psychs". Fcuk these people are stupid. Sad, sad, sad. :yes:


Thanks! So far so good! :happydance::thumbsup:
 
Top