Exactly.

But again, I want to point out that “low libido” is only how it’s described in the mainstream media. That phrase rarely appears in the medical literature. [I just conducted full-text searches of Medline and Cinahl to confirm.]

The clinical definitions refer to “persistent or recurrent deficiency and/or absence of sexual fanatasies/thoughts, and/or desire for, or receptivity to, sexual activity, which causes personal distress” which is a much stronger and less abstract description.

If a person has experienced a prolonged decrease and they want to correct it, fine. Some people are perfectly happy being ‘chaste.’ I can’t really understand that but neither is it any of my business.
Again, I agree 100%. I don’t think anybody’s talking about rounding up satisfied celibates and forcing lust-potions on them.
But people seem so worried about this possibility that they disdain (and thus possibly deter) any research into treatments for those who are seeking help.

And who defines low? Is it your partner? How do you know yhat your’s isn’t low but rather that their’s is abnormally high? All quite relative, no?

That’s one of the reason these matters are best diagnosed by talking with one’s doctor. Questionaires and interviews can separate the Woody Allen-joke complaints that are within the norm from actual problematic situations.

I hope spoilers like this won’t reduce their effectiveness, but you can judge for yourself. Read some of the questionaires used in diagnosis. They’re extremely patient-focused, and skimming over the survey instruments for women, I don’t see anything measuring the partner’s satisfaction, though the there are psychological questions asking about the relationship in general (which can clue the physician into whether this is the patient’s distress or partner pressure).

And again, it is partly relative. I suspect many couples would perceive sex once a month to be sign of a severe problem. My husband and I would be delighted to achieve that rate.

I don’t think it’s low libido that needs to be fixed, but you seem to agree that if there’s a mismatch in a relationship, it’s a real problem, not just a superficial one. And I think Americans have a problem with acknowledging that. Sex is supposed to be a low, base motive for getting into a relationship, and someone who insists that sex be a part of a relationship is deemed shallow or oversexed.

A low libido is only a problem if you think it is. If a person is happy with their sexuality it isn’t a problem. And who defines low? Is it your partner? How do you know yhat your’s isn’t low but rather that their’s is abnormally high? All quite relative, no?

If a person has experienced a prolonged decrease and they want to correct it, fine. Some people are perfectly happy being ‘chaste.’ I can’t really understand that but neither is it any of my business.

Here’s yet another reason not to abstain before marriage. You should be damn sure you and your partner are compatible on all levels.

All doctors have for women is therapy (individual, sex-therapy, couples-counseling, you name it), so everybody gets sent to therapy, even people who don’t need it or who would be better served by a different approach.

This research adds tools to the toolbox, gives two options for treatment: body and mind. Heck, research on hormone levels actually helps doctors find ways to determine which approach may be best, through diagnostic blood tests.

I got nailed for about five years of therapy before getting my diagnosis. Five years of therapy which insurance generally doesn’t cover and which didn’t bring us any closer to resolving our problems. I was lucky that during that time I was in a job where I could afford to pay for all that out of pocket. I know that most women aren’t even in that position.

In contrast, the future I’m seeing is where women with sexual problems can get bloodtests from their doctors. Some of them will be indicated as candidates for hormone replacement or other treatment of physiological basis. Others will have this approach ruled out, so look at other causes, such as therapy. [Nothing prevents the first group from therapy either, of course.]

I don’t see why that concept should be so controversial.

Look. It’s the hammer and nail problem — when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Doctors who have a medication available will prescribe it, even to people who don’t need it or who would be better served by a different approach.

Of course, the fact that everything looks like a nail doesn’t change the fact that some of those things that look like nails actually are nails. But it also doesn’t change the fact that the hammer is the wrong tool for screws or staples, nor does it mean that there’s something wrong with the screw or the staple because the hammer isn’t the right tool.

I’m not sure how saying that some instances of low libido may have physical or chemical causes is inherently “pathologizing” people with low libido. If the person experiencing it feels that it’s a problem, then shouldn’t exploring all possible causes be part of trying to find a solution? Not every instance of depression is chemically-related, but if you don’t consider that as a possibility, you’re running the risk of not helping people who genuinely need help.

That’s why I’m trying to point out the difference between low libido and something extreme enough to cause personal distress.

My mailbox is filled with V1agra spam, too. But maybe if we can make the point that these aren’t about everyday dissatisfactions, it can improve matters for all parties. Reduce the pressure on those who are healthy to see mere “low libido” as a problem, as well as helping those who do need further treatment.

Because you have a filtering issue as well, which is that you seem unable to consider any discussion on the issue without filtering through the lens of your own situation.

Not every instance of “low libido” is a medical problem, or anything more than a mismatch between partners. It makes no sense to pathologize the person who has the lower libido, particularly when there is no physical cause and other, more conservative options have not been explored.

And I think that partly comes from getting technical information filtered through the mainstream media.

Brad Delong constantly complains about the way the press mishandles economic information. And I’ve seen other subject-experts make similar criticisms about how the media covers areas they understand.

Would you be more comfortable if instead of discussing “low libido” we talked about the problem as “persistent or recurrent deficiency and/or absence of sexual fanatasies/thoughts, and/or desire for, or receptivity to, sexual activity, which causes personal distress”?

I think the discomfort comes from the idea of considering a low libido a problem that needs to be fixed.