As in yes a mood-altering aphrodisiac would have potential for abuse, mood alterants already are abused, but viagra isn't a fucking aphrodisiac.
Indeed, which is what I meant and failed to imply (because I suck at using the word libido properly).
"Female viagra" is a catch-all term though - it's used to discuss anything related to what's considered female sexual dysfunction, which commonly is considered to be dealing with low libido since any purely physiological effect doesn't really work.
elm seems to think this drug would ideally be some sort of love potion which is stupid and no, it wouldn't.
Explain to me, how a mood altering drug designed to increase sexual desire in women, would not be considered by some as THE drug to try to slip to women.
Yes you still have free will, but I'm pretty good at poor decision making when my own hormones are up.
You should also be pretty good at recognizing that your decision-making is hormonally influenced at a given moment and correcting for such. The difference between puberty and adulthood. Also a necessary skill to learn for surviving situations that involve adrenaline and thinking at the same time.
Recognizing hormonally influenced decision making and fully correcting for it are two different things. No one does it perfectly. Hence my idle speculation on the matter - which is what this started at - which was, it's not a date-rape drug, but it is surreptitiously messing with someone's moods. Assuming there are no side-effects (unlikely), I don't where to put that one. Other then "creepy" at the very least and abhorrent to my mind.
The discussion of the drug that doesn't exist anyway isn't interesting to me. Fully correcting for them isn't so easy as to be automatic, it takes some measure of discipline, but not actually that large of a measure and honestly it is an incredibly basic requisite life-skill, on the level of tying your shoes.
I posted because I got interested by some minor potential side-effects of the type of drug being discussed in this article, because it came up.
Instead I got a tirade bullshit similar to the thrashings of uni-students to when anyone criticizes grammar and makes a very minor mistake themselves.
Also a VC "I am awesome and you should be to" post where he talks about being super-awesome at something he's going to fall within the standard deviation of the rest of the population for, meaning that in fact the person posting might have been referring to the way the rest of the population and ergo him also experience it in the first place.
As in yes a mood-altering aphrodisiac would have potential for abuse, mood alterants already are abused, but viagra isn't a fucking aphrodisiac.
Indeed, which is what I meant and failed to imply (because I suck at using the word libido properly).
"Female viagra" is a catch-all term though - it's used to discuss anything related to what's considered female sexual dysfunction, which commonly is considered to be dealing with low libido since any purely physiological effect doesn't really work.
But doesn't that study contradict that assertion?
Also no. See above article.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited April 2009
Like the flu, or gays, or how the flu affects gays.
The discussion of the drug that doesn't exist anyway isn't interesting to me. Fully correcting for them isn't so easy as to be automatic, it takes some measure of discipline, but not actually that large of a measure and honestly it is an incredibly basic requisite life-skill, on the level of tying your shoes.
Also a VC "I am awesome and you should be to" post where he talks about being super-awesome at something he's going to fall within the standard deviation of the rest of the population for, meaning that in fact the person posting might have been referring to the way the rest of the population and ergo him also experience it in the first place.
The only one claiming I'm awesome here is you, ace.
Pfizer's research showed that genital blood flow increased in Viagra-treated women as they watched erotic videos, but the arousal did not make them desire sex.
In other words, Viagra works the same way in women as it does in men, and what ELM is talking about is something else entirely. This is why people shouldn't get science from news articles.
James on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Pfizer's research showed that genital blood flow increased in Viagra-treated women as they watched erotic videos, but the arousal did not make them desire sex.
In other words, Viagra works the same way in women as it does in men, and what ELM is talking about is something else entirely. This is why people shouldn't get science from news articles.
Posts
But doesn't that study contradict that assertion?
If I sit here any longer that is indeed what I will end up having.
Name three things that that may lead to a second coming
I posted because I got interested by some minor potential side-effects of the type of drug being discussed in this article, because it came up.
Instead I got a tirade bullshit similar to the thrashings of uni-students to when anyone criticizes grammar and makes a very minor mistake themselves.
Also a VC "I am awesome and you should be to" post where he talks about being super-awesome at something he's going to fall within the standard deviation of the rest of the population for, meaning that in fact the person posting might have been referring to the way the rest of the population and ergo him also experience it in the first place.
I'm going to bed.
EDIT: Also no. See above article.
e: That discussion killed his mood.
swing flu is a gay biological weapon?
CALL THE MILITARY
The only one claiming I'm awesome here is you, ace.
"General the kids are putting on zoot suits and making Brian Setzer famous again."
"GOD DAMN THE GAYS!"
pleasepaypreacher.net
They are babbys.
I miss Johnny
Both.
:?:
Shit someone get us Brendan Fraser.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah that is the only Karnak I know about.
In other words, Viagra works the same way in women as it does in men, and what ELM is talking about is something else entirely. This is why people shouldn't get science from news articles.
We do not speak the name of the Beast!
I miss things like that on the tonight show. Proabably why I can't wait for Conan to take over.
No, that was good.
Yeah, he left far too soon.
How old are you, Elldren?
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225152&title=snoutbreak-09-the-last-100-days
old enough
Cannot view in Canada
pft, way to be a stereotype
noooooooooo
Snoutbreak '09!
SUCK IT SOCIALIST!
pleasepaypreacher.net
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/snoutbreak-09-the-daily-s_n_192151.html
blugh. 27.
IS IT BIO-TERRORISM?
ARE YOU SURE??
Oh, that movie? I wasn't born yet when it came out.