Skip navigation
advertisement

The many mysteries of the female orgasm

Researchers still don't know much about women's sexual satisfaction

F. Birchman / MSNBC.com
By Brian Alexander
msnbc.com contributor
updated 3:07 a.m. ET July 18, 2005

Brian Alexander

E-mail
Medical researchers do not often speak or write with exclamation points, but then most medical researchers don’t spend much time trying to figure out why some women are sexually unhappy.

Dr. Susan Davis, however, does just that, and she’s annoyed. “Women’s sexual health has been very trivialized and neglected,” Davis argues. “If a man has a problem with sexual function, he is seen to have a biological problem. If a woman has a problem with sexual function, it is first considered psychological!”

Davis is correct. A 1977 review of “marital sexual dysfunctions” in the prestigious journal Annals of Internal Medicine declared: “For classification purposes, the three basic physiologic deficits — excitement phase dysfunction, orgasmic phase dysfunction and vaginismus — are subdivided into primary and secondary types. Primary dysfunctions represent long-standing developmental problems and are usually purely psychological in origin. Secondary dysfunctions occur after a period of normal sexual functioning and may be organic or psychological in origin.”

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

That dogma has held back research into female sexual function to the point that science still knows little about it. Davis, an M.D. and scientist at Australia’s Monash Medical School in Victoria can testify to the challenge. In a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) this week her team found that no single measurement of androgen hormones, like testosterone, could predict low desire.

As faithful readers of Sexploration know, there has been hope that treatment with testosterone can reignite passion, but Davis’ work shows that things may be more complicated. Some women with low testosterone did not have low desire, while some women with normal levels did.

A tool belt of sex drugs for men
So now we have just one more mystery about women’s sexual health and that’s what I found so fascinating. The new JAMA paper arrives shortly after a study showing that men who are too quick on the draw can be helped by a drug called dapoxetine. The drug, which is now being considered for approval by the Food and Drug Administration, may be good news for men with premature ejaculation.

Those who read the FDA tea leaves say a decision ought to come (sorry, I couldn’t help that) late in 2005 or early 2006.

So among our three choices (Viagra, Cialis and Levitra) to help us get and keep a stiffy, and maybe a drug to give us a more leisurely trip to Nirvana, we men are developing a tool belt of sex drugs. Look out, baby.

Meanwhile, women have … um … lemme think. Well, actually, I couldn’t think of much, so I went looking, and here’s what I found in the research: “lack of knowledge,” “additional studies needed,” “there have been limited anatomic and physiological investigations,” “information about the sexual health care needs for midlife women is limited.”

Though the situation is improving, science knows far too little about how women’s parts work. And government is mounting precious few studies to find out. When I looked for clinical trials related to female sexuality being sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I found exactly two and they were related to the effects of cancer treatment.

And yet, according to a recent study by researchers at Yale School of Medicine and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, nearly half of all women suffer from some sexual problem. Many suffer from more than one.

Medicalizing nature?
Scientists like Davis are trying to change this and in so doing they have walked into something of a controversy. Last year, when Procter and Gamble was trying to win FDA approval for their female testosterone patch, which the company claimed could help women boost their sexual desire, some critics argued that drug companies were medicalizing nature, creating a new disease or syndrome in order to then sell a drug to treat it.


Resource guide