Why does not the media advertise libido reducing drugs the way they do Viagra?

[Robert_Sock]

To the best of my knowledge, drug companies do not even have a medication specifically manufactured to decrease the libido. However, it’s well known that many anti-depressants, like Paxil, work to drastically reduce the libido. These medications are often used by the medical profession to reduce the sex drive in people seeking relief from their strong libido.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

where’s the money in that?

PS the media doesn’t advertise things, the drug companies pay the media to run their ads.

 

[Robert_Sock]

where’s the money in that?

PS the media doesn’t advertise things, the drug companies pay the media to run their ads.

It would seem to me to be quite a bit of money in that. I think there are many males who would prefer to have a reduced sex drive, but the option is not there.

 

[Allegra]

That should be a pretty interesting commercial!

Are you tired of always wanting to have sex? Do your sexual perversions interfere with your life? Does the mere sight of a female over thirteen distract you from your daily tasks? You’re not alone! Ask your doctor if Droopia is right for you!

Perhaps the drug companies think that population might be better reached through pamphlets at a therapist’s or doctor’s office. (Or from a judge’s bench)

 

[Dale_M]

However, it’s well known that many anti-depressants, like Paxil, work to drastically reduce the libido. These medications are often used by the medical profession to reduce the sex drive in people seeking relief from their strong libido.

I am not sure how many prescriptions are written specifically to reduce libido, but certainly off-label use of prescription drugs is not uncommon, at least in the US.

However, in the US to advertise a drug for the purpose of lowering libido would require that a pharmaceutical company get FDA approval of the drug for that purpose. And that would require new clinical trials for safety and efficacy, plus other expenses related to drug development. If a substantial market for the new use of a drug exists, the company might be willing to undertake the additional expense. Certainly that was done for Rogaine and Propecia, so that older drugs (minoxidil and finasteride) already approved for other uses could also be advertised as treating male pattern baldness.

Whether a substantial market exists for lowering libido, I don’t know. But I would guess that the drug companies are not convinced of it.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

To the best of my knowledge, drug companies do not even have a medication specifically manufactured to decrease the libido. However, it’s well known that many anti-depressants, like Paxil, work to drastically reduce the libido. These medications are often used by the medical profession to reduce the sex drive in people seeking relief from their strong libido.

Another question, sorry for hijacking, would the use of such medicine be approved of by the Church?

 

[Allegra]

Another question, sorry for hijacking, would the use of such medicine be approved of by the Church?

I can’t think of any reason why it wouldn’t be, especially if the person really had a problem that was affecting their ability to control themself.

 

[ANNE_2]

$$$$$$ - the pharmaceutical companies spend much money on lobbiests and campaign contributions.

The US Government and insurance companies even pay for Viagra through our taxes (Medicare and Medicaid, and now Obamacare) and premiums.
Not to mention chemical and mechanical contraceptives.

People should pay for their own sexual activity.

Unmarried persons should not get Viagra at taxpayer expense.

CCC " 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices."

Would Viagra be against Church teaching? For married persons only when both persons are of child bearing age it would probably be OK. There could be health reasons.

Drugs for lowering libido are given to sexual offenders in most States. In some cases it is part of their parole requirements in hopes that they will not rape again.

 

[Sair]

Hmmm. What a great idea. Instead of acknowledging and managing one’s natural desires, take a pill!

But that is the way of modern society - if you don’t fit the ‘norm’, take a pill to fix yourself. From doping children so they look like they’re paying attention in school, to the widespread abuse of antidepressants, stimulants and painkillers, to the pathologising of sexual differences, these days its seems there’s no deviation from the straight-and-narrow for which you can’t take a drug.

These days, the norm for sexuality seems to be that everyone must be up for it all the time. This is particularly so for men, for whom sex drive is subliminally linked to ideal notions of manhood - real men want sex, all the time. If you don’t, there’s obviously something wrong with you - you’re less than you should be. But if you take this little blue pill, that will make a man of you. In such a commercial environment, with the associated messages, it’s quite unlikely that any advertising campaign for a libido-reducing drug would get off the ground.

As for taking antidepressants to reduce libido, there are better and safer ways to manage it. Antidepressants are dangerous drugs. The reason they affect libido is because they affect just about every aspect of a person’s psyche. Some of the ones designed to manage mood simply take away the peaks and troughs, leaving the person consistently flat and dull.

Physical exercise, mental stimulation and social interaction help to keep a person on an even keel, and make any problem situations much easier to manage. If nothing else, a good physical workout can leave a person too tired to consider sex! This method works to manage and overcome depression too, by the way - I know this from personal experience.

Incidentally, it’s a well-known fact that the birth-control pill reduces the libido of many women who take it. Just sayin’…

 

[DaveBj]

I asked a pharmacist about this one time, and he told me that there are no drugs marketed for the reduction of the libido in males. Furthermore, the prescription of a drug for an unapproved off-label use is illegal. At least that’s what I’ve been told.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Anything that is powerful enough to block one of the biggest and most basic instincts is going to have side effects way beyond just suppressing libido. There might be a market of men who wish to live without their sex drive, but I highly doubt that they will be willing to live with the long term side effects the drug might have. Sex hormones do a lot more than just regulate the sex drive after all.

And if such a drug would become widely available then it would have some seriously negative consequences for the human species. There aren’t many people in the world who would go through the trouble of getting married and having children if they didn’t have a strong incentive to do so. If you want the world to continue then you want men and women to have a strong sex drive.

 

[DaveBj]

Anything that is powerful enough to block one of the biggest and most basic instincts is going to have side effects way beyond just suppressing libido. There might be a market of men who wish to live without their sex drive, but I highly doubt that they will be willing to live with the long term side effects the drug might have. Sex hormones do a lot more than just regulate the sex drive after all.

And if such a drug would become widely available then it would have some seriously negative consequences for the human species. There aren’t many people in the world who would go through the trouble of getting married and having children if they didn’t have a strong incentive to do so. If you want the world to continue then you want men and women to have a strong sex drive.

The market for this drug would likely be among men in marriages that are decades old, where the children have already been conceived, born, and grown up, and where the wives have been through menopause and for that or other reasons no longer want or enjoy sex. There are men in their 50s and 60s who still have an active sex drive, but who have no outlet for that drive that does not involve either putting their wives through something that the wives do not want, or engaging in activities that result in mortal sin. For such men, a libido-reducing drug would be a gift from God.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The market for this drug would likely be among men in marriages that are decades old, where the children have already been conceived, born, and grown up, and where the wives have been through menopause and for that or other reasons no longer want or enjoy sex. There are men in their 50s and 60s who still have an active sex drive, but who have no outlet for that drive that does not involve either putting their wives through something that the wives do not want, or engaging in activities that result in mortal sin. For such men, a libido-reducing drug would be a gift from God.

Such a drug can also be highly effective to treat premature ejaculation. One can still get an erection on a libido reducing medication, but achieving ejaculation takes a lot more “work.”

 

[KostyaJMJ]

The market for this drug would likely be among men in marriages that are decades old, where the children have already been conceived, born, and grown up, and where the wives have been through menopause and for that or other reasons no longer want or enjoy sex. There are men in their 50s and 60s who still have an active sex drive, but who have no outlet for that drive that does not involve either putting their wives through something that the wives do not want, or engaging in activities that result in mortal sin. For such men, a libido-reducing drug would be a gift from God.

There must not be much of a market for drugs like that; it seems more men in their 50’s or 60’s are more interested in taking drugs to help them have sex than avoid it. I think that a drug like you describe would be a blessing, but I’m obviously in the minority. I doubt that there much of a market outside of a rather small number of catholics.

 

[DaveBj]

There must not be much of a market for drugs like that; it seems more men in their 50’s or 60’s are more interested in taking drugs to help them have sex than avoid it. I think that a drug like you describe would be a blessing, but I’m obviously in the minority. I doubt that there much of a market outside of a rather small number of catholics.

I am 100% agreement with each of your statements.

On the subject of the open advertising of the ED drugs, I would have had the poo embarrassed out of me if during my 14-year-old grand-daughter’s recent visit an ED drug advert had come up while we were watching TV. Fortunately, Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra aren’t pushed much on Disney and Nik

 

[OraLabora]

First of all Viagra does not increase libido. It is a vasodilator. Someone with no libido who takes it won’t suddenly have an increased desire for sex. What it does, is allow persons who have a normal libido to be able to engage in normal sexual relations, at least in the cases where it is applicable. Not all causes of impotence will be corrected by Viagra, and Viagra (and the other similar drugs) can have side effects, some of them dangerous in certain cases.

Secondly there are drugs that reduce libido. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is hormone treatments. These drugs reduce or eliminate the body’s production of testosterone. The problem is that they have serious side effects, one of which is osteoporosis, because they have the same effect as menopause on women, the elimination of sex hormones from the body. They also have side effects like breast growth, possibly irreversible sterility, depression, reduced concentration, reduced muscle mass, increased body fat, etc.

In short the side effects would be worse than the benefits unless you have prostate cancer for which the alternative is death.

It seems to me to be a very dangerous way to achieve what should really be achieved through learning self-control. We are already an over-medicated society.

 

[Robert_Sock]

First of all Viagra does not increase libido. It is a vasodilator. Someone with no libido who takes it won’t suddenly have an increased desire for sex. What it does, is allow persons who have a normal libido to be able to engage in normal sexual relations, at least in the cases where it is applicable. Not all causes of impotence will be corrected by Viagra, and Viagra (and the other similar drugs) can have side effects, some of them dangerous in certain cases.

Secondly there are drugs that reduce libido. One of the treatments for prostate cancer is hormone treatments. These drugs reduce or eliminate the body’s production of testosterone. The problem is that they have serious side effects, one of which is osteoporosis, because they have the same effect as menopause on women, the elimination of sex hormones from the body. They also have side effects like breast growth, possibly irreversible sterility, depression, reduced concentration, reduced muscle mass, increased body fat, etc.

In short the side effects would be worse than the benefits unless you have prostate cancer for which the alternative is death.

It seems to me to be a very dangerous way to achieve what should really be achieved through learning self-control. We are already an over-medicated society.

Anti-depressants, such as Paxil, drastically reduces the libido without devastating side-effects.

 

[OraLabora]

Anti-depressants, such as Paxil, drastically reduces the libido without devastating side-effects.

That’s not what the FDA certified the drug for.

There is no need to medicate the normal. That is simply bad medicine. If a person has issues dealing with a normal libido, the correct treatment is… to learn self-control.

 

[TimothyH]

The contraception, abortion, and pornography industries would never stand for such a drug being introduced. A drug like that is a direct threat to them.

Planned Parenthood would be in a rage, insisting that such a drug interferes with one’s “Chioce” to have sex or not. Accusations that the drug is product of right-wing conspiracy led by the Pope to enslave the world would fly everywhere. It would take about three seconds for it to be in the supreme court where they would claim that sex is a first ammendment right and that the drug is unconsititutional.

The porn industry is the elephant in the room, and has been for some time. They control a significant portion of the economy and what isn’t talked about, is the influence the porn industry has, both overt and covert. A significant portion of credit card companie’s revenue comes from porn and most of the advances in online payment processing and online banking have been led by the porn industry. Paypal was invented to make paying for porn online easier. They do have great economic influence. I’ll bet he credit card industries would be working behind the scenes to stop such a drug as well.

But it is all led by the contraception industry (which includes urologists who provide vasectomies for men) who have created the culture of recreational sex and everything that results - aids, fashionalble homosexuality, pornography, demand for abortion, 40% of babies born into fatherless homes, et al.

And the contraception industry, backed by the abortion industry, isn’t going to let a drug like that come to market.

 

[Robert_Sock]

That’s not what the FDA certified the drug for.

There is no need to medicate the normal. That is simply bad medicine. If a person has issues dealing with a normal libido, the correct treatment is… to learn self-control.

Regardless of what the FDA certified the drug for, a physician can use it for other purposes. My psychiatrist, for example, uses the anti-depressant Paxil on sex offenders for a reduction of libido. My psychiatrist also uses drugs certified for schizophrenia on me for my anxiety.

What’s a “normal libido” in a sex-crazed society?