Last week, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story about what medical science is doing to counteract female sexual dysfunction. Ten years since Viagra hit the market, there is still no prescription available for women who suffer from medical conditions that cause the disorder -- defined by lack of arousal, inability to orgasm and discomfort or pain during sex. The article focuses on how some women feel left out of a fulfilling sex life because, while their partners can simply swallow a tablet to heighten arousal, women's needs are basically ignored.

Female sexual dysfunction is a hot-button issue for many feminists. Certain groups, like Our Bodies Ourselves, claim that such "dysfunction" doesn't exist: The fact that one woman has no desire to be touched while her next-door neighbor is happily having her clock rocked twice a day is simply a natural variation in sexual drive. I understand how that can be possible, but is it really natural?

Some of these same groups also claim -- mostly in the form of essays like this one -- that female sexual dysfunction was invented by the pharmaceutical industry to create a market for new products. If that's the case, then where are our miracle pills? Viagra hit pharmacy shelves in 1998, and competitors Levitra and Cialis were approved by 2003. Meanwhile, only Procter & Gamble has introduced a treatment for female sexual dysfunction -- a patch called Intrinsa -- but it was rejected by the FDA in 2004.

A study quoted in the Chronicle states that 43 percent of women and 31 percent of men nationwide report sexual dysfunction. That makes it a fairly equal-opportunity disorder. If the very definition of feminism is equality of the sexes, isn't it a little sexist to suggest that women should just accept a low or absent sex drive while their male bedmates can pop a little blue pill to get it on? Talk about unfair. And isn't this attitude counteractive to the fairly new female-positive sex toy industry? We've only just begun to hold our heads up high when walking into a sex shop to buy phthalate-free vibrators. I, for one, will not be made to feel embarrassed about wanting a drug for the exact same purpose. I'm hardly betraying my gender; I'm just trying to get my clock rocked over here.

I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and natural medicine to heal the body vs. turning to prescription drugs for every ailment. I also know that sexual disorders tend to have just as many psychological factors as they do physical. Yet somewhere in the middle, I'm totally OK with the idea of women walking up to the Walgreens pharmacy counter and slapping down a prescription for a little pink miracle pill. Perhaps I just want a little gender equality.

I own a battery-operated sex toy and I'm not ashamed to admit it; I certainly wouldn't be ashamed to buy a female sexual enhancement pill. Hell, I'd be first in line to volunteer for the manufacturer's clinical trials. But pharmaceutical companies claim there has been far less demand for a women's version of Viagra than there was for men. Why? If you stroke us, do we not also climax? Are there really women out there saying, "Oh, no thanks, I'd rather not have better and more frequent orgasms?"

I say bring on the drugs. Bombard me with TV ads featuring everyday women under soft lighting confiding in one another about female sexual dysfunction. Load my inbox with spam e-mails telling me that a wetter, more engorged labia is just one click away. I want my clock rocked. Doesn't everybody?

  • Alexis McKinnis will resume answering your burning sex questions next week (unless you actually enjoyed this essay and wish to encourage her to write more). Send her a question at advice@vita.mn or post it discreetly via her blog at www.vita.mn/alexis.