Science's quest to tweak the female libido has been put on hold. A panel of experts dealt a blow to the drug that's been dubbed the female Viagra when they voted on Friday against FDA approval.
The problem, they say, is that flibanserin -- and yes, that's a horrible name for a drug meant to put a woman in the mood -- is just not effective enough. In a study done on women with low sex drives by the German drug manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim, the drug modestly increased the number of satisfying sexual experiences women reported each month. But it did nothing for the level of desire the subjects reported. Which is to say: the women had more sex, but not better sex.
This is not the end of the road for flibanserin. The FDA typically follows the committee's advice, but it doesn't have to do so. And while whether women even need a female Viagra is a subject of heated debate, if this drug isn't approved, Big Pharma is not likely to hold back on a market that's estimated at $2 billion.Other contenders include Intrinsa, a hormonal patch already available to some women in the UK and Canada, and LibiGel, a gel that you rub on, of all places, your arm. Both aim to make women hornier by giving them -- you guessed it -- testosterone.
Mara Hvistendahl is writing The X-Y Problem,a book on reproductive technology, sex selection, and gender imbalance.

Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.


Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Science! Trying to make the female body a giant oragasm button sice 1883!
"...the drug modestly increased the number of satisfying sexual experiences women reported each month. But it did nothing for the level of desire the subjects reported. Which is to say: the women had more sex, but not better sex."
Wouldn't this actually be that the women had better sex, but not more? It's written in a somewhat misleading manner. . .the other article I read about this drug stated the results as "better, but not more" as well.
Wonder if they can make a laundy soap with this stuff in it..... Just sayin..
"the drug modestly increased the number of satisfying sexual experiences women reported each month. But it did nothing for the level of desire the subjects reported. Which is to say: the women had more sex, but not better sex."
Sorry, but I think they are seriously missing a major marker for success.
Here's an equation that should help quantify:
sex + more sex = Good
Hey now that’s what I call good mathematical application of the sciences. Still think it would be great to add to the laundry soap…
i think female viagra is not as effective as for men, but i tried it with my girlfriend by putting it by grinding it, in her drink without telling her lol and it did work perfectly i bought it from here (bit.ly/Pe7C92) and i recommend to anyone even tho its not fair maybe doing it this way but knowing most of the women wont accept that they are not as horny sometimes maybe juts do it this way :), i used a smothie for the drink haha i told her after by the way so anyone here doesn't think i'm an idiot lol