Talk:Female sexual arousal disorder

first paragraph

Work needed. The first paragraph is not logical or even grammatical.

The definition of the disorder also appears to be misconstrued. In the latest DSM (DSM-5) it describes it as a lack of sexual interest/arousal - a reduced desire for, and pleasure from, sexual activity in the absence of other non-sexual mental disorders, medical conditions or relationship distress (for a period of at least 6 months) whereas on the page it states the opposite is true. But you have correctly distinguished it from the other types of sexual disorders. Good job! Dxmola (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial status

This article appears a bit lacking in the controversial status of this concept and could do for expansion in this area. 89.159.146.135 (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

-Seconded - what's up with the truncated criticism section? 90.193.99.133 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Wilson on FSAD

This link is interesting. He has criticised the existence of female sexual arousal disorder as in his view, many women are simply uninterested in sex as a result of their biological conditioning.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

External Links

The link Great Facts Page About Libido is misleading - it implies it links to a useful external resource, but while fairly detailed, it's essentially a link to a business. Would suggest it's removed as any content is likely skewed to promote the service advertised on the page. 22.14 18 July 2011 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.108.10 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are some further links about the criticism of FSD: http://www.esybron.org/index.phtml?p=sexual-dysfunction http://www.alternet.org/story/150510/how_the_pharmaceutical_industry_is_monetizing_the_female_orgasm?page=entire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.227.94 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of education

There absolutely should be a section on lack of education as a factor in "female sexual arousal disorder" as we know that there are an astonishing number of women who have no idea how orgasms even happen, let alone how to achieve one. I'll look for sources so we can create a section about that--would appreciate help. I have to say that this is a political issue as well as an economic one and the controversy surrounding this very questionable "condition" shouild be well explained on this page. Thoughts? --TEHodson 03:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FSAD Alternative Treatment Without Drugs

The Physician's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual proposed edition covers the subjects of HSDD, as well as, Female Sexual Arousal Disorder (FSAD) and Erectile Dysfunction (ED). Prescriptions and various substance remedies will alter the homeostatic balance of the body and may cause serious side effects. This does not have to be the case for people who wish to address these conditions safely and enjoy the normal human function of orgasm. Milan Polovich MD discusses treatments that are potentially dangerous and alternatively suggests a safe, economical modality as a solution. PLEASE WIKI-LINK to the non-explicit, informational website, ORGASMAXX.COM. This simple HTML/CSS website is authored by, Milan Polovich MD. The site has no RSS/plug-ins or social networking. It has no Rich media files, re-direction, or copywright infringement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.238.5 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not adhering to DSM5

Sorry, but this just doesn't reflect DSM 5. DSM 5 split Hypoactive sexual desire disorder into Male hypoactive sexual desire disorder and Female sexual interest/arousal disorder. So when you say Female sexual interest/arousal disorder, should be DDx (differentiated) from Hypoactive sexual desire disorder...... doctors don't know what you'er talking about 182.255.99.214 (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Female sexual arousal disorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426093955/http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=31&compID=10 to http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=31&compID=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)