New Study May Explain Low Libido
The ladies at Jezebel are discussing a new study today that may finally prove that women who are not interested in sex actually have a measurable problem.
According to the study by Wayne State University in Detroit ”hypoactive sexual desire disorder” (HSDD) takes place in the brain. Here’s what the BBC is reporting on the findings:
[The study's] author, Dr Michael Diamond, said it suggested that HSDD was a genuine physical problem.
He recruited 19 women who had been diagnosed with the condition, and compared their brain responses with those of seven others using a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner, which can measure levels of activation in different parts of the brain by detecting increased blood flow.
The women were asked to watch a screen for half an hour, with everyday television programmes interspersed with erotic videos.
In the seven women who did not have the HSDD diagnosis, increased activity in the insular cortices – parts of the brain believed to be involved in the processing of emotion – could be seen. The same did not happen in the women with HSDD.
This is all very interesting, but we’re kind of with the skeptics on this one. Just because there is a “physical problem,” as Diamond suggests, does not mean that’s where the issue originated, does it? Any number of things could be at the root of a lower libido, from stress to trauma to depression. We’re not scientists, but couldn’t that then be affecting the brain’s response?
Do you we have an expert in the house? Or, hey, just someone with an opinion?
I have a condition called Vulvodynia and had an extremely low libido. Conditions such as mine can be EXTREMELY psychosomatic, so I think it’s more than likely that women with HSDD may have an underlying condition.
*Note: my condition is partly responsible for my path to clean body products.
I completely agree with Alexandra. There is no way to know where the issue originated. Three people could all have the same heart disease and one could have gotten it from diabetes, one from high cholesterol, and the other from bad genes, yet they all have the same disease. However, each person requires different medications for treatment. Taking a blanket approach (saying one thing is good for everyone) is hardly ever a good idea when it comes to medical conditions.
Reading the full article, it is clear that the findings are as best inconclusive and at worst rather suspect.
Nineteen subjects do not a respectable study make. Much larger and more comprehensive studies would have to take place in order to make this anything but speculation on the part of the researcher–unfortunately this kind of speculation is rampant in what passes for science journalism!
Additionally, there is much criticism of the use of the umbrella term HSDD as a “diagnosis.” HSDD is applied to people who are so diverse in their “symptoms” that it really provides no useful information for treatment (if any is really needed). It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes to the HSDD description make it to the DSM-V.