Happy Valentine's Day from the Drugs of the Future

It was recently pointed out to me that in addition to the ridiculous marketing ploys that small companies use to sell their products around Valentine's Day, the week and a half leading up to Valentine's Day is also an opportunity for major pharmaceutical companies that are developing sex drugs, to push their unproven agendas on the public via a media thirsty for sexual content.

Yesterday's misleading headline on Forbes.com is a perfect example. The article, titled "How to Spice Up Your Sex Life" is actually a review of a raft of untested, and in some cases entirely theoretical products designed to treat sexual dysfunction. The teasing continues with an accompanying "in pictures" segment which is promoted with an image of a couple embracing on a bed, but when you enter you're treated to a series of promotional photos from pharmaceutical companies of prototype packaging for their non-existent wonder drugs. Mind you the photo of that nasal spray was pretty hot.

There is a single voice of sanity in the article when sex therapist Joy Davidson points out that sexual problems are usually much more complicated than a cold or flu. But there is so much I'm sure Joy said that didn't make it in the article. For example:

When will the media stop confusing sexual dysfunction and sexual pleasure? Simply increasing blood flow to the genitals is NOT a guarantee of good sex. Even the studies paid for by pharmaceutical companies have shown that sex drugs don't come with a sexual satisfaction guarantee. Sex is so much more than plumbing and wiring, it's about where we lay the pipes and how we cross the wires. But pharmaceutical companies have only come up with ways to change the wiring and plumbing, so that's the bill of goods we're being sold.

Why don't editors scrutinize sex stories the way they do any other story? If you read the Forbes story, the people who have actually studied human sexuality and are quoted are singular in their message: drugs aren't enough, and aren't necessary in many cases. Yet the majority of the article is about all the exciting drugs in development. Why are facts and pesky things like context not required in stories about sex?

Why do we only hear from "real people" when they're representing a drug company? It's not that I'm aggravated about Forbes.com covering sexuality; I wish they did it more often. Sex is important to everyone, in one way or another, and we all have a story to tell. But the only time we hear stories are when it's Joe and Jane Smith who are in their 60s and Joe's having trouble with erections, or more recently it's about Jane who has never wanted sex as much as Joe, but has heard about a drug that could make her want sex more.

According to some media watchdog friends, we can expect more articles like this one between now and Valentine's Day, so stay tuned for more ranting.

Read more - Forbes.com: How To Spice Up Your Sex Life