The 2009 documentary, Orgasm Inc., exposes pharmaceutical companies responsible for falsely advertising the so-called disease “Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD)”. The film is about the companies and entrepreneurs who are trying to convince women that it's a physiological problem if they don't climax every time they have sex, that can be "fixed" with pills or creams.
Canner asks the questions: Is "female sexual dysfunction" really a disorder or a genius marketing stroke? And could the products that are being developed do more harm than good?
These pharmaceutical companies created a female version of Viagra, reaching out to women who believed that they were cursed with not being able to achieve an orgasm. This cream or a pill would then in turn …show more content…
The Berman Sisters were paid up to 75,000 dollars per day by pharmaceutical companies to promote FSD on news programs around the country.
Because of Liz Canner’s suspicion, the idea that the pharmaceutical company she had just volunteered to make a video for could possibly be taking advantage of women was developed. Canner was in question about the statistics being recorded by Vivus and it caught her attention. Vivus employees would be secretive at times when it came to providing Canner with information for her film, not allowing cameras into the rooms, not being able to answer questions about the product effectively, etc. Vivus played an important role in convincing women that if their sexual experience did not result in an orgasm, then something was wrong with them, and they were seen as not normal. The thing about sexual experience is that our sense of satisfaction comes from our expectations. In other words, if the pharmaceutical industry, through their savvy marketing, can convince women that they should be having an orgasm every time they have intercourse, then a lot of women are going to believe they have female sexual dysfunction. If women think they should have the same libido at 60 as they …show more content…
It seemed as a game for pharmaceutical companies, where the product that was able to make the most money, market the most, and gain the most customers was deemed the
winner. As stated in the film, FSD was viewed as the hysteria of the new era. Hysteria (hysterical paradoxical of relief) was treated by having doctors use vibrators to stimulate the patient, which is now referred to as an orgasm. This procedure would take place at least twice a week for some women and was a common phenomenon of the past. Today, as was prevalent in the past, there is a lack of comprehensive sex education, which is used to take advantage of women. There is a way that society tells women they should be perceived and receive pleasure, and if those standards are not met, then something is severely wrong. This way, society is able to keep women in their place, pouring money into products that pharmaceutical companies create and keeping its entrepreneurs rich. Social influences don’t want women to believed that they are in control of their own bodies, and how they decide to use them should be up to them, and not anyone else. There are purposive and non purposive influences that shape the idea
Canner asks the questions: Is "female sexual dysfunction" really a disorder or a genius marketing stroke? And could the products that are being developed do more harm than good?
These pharmaceutical companies created a female version of Viagra, reaching out to women who believed that they were cursed with not being able to achieve an orgasm. This cream or a pill would then in turn …show more content…
The Berman Sisters were paid up to 75,000 dollars per day by pharmaceutical companies to promote FSD on news programs around the country.
Because of Liz Canner’s suspicion, the idea that the pharmaceutical company she had just volunteered to make a video for could possibly be taking advantage of women was developed. Canner was in question about the statistics being recorded by Vivus and it caught her attention. Vivus employees would be secretive at times when it came to providing Canner with information for her film, not allowing cameras into the rooms, not being able to answer questions about the product effectively, etc. Vivus played an important role in convincing women that if their sexual experience did not result in an orgasm, then something was wrong with them, and they were seen as not normal. The thing about sexual experience is that our sense of satisfaction comes from our expectations. In other words, if the pharmaceutical industry, through their savvy marketing, can convince women that they should be having an orgasm every time they have intercourse, then a lot of women are going to believe they have female sexual dysfunction. If women think they should have the same libido at 60 as they …show more content…
It seemed as a game for pharmaceutical companies, where the product that was able to make the most money, market the most, and gain the most customers was deemed the
winner. As stated in the film, FSD was viewed as the hysteria of the new era. Hysteria (hysterical paradoxical of relief) was treated by having doctors use vibrators to stimulate the patient, which is now referred to as an orgasm. This procedure would take place at least twice a week for some women and was a common phenomenon of the past. Today, as was prevalent in the past, there is a lack of comprehensive sex education, which is used to take advantage of women. There is a way that society tells women they should be perceived and receive pleasure, and if those standards are not met, then something is severely wrong. This way, society is able to keep women in their place, pouring money into products that pharmaceutical companies create and keeping its entrepreneurs rich. Social influences don’t want women to believed that they are in control of their own bodies, and how they decide to use them should be up to them, and not anyone else. There are purposive and non purposive influences that shape the idea