01.10.2010 - 4:38 p.m.

A bunch of men who just happen to work in various marketing divisions of pharmaceutical companies were shot down recently in their bid to convince two thirds of women worldwide (alright wealthy predominately white countries) that it's their own fault their sex lives weren't like an extract from "Well Hung Plumbers Vol.IV - The Final Insertion"

It seems that contrary to their 'market research', women who don't fancy their husbands (or the researchers conducting the poll) aren't actually suffering from sexual dysfunction it turns out they just make poor decisions when choosing partners. They are also too compassionate in not throwing his sorry, lying arse out the door the nanosecond they realise what he's actually like. Maybe he'll change, maybe i can change him, maybe i just need to find the person he convinced me he really was and then we'll be tickety boo.

I would imagine that at the bottom of several pages of long and complicated polling sheets filled with tick boxes and relational graphs was one word angrily scrawled in marker pen that just read

lesbians

What the pharma companies really need to develop is a pill that gives women an actual insight into the heart of a man rather than being blinded by the thick layer of bullshit some all dysfunctional men spin around themselves to disguise their many various dysfunctionalities. I'd call this pill Seethruitall, you'd only need one tablet per man you're auditioning, the flip side would be a pill called Honestocil which you give to the man prior to being auditioned and would prevent him from casting the bullshit spell.

I can see why the pharma's would be eager to promote this illness even if it is entirely fictitious, male sexual dysfunction is primarily mechanical once you get past the manifest mental baggage that may be causing the mechanical failure, and there's loads of money been made from men with low self esteem 'cos when you get down to the fundamentals, no man wants to be a failure even if it costs twenty quid per four to six hours (see your doctor if it persists longer)

Women obviously aren't that simple, the mechanics are subtle, diffuse and poorly understood and no-one who's spent any time conscious in female company would claim otherwise, to then create a global marketing strategy based on such an obvious lie would make you no better than a tobacco or oil company. But i suppose that's what you get from the 'invisible guiding hand of free market capitalism' - lies to cause you to give very rich people more money than you expected to give, made up syndromes for wealthy western markets are the new money spinner now that they've cured all the other (really profitable) diseases afflicting europe and the americas. I mean who hasn't suffered from 'restless leg syndrome' at some point*, well now there's an expensive tablet or course of tablets you can take to cure** it.

*i haven't but then i'm not normal.

**by cure we mean 'alleviate the symptoms' as there's nothing to cure, you could y'know try going to bed earlier and doing more exercise, but how would we them meet our quarterly projections ? love, Big Pharma.

The definitions they used to quantify female sexual dysfunction are so laughably retarded you'd think they were taken straight out of a Porky's film, it's common knowledge that a proportion of women haven't ever reached orgasm, for a variety of reasons, that doesn't mean they can't it just means the circumstances haven't been optimum to achieve it and no pill is going to cause one to appear out of the aether and shake her socks off.

By the same token, chuck a shit partner into the equation and no-one's going anywhere fast, but extract her from aforementioned shit partner and present her with an attractive man (i know i'm only seeing from a hetero perspective but that's the land i live in and i would guess the same angle the researchers came from as well) who listens and may be quite handy technically speaking and suddenly the dysfunction vanishes, funny that.

This is also a lesson in how far feminism hasn't come (pardon the pun) despite now having the lifted the glass ceiling to within 25% of mens average salaries and being able to fight in most front line armies, women are still second class citizens in every religion contaminated society even if individual women may wield disproportionate power in isolated examples. It's still a man's world and making half arsed gestures in areas they don't and can't be bothered to fully understand is what a mans world is all about, very nice dear, go buy yourself a new frock and i'll take you to dinner, somewhere nice.

The boardrooms of all these trans-national, multi billion dollar corporations are 99% men, all over forty as a bare minimum, these are not naturally the most comprehending examples of the gender, being as they are generally stuck in the past and weighed down with preconceived notions instilled during their distant private education. Supply Side Economics (or Reaganomics if you like) work on the premise that the supplier supplies what he thinks will generate the most revenue from a marketplace and is always right and if you don't like what the supplier is handing out then you're at fault for not falling neatly into a demographic box, when aided by slick marketing and advertising it's very good for generating obscene profits provided you're selling toys or cars but it completely fails to address any kind of intangibles.

The flip side theory which is more attributable to this situation would be Demand Side Economics whereby the market communicates its needs to the producers and they produce accordingly, it's much more efficient and has higher satisfaction rates but removes the producer�s ability to predict and requires extreme flexibility in production capacity and response times, giant monolithic corporations don't like responding, they like to lead, and they're always right.

To continue the metaphor, when was the last time you heard of a man in a bar trying to understand what he could do for a woman to entice her out of her underwear rather than dazzling with bullshit and allowing the porsche keyfob on the bar to be visible at all times. On that basis what's the likely statistical success rate for someone presenting a set of variables and expecting a randomly chosen (alright, not that random) receiver to have exact corresponding variables, pretty fucking slim, if you then add into the mix it's maybe ten minutes to closing time and maybe she doesn't want to go home alone that night or the heating's broken then the conclusion is forced even though the variables don't match, he thinks his patent magic bullshit has worked when in reality she lowered her standards to the point where he was able to meet them.

For at least the next few hours anyway.

Occasionally two people with exact matching variables will meet completely at random and once the enlightening initial period of interpersonal discovery has worn off they'll be fine from then on, but for the most part life is more compromise than magic disney fairy land, and in compromise land it's much easier to get trapped in a situation. He might be dull, controlling or unattractive now but there may be aspects which make the relationship bearable or at least preferable to starting over again or being alone, even if the first casualty is her sex life (with him at any rate).

Although saying that, the divorce rate in the fifty plus category is on the up, at least people now realise they have a choice even if they aren't ready or prepared to make the leap into darkness to achieve it. I'd like to see a well documented follow-up survey on how perceived female sexual dysfunction changes over time in line with improvements and changes in the life and lifestyle of the respondents.