The amount spent on breast cancer compared to prostate cancer is staggering. And yet we still get Dr Evelyn as a privileged white feminist complaining about inequality. Is this victmhood mentality really required to get top paying uni jobs? I thought so.

The escalating hysteria of this article is beyond belief.

Artificially defying nature is not a "right".

Drugs made by drug companies. Drug companies are companies. Companies are there to make money.

Look, this is pretty simple stuff: the reason that there is such a reliable supply of sildenafil and similar PDE5 inhibitors like tadalafil & vardenafil is because there is a reliable demand for them, and thus a reliable source of revenue.

You just have to follow the money.

Yes, erectile dysfunction gets a lot more press than the almost 'invisible' problem of vaginal dystrophy, which afflicts about 1 in 4 post-menopausal women. It's an unhappy condition that makes intercourse excruciatingly painful, because the walls of the vagina become thinned and the nerves exposed - causing, not just horrendous pain, but also bleeding.

However, it is successfully treated with HRT. Most women on HRT are there because of vaginal dystrophy. Also, women on HRT choose to gamble on the slightly increased risk of reproductive cancers - ovarian, cervical and breast cancer.

I don't know much about oestrogen patch shortages, but there are other HRT medications available - i.e. hormonal pessaries.

So ... the author does have a point about society's shyness on discussing the types of women's sexual dysfunction that comes with age, while at the same time, being fairly relaxed and comfortable about discussing equivalent male sexual dysfunction.

But it's unhelpful to turn it into a gender wars issue. It's more an issue of public information.

Another female "we are special" demanding everyone drop everything and be at their beck and call. Guess what, "you go girl" you're empowered, do it yourself; males don't care anymore.