Within a culture that is heavily dependent on psychological, psychiatric and medical concepts to explain the ‘human condition’ (Rose, 2006), it may be difficult to imagine what Tiefer (1996) describes as a ‘postmedicalisation’ era. ‘Medicalisation’ refers to the reconstruction of a concept specifically within medical terms (Conrad, 2004). For example, the range of physical and emotional experiences that can coincide with menstruation were reframed as ‘Premenstrual Tension’ (PMT) in 1931, then ‘Premenstrual Syndrome’ (PMS) (Ussher, 2003) before the pathologisation of ‘Late Luteal Phase Dysphoric Disorder (LLPDD) (Caplan, McCurdy-Myers & Gans, 1992) and the DSM-5 proposal for ‘Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder’ (PMDD) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2011a). The application of biomedical understanding to sexuality brings with it ‘binarized thinking’ of healthy and unhealthy or normal and abnormal, “...that delimit the existence of alternative conceptualizations” (Potts, 2002, p.3). This categorization of sex is framed as scientific, objective and based on physiology. However, as Ussher (1997) argues, “...clear ideological judgments about ‘sex’ and the status of ‘woman’ and ‘man’ underpin these supposedly objective systems of classification” (p.265). The medicalisation of sex therefore, “...profoundly shapes the popular view of sexuality, despite a culture full of diverse sexual voices” (Tiefer, 2001, p.65). This ‘cacophony’ of sexual diversity (Plummer, 1995) gets overlooked due to the prominence of biomedical discourse (Potts, 2002; Tiefer, 2004; Ussher, 1997) that conveys sexuality as universal, innate and biological (Groneman, 2011). The medicalization of sex promotes, ‘...the illusion that sexual problems are medical problems’ (Szasz, 1991, p.34).