The dark side of Viagra
If reports are anything to go by, the use of Viagra tablets has a dark side.
A case that readily comes to mind is the story of a 67-year-old man, John Jamelske, who was arrested for holding a number of young women captive as his sexual slaves in an underground bunker, after taking Viagra.
According to The Annals of Pharmacotherapy a book written by two toxicologists, Harold Milman and S.B. Arnold, "Viagra has been widely mentioned as a contributing factor in 22 cases involving aggression, 6 involving murder and 13 involving rape." Obviously, Viagra tablets are linked to the surge of violence against women.
In the course of a research, a female researcher found that Pfizer, the maker of Viagra, had been having consultations with quite a few experts about the possibility of litigation down the line regarding the diamond-shaped pills.
It is possible that a pill for sexual potency can be dangerous in a culture that is highly unsure about sexuality – both disgusted and obsessed with sexual issue at the same time.
This ambivalence towards sex is something that has been bequeathed by the Puritans. This is one reason that discussions on sexuality are so charged emotionally and controversial (as can be seen in regards to sex education, reproductive politics, advertising, etc.).
In the U.S, for example, there seems to be so much time and effort expended on censoring sexuality as it is expended encouraging it, which further confuses the populace!
This confusion can be seen in the bedrooms and the society at large, and when ED drugs like Viagra are added to the mix, there can be a massive highlight of the issues the society has with sexuality as a whole.
Still on the sexual ambivalence issue, we exist in a culture that is afraid to discuss sex with our children. So why is it that commercials on Viagra and the other ED drugs are run during primetime and no one has anything to say about that?
Double-standard, isn’t it?
At least one Pfizer TV ad – the one where the man gets devil horns after using Viagra – was taken off the air. But the truth is: Sexual adverts are already everywhere.
Think of all the adverts down through the many years: Viagra racecars, Viagra adverts during the Superbowl, where Janet Jackson got a flak for showing one of her breasts during the commercial breaks; adverts discussing erections and penises, adverts on condoms, and beer adverts that promote sexuality like crazy which were considered appropriate!
What about this other one? Viagra was posted over home base when Pfizer primarily sponsored the pro baseball. Now Levitra and Cialis can be seen advertised just as often.
It really goes as far back as to the days of the Puritan era. Though we are obsessed with sex, we are also offended by it. It is a fine line.
For some people, an African American woman’s breast crossed the line. In the context of medical dysfunction – complete with scientific legitimacy and imprimatur – sexuality seems to pass.
If we really want to look at the way men and women use pharmaceutical interventions, we will see that men focus on performance (Viagra) and that women focus on appearance (Botox). Or is this a mere generalisation of the gender tendencies?
Sociologists would rather want to argue that these are the values or characteristics we have chosen to teach each sex to value most. Men are all about what they can DO, while women are all about how they will LOOK.
This is constantly reinforced in our society (just look at the ads – men being depicted as generally active, women being depicted as body parts, etc.). So it follows that our use of drugs maintains these gender distinctions.
