.

Roses are Red, Viagra is Blue

I love Viagra's disclaimers at the end of their rather witty commercials. In a sense it is very comical. "Erections may last over four hours" is quite a riot. I guess it would be uncomfortable if you have to sit there after ejaculating still with an erect penis to go along with your limp body. That tends to be physiologically incorrect. Then, as if a last ditch effort to save the prolonged erectness issue, they suggest to immediately seek medical attention if erection fails to subside overall (lol). My all time favorite Viagra disclaimer though is making sure one is healthy enough for sexual activity. Because God forbid some Geriatric on Viagra keels over and dies while humping some old hag, they will not be responsible. What better way to die, i say!!!

As you may or may not know, the unfortunate disease of Erectile Dysfunction inspired the research and creation of these drugs (naturally). I believe the disease has no indubitable cure, thus, Viagra was invented, a potent but yet an ephemeral cure. Obviously the business of Viagra has been a lucrative one since its inception, and for good reason. It has changed lives. Their recent ads however have been strongly rebuked by the FDA, austere as the puritans they are. The F.D.A.'s division of drug marketing, advertising and communications objected to the language at the start of their recent commercials. They began: ''Remember that guy who used to be called 'Wild Thing'? The guy who wanted to spend the entire honeymoon indoors? Remember the one who couldn't resist a little mischief? Yeah, that guy. He's back.'' At that point, the ends of the blue V from the Viagra brand logo rose behind the man's head like a pair of devil horns; that image has also appeared in the print ads, which have run in newspapers and magazines.

FDA claims that the campaign improperly omits information about the drug's approved purpose and side effects. Additionally, they say the ad makes it clear that "Viagra is intended for sex" , if you can believe that. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) calls these ads "an ongoing shameless holiday-themed advertising campaign for its blockbuster sex drug" which i think in itself is a shameless reproof. It isn't a sex drug, although, i might agree with the "shameless" part. Semantics you say? Well, you may be right but Viagra plays an integral role in todays aging and married society. It isn't merely a sex drug so much a cure for ED, but it fixes what many men begrudge (Including women. Well wives mostly). I might also agree with what the FDA claim as "consumer-direct" advertising and the lack of a disclaimer on many of these consumer-direct ads. Basically consumer-direct means the ads focus less on the science of the drug and more on the hoopla or the hype. In other words, the advertising is geared to promote the use of Viagra purely as a tool. Michael Weinstein, President of Aids Healthcare Foundation says "it fails to honor any spirit of the law or sense of truth in advertising, and we are asking the FDA to immediately crack down on this irresponsible direct to consumer ad campaign". I guess i didn't necessarily see it that way in the beginning but now i see their point i think...

The illogical being in me though (or logical... if you prefer it) wants to scream out "Who fuckin cares?". It isn't exactly false advertising, is it? AHF says it promotes unsafe sex by encouraging the recreational use of Viagra... Does it really? Seriously, what is the worse than can happen? If my memory serves me right these commercials always showcased married couples... I don't know, maybe i am mistaken but i don't recall ever seeing a Viagra commercial with adolescents in it or single adults for that matter. Remind me again, how does that constitute or promote unsafe sexual intercourse exactly?

Posted by: Marc Gabay
Tuesday, March 20, 2007