“Da, da, da, da-da, da-da-da,” my 10-year-old son sang the other night as he played with his Legos on the dining room table. His singing was a counterweight to detailed work, a pleasant way to add a constructive distraction to the task of building a tiny rebel spaceship out of little plastic blocks.
“Da, da, da, da-da, da-da-da.”
The rhythm was familiar. I’d heard it before. It sure was catchy. What was that song?
Then, came the awful truth.
“Viva, Viagra,” my kid burst into loud song. “Viva, Viagra. Vivaaaaa, vivaaaaa, Viagraaaaaaaaaa.”
It was all I could do not to react.
Then my kid segued into the “Star Wars” theme and I relaxed, ducking once more the Viagra talk.
I can’t help it. I am creeped out by erectile dysfunction television commercials, especially the one in which a group of guys playing music sings the praises of Pfizer’s little blue pill, as if erectile dysfunction was a shared cultural experience over which men bonded.
A few years ago, when my son was 6 or 7, he asked me what “ED” was. I looked at his sweet little baby face and knew that I didn’t want to be the one to tell him there was a chance that someday, when he was much older, his penis, much like his eyes, wouldn’t work quite as well as when he’s in his early 20s; that he might be wise to start thinking about building himself a workshop in the basement; that to everything, there is a season. Or, maybe, as described at Viagra's website, he might want advice on how to seek out an ED-friendly doctor.
I wished he had asked if Santa were real, or the truth about where babies came from. Oh, no, not my kid; he had to ask me about erectile dysfunction. I considered telling him ED had something to do with urinating, but I stopped myself.
“That’s something you’ll have to talk with your dad about when you’re older,” I said, copping out. “Hey, want some candy?”
I’ve always sworn there would be no topic off limits for discussion with my kid, but that was before my husband worked most nights, leaving me at home to field erectile dysfunction questions.
I remember eavesdropping on the conversations of older women when I was a young girl, and conversations with older friends as I matured. “The older they get, the more ‘it’ is in their heads,” was a common refrain.
I used to laugh at that notion until I became a woman of a “certain age.” Sex was an amazing thing when I was in the throes of my prime-time hormonal life. Now that I’m on the other side, I understand better what the women around me years ago were saying: “Not right now. Just let me read my book!”
I read a statistic once that said most women and men experience a slow-down in sexual desire as they age. Doesn’t that just make sense? There are, after all, age categories for marathon runners, and we won’t be seeing many 50-year-olds competing in the Vancouver Winter Olympics.
Sex is, of course, natural, and while we like to think that it’s all about the sex act itself, it isn’t. Sex exists in its amazingly pleasurable state because the universe wants life on earth to continue. Imagine how far civilization would be if sex was something painful or uncomfortable, like a root canal without anesthetic.
It makes sense, then, that as our ability to successfully procreate disappears, so, too, does the drive. Should we all accept the inevitable, that sexual desire diminishes as we age, that we don't need or want to do it as often? Or should we embrace the “better living through chemistry” touted by drug companies and, through the magic of a little blue pill, keep having sex until we drop dead from exhaustion, or, worse yet, a four-hour erection? As one who can barely sit through a two-and-a-half hour movie, I shudder thinking about a four-hour hard-on.
There are people for whom erectile dysfunction drugs are necessary, and I am glad there is the help they need. For them, those little blue pills are a miracle, but they aren’t the people targeted by the ads on television.
We live in an age in which we give wide berth to drug companies to advertise a mind-bendingly vast array of drugs to cure all that ails us, with side effects ranging from “greasy stools” to “loss of vision” to “sleepwalking” to “death.”
We eat junk food, we drink soda, we consume vast amounts of pesticides and preservatives, we work too hard, we relax too little and then, when we take ill or feel like we’re losing touch with ourselves and our lives and our loved ones, our first thought is to turn to chemicals. All the while we’re raising a generation of kids who are growing up thinking there’s a pill to combat every malady imaginable, for whom pharmaceutical advertising is an ear worm.
A couple months ago, my kid padded down the stairs, complaining he couldn’t sleep.
“I keep trying to fall asleep,” he said. “Really mom, I do. I think I need Lunesta.”
“Lunesta, schmunesta,” I said, instead warming him a glass of milk and sitting with him on the couch as he drank it.
Drift off to sleep he did.


Salon.com
Comments
And you're right, both about better living through chemistry and our increasing sense of entitlement. Great post.
I sound like a broken record sometimes, but I really think the best thing we can do for our kids (and ourselves, for that matter) is to turn off the TV. Or at least mute the sound during the commericials.
This was so well written, both on the personal level ("that was before my husband worked both nights") and the societal. Excellent job!
Thank you for this post. I'm grateful to know that these feelings are shared. You've done a wonderful job of illustrating the near insanity of this with your writing. Truly.
Maybe the image of that jingle in your kid's head best describes the dilemma. We're so used to this stuff that it takes writing like yours to get us to pause and ask, "What the heck is going in here?"
Rated and appreciated.
When it comes to our inevitable journey toward that long night, you could make the case that it's better to go out with a bang than a whimper, so to speak.
Is it worth taking a chemical for moderate high blood pressure (135/80) for decades because your risk for a heart attack drops from 240 in 100,000 to 120 in 100,000 which is the norm for normal blood pressure. Sure that is a 100% decrease, but even if the number was 1000 in 100,000 that would mean you have a 1% chance of having a heart attack or 99% chance of not having one because your blood pressure is higher than normal. Now if you are 60 years old and have suffered a stroke or heart attack high blood pressure would be a real concern and reducing it with a drug would be warranted, but starting men in their 30s and 40s on medications to improve their odds by .5 of a percent 30 years from now only makes since to the pharmaceutical companies.
As for the Viagra commercials they are stupid, and in my 54 years of life I have never heard one man talk about ED much less sing about it. The commercial almost makes it sound like everyone is having the problem. Most ED is caused by being over weight, out of shape and stressed out men in their 50s and 60s. That is why you don't see old fat men in the commercials worrying about their kids college tuition in the commercials. Viagra people want you to think it is caused by age not lifestyle. Of course the other cause is high blood pressure medications that doctors are putting everyone on these days. It is a win win for the pharmaceutical industry.
Hey America. Put down the donut, join the Y and just say no to drugs.
~R
I'd write more, but I gotta go to the emergency room. It's been way longer than four hours....
But we have other ads I have to explain to my son. Like a couple of years ago there was this ad campaign where a bank manager helps couples finds investment strategies to maximize their savings. The slogan was "Scotiabank, you're richer than you think."
Needless to say one day Ben had a bit of temper tantrum about something he really wanted me to buy. "Yes you can buy it, Mom. I know you can. YOU'RE RICHER THAN YOU THINK."
Oh, if only that were true.
In agreement with most of your points, other than the aging thing. I believe we're just bloated, lazy, infected and too polluted to "get it up" anymore. If you don't use it, you lose it. You should be able to have an active sex life into your old age - IF IF IF you take care of yourself.
Great post. You could probably write several others on this topic. It's so big, really. So big...and hard.