Loose Lips	Loose Lips Archive

What is erectile dysfunction? You may think you know, but Blanche hastens to remind you that the government and the medical profession "own" the word. Because drugs like Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra are sold by prescription, you'll have to persuade someone with power that the problem you're having with the little man counts as meeting the medical definition of erectile dysfunction before you can get those little pills.

Most of the definitions that Blanche finds on the web are something like the following: "The inability to maintain an erection suitable for penetration." That seems clear enough at first, but certain questions immediately arise. A man who rarely or never gets a firm erection certainly has erectile dysfunction. But what about a man who would like to have sex twice in an evening? Would a failure to get hard enough for penetration on the second go round count as erectile dysfunction? Or what if a man is able to get an erection, but not maintain it while wearing a condom-- is that erectile dysfunction? And since anal sex often seems to require a firmer erection than vaginal sex, what about the man who's only hard enough for vaginal sex?

View our poll archive

Probably most of the men who have prescriptions for drugs like Viagra fall into the first category. They are not trying to perform under more difficult repeated, be-rubbered, or butt-fucking conditions-- they just have trouble performing at all. The new class of erection drugs are a godsend for these men, and make it possible for them to alleviate a condition that has been a source of depression, suicide, and misery for centuries. As one HIV-positive friend said, "I would give up almost any other medication I take before I would give up my Viagra."

The right medication can make all the difference in the world in helping men who have trouble getting an erection at all. But who is to say that wanting to butt-fuck, wear a rubber, or do it more than once doesn't constitute a valid reason to use a drug that makes your penis harder? Who would like to make it more difficult to get Viagra? You'd be surprised at the answer.

In late January 2007, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) announced that it was suing Pfizer, the manufacturer of Viagra, for marketing their product as a "lifestyle" or "sexual enhancement" drug. AHF contends that use of Viagra is leading to increased rates of HIV transmission, and that Pfizer is irresponsibly encouraging men who do not need the drug to try it, thus putting them at increased risk of spreading or contracting HIV. As evidence, AHF cites Pfizer's web site, which asks readers, "Want to improve your sex life?" and says the drug can help men who have erection difficulties "once in a while." AHF was joined in its arguments by Jeffrey Klausner, a health official for the city of San Francisco. Klausner in previous statements has called for Viagra to be classified as a Schedule III drug (comparable to anabolic steroids or codeine).

AHF and Klausner's argument runs like this: wanting to have a better sex life or wanting to overcome occasional erection difficulties are not legitimate reasons for taking Viagra. Taking Viagra leads men to have more sex, and thus to spread HIV. The government regulates prescription drugs, so the government ought to control men's ability to get the drug that allows them to have the sex lives that they want. AHF asks the government to force Pfizer to change its ads, turn over the profits it has earned as a result of them, and to pay AHF for the cost of treating HIV-positive individuals affected by Viagra use.

For Miss Poubelle, this argument is deeply suspect, and incompatible with her views on other matters of liberty. If good liberals believe that women should have control over their own bodies and sexuality, doesn't that apply to men and their erections? She believes that men should have control over their own bodies and can decide for themselves if they want to take these medications. Should the government be in charge of deciding whether men are limp enough to deserve the medication that they want?

The more usual term for "erectile dysfunction" is, of course, impotence-- an unfortunate word for the medical condition of being unable to maintain an erection, since it really means "powerless." It is astonishing that an organization which claims to be looking out for the rights of gay men can take such a sex-negative position on the use of a medication that is important to so many men. Having control over your own life means making your own decisions, even if doctors or the government don't like them. What AHF and Klausner advocate seems to be a strategy of reducing HIV transmission by limiting men's ability to have sex. That's a textbook case of controlling men by rendering them impotent.