Viagra online success
The popular press stories depicted here do seem to want to find some significance in the statistics on erectile function. One subtext to the story of Viagra online success is the recognition of “manopause” accompanied by the apparent ability to circumvent it. “Manopause” - an unimaginative euphemism for a life change in masculine middle age - is set up as the condition of which erectile dysfunction is a symptom.?« Eluding the inevitability of aging is what much of the testimony here suggests as the motivation for perpetual virility. If the before Viagra remark sounds like this - “My eye doesn’t wander anymore, because I can’t do anything about it” then the after comment sounds like this - “It’s just like when we were first married.” “It” is twofold: the ability to have penetrative sex, and the perception that having sex is a sign of youthful vigor. An article by Susan Brink in U.S. News & World Report establishes the connections among masculinity, sex, communication, and youth. “The Do or Die Decade” is a look at how poor health among men in their fifties is both a result of a lifetime of masculine socialization and an opportunity for change. Brink writes, “Viagra has given men an entree into the healthcare world to talk about a nearly universal underlying fear.”79 This doctor’s visit should create an opportunity for a physician to uncover other potential health problems, many of which may be directly related to impotence. But admitting physical vulnerabilities, particularly impotence, is not in alignment with the masculine directives “Be self - reliant” and “Be sexual. “80 Revealing weaknesses (particularly after a lifetime of masculine independence) is a reminder of the inevitability of aging and its distance from youth. Brink quotes one man as saying, Being able to do it. I worry about that. I think every man does. No one will tell you … , “You know son, you’ll be able to do it when you’re 100.” When you’re a teenager, sex is all guys talk about. Then all of a sudden, you don’t talk about it.
Health communication researcher Michael Arrington’s research of prostate cancer patients in a support group reveals how a culture of marginalization and silence is likely perpetuated by social structures rather than a lack of interest in the topic of sexuality. When a psychologist replaced a physician as the facilitator of this support group, the group’s members were provided with a space to talk about emotional issues, physical pain, and sexual intimacy. Arrington found that these men were able to “negotiate sexuality with their partners in a wide variety of ways, ranging from abstinence to redefining sexual intimacy to seeking other forms of intimacy altogether.” The definition of “real” sex - defined as spontaneous penile - vaginal penetration - is one that begins in adolescence. Changing that definition might require a shift in consciousness, something that a serious illness and/or a tal - ented facilitator might enable. Online testimonies of masculinity contained in these news stories suggest a puerile and stagnant relationship between men and sexuality - one that Viagra preserves with its emphasis on subtlety, organic causes, and universal remedies. These testimonials - which feature status, mechanistic metaphors, and youthful virility as their primary themes - reinforce how the male sex role is steeped in tradition and slow to change. But here I must ask as others have - Are these roles actually what men perform, or what they are expected to perform? And if these roles are expectations, who is the audience? Because definitions of American masculinity are so carefully regulated through models of hegemony and the practices of complicity, it is not surprising that these testimonials replicate traditional norms. But the perpetuation of norms (whether or not they are performed) does have a price. This price is evidenced both by the lengths to which men will pursue the sexual expectations of heterosexual masculinity and by the costs absorbed by the state in that pursuit. As Lynne Segal observes, Many feminists simply equate “masculinity” and “male dominance.” On this view the psychology of men inevitably perpetuates the social structures of male dominance, as a result of either their biological or their social construction [emphasis original]. As I’m sure Segal would agree, the perpetuity of male - dominated social structures is not a question of either biological or social interplay but of both/and. The three motifs of status, architectural metaphors, and youth comprising the theme of testimonials of masculinity demonstrate the degree to which the fantasy of hegemonic masculinity holds sway over the reality and inevitability of aging. The fourth theme wrenches that reality to the forefront.
