Think about it. In the mass media, there is no such thing as a hard-on in someone's pants.

It's never depicted. Never shown. It doesn't exist.

OK, once, on a sort-of history of sex series recently on the History Channel. It pokes out (but covered) in a photo from the 1940's or 50's.

But that's it. Say all you want about the magic of Viagra, but never show it.

The naked erection? I can understand its suppression. But the clothed erection?

What if the problem of impotence has a contributing factor called suppression.

The suppression of a tabooed item always starts at the furthest distance from it.

Never show it. Never let it be seen. Never let it be hinted at. Never have it! Never...have it.

In other words, a guy spends most of his life "hiding the salami" as they say, but ultimately it's not hiding where he thinks.

It's not where it's hiding. It's what it's hiding. It's hiding itself, from itself.

Day after day, week after week, year after year, the conditioning builds:

'Don't show it!' leads to 'don't have it!'

'Don't get hard in the wrong place!' leads to 'Don't get hard any place!'

'Even the right place."

What if Viagra functions as an idea, not a chemical--as a placebo, a permission, from society, after all these years, that it's OK to have erections--but 'only in the right place.'

Is this why Viagra and re-functioning is mostly discussed in the context of marriage and wife.