The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

13 November 2005

Insert Microsoft joke here

In the old days of DOS, there was expanded memory, and there was extended memory, and you had to keep the two of them from snarling at one another by use of some arcane syntax in a startup file. Neither one of them, though, was really the ultimate solution to the problem, and when Windows finally cut itself loose from DOS — oh, never mind, I'm just asking for Mac partisans to come in and snicker.

Half-assed solutions, of course, are hardly limited to operating systems, as Michael Blowhard explains:

[T]he medical engineers behind Viagra might justifiably point to my slightly-more-tumescent-than-usual groin and say, See, our miracle pill works! They could high-five each other. But — between you and me — my experiments with Viagra have me shaking my head over what literal-minded knuckleheads scientists can be. What a stupid, unimaginative, and one-dimensional conception of eroticism Viagra represents: increased susceptibility to congestion. For what kind of spiritually-stunted person is congestion what sex is all about? So I look at the scientists, the technologists, and their publicists and say, "Typical of science and medicine, no? As far as they're concerned, the operation was a success. Too bad the patient — namely whatever interest I might have had in participating in erotic pleasure — died."

Think of it as the path of least resistance: J. Random Shortarm will presumably be so happy with the imagined longitudinal enhancements that he will overlook all that other stuff.

It's worth remembering, though, that Pfizer's first plans for sildenafil citrate were much more mundane: a treatment for chest pains in men, at which it wasn't worth a darn. Improvements in the libido were duly noted as a side effect, and eventually the suits decided that maybe they could sell it as the quicker pricker-upper; the rest is pharmaceutical (and marketing) history.

So let us not fault Pfizer for their simplistic view of male sexuality — these days, thanks to the combined actions of angry feminists and feckless men, that view is now Accepted Wisdom — but let us praise them for finding a use for a drug that otherwise they'd have written off their books and ultimately charged off to the taxpayers.

(Disclosure: Despite being in the, um, target market, I have never touched the stuff, and have never felt compelled to try it out. Of course, this is due, not to the superiority of the equipment at hand, but to the lack of suitable opportunities; "at hand," alas, is more than merely a cliché. Should I be concerned about the matter, there are Level I diagnostics available. And "feckless"? Trust me, I have scads of feck.)

Posted at 5:33 PM to Dyssynergy


You know, I think that's more info than I wanted to know about Mr Blowhard (nyuk nyuk) but since he brought it up...

If getting a hard-on isn't what it's all about, then why the hell did he bother with the happy pills in the first place? Did he expect them to also give him the magical ability to attract the most beautiful woman in the world and make him have an orgasm that would last as long as hers, make him younger, clean his car, etc.? "Science can't make you happy." Well, no duh. Welcome to the World of the Obvious.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 8:13 PM on 13 November 2005

Hey, if it would clean the car, I'd buy it.

The Playboy Advisor once issued a statement to the effect that surgical or, um, manipulative male-enlargement techniques were bogus. A couple months later, to no one's surprise, there was a chap claiming that one of the latter had worked for him, and in entirely too much detail explained the complicated and time-consuming regimen. The Advisor was apparently unimpressed, and asked one simple question: "Do you want to add an inch to your tool, or do you want to hold down a job?"

I guess even pseudo-science can make you happy, if it's done right.

Posted by: CGHill at 8:27 PM on 13 November 2005

Oh, CG, I am so disappointed. The way this post started I was really pumped for a rather rigid exploration of a few undocumented DOS commands. But then you went soft on the subject...

Posted by: Winston at 6:35 AM on 14 November 2005

It's that damned memory allocation.

Posted by: CGHill at 7:13 AM on 14 November 2005