在流行的成而鋼論述中，成而鋼充滿了風險:男人的健康、女人的身體、家庭和諧、兩性關係、性道德都因為成而鋼而陷入危險。成而鋼的風險論述，除了建構「性是危險的j之類的性控制意義外，還有另外一個現代的意義來源，亦即，現代性(modernity)的風險論述(A.Giddens與 U. Beck)。成而鋼作為一種有別於傳統藥物的主見。代「性藥J '被納入一般現代‘藥物的典型風險論述。事實土，成而鋼的用藥模式基本上就是見代用業的一般模式:形成見代用藥模式的因素也同樣地形成了成而鉤的用藥。成而鋼與其他現f弋藥物不同的是:成而鋼亟需性解放。本文指出現代用藥是現代生活的一部份，是為了應付生活需要的身體管理，因而也同時是一種生活方式的選擇。這彼得現代用藥的政治還包括了人生政治。現代用藥的風險是現代生活風險的一部份，而且很難區分個人的「用藥」和「種用藥物j。但是，現代用業者的能動性不能化約為「資本一國家一科學」的制度結構性產物。就此而論，常見的對醫療化之批評過於簡化。從現代用葉與身體管理的角度出發，本文對於主流的成而鋼論述之分析與批判，還透射出獄且是澄用成而鋼的美學經臉。

In the popular discourse， Viagra has been represented as risky business that could endanger men's health， women's sexuality and body， family harmony， gender equity， sexual morality， etc. The risk of Viagra， although is constructed partialIy for the social control of sexuality， in fact has its origin in modernity. In this essay， Viagra will be analyzed from the perspective cleveloped by A. Giddens and U. Beck concerning risk and reflexive modernity. I argue that different from traditional aphrodisiacs， Viagra is a genuine modern 、exdrug". The use of Viagra is not realIy different from other modern drug· uses， although Viagra has not reached fulI modernization because of its characteristics as a sex drug. Modern drug-use is part of modern life and is body management for the purpose of meeting various demands of daily life. In this way， modern druguse implies choices of life style. Hence， the politics of modern drug.use includes life politics. The risk of modern drug-use is part of the risk of modern life. This essay argues that today it is difficult to distinguish individual's drug-use from drug· abuse. This essay also shows that the agency of modern drug-(ab)user cannot be reduced to the structural effect of“capital-state-science" institutions of drug. For this reason， the orthodox“medicalisation critique" is seen as oversimplified. In the analysis and criticism of the popular discourse on Viag悶， this essay， celebrates the aesthetic dimension in the abuse (excess) of Viagra.