If I understand correctly, the argument is that Pfizer is, through these ads, marketing Viagra as a "lifestyle" drug, in a class similar to illegal drugs, rather than a drug to treat a medical condition.

Which, Pfizer's denials to the contrary, is absolutely true. Viagra when it was first introduced was sold as an "erectile dysfunction" (another name for impotence) treatment. My guess is that Pfizer figured out that there weren't enough impotent people around to make the sales numbers they wanted, so they repositioned their marketing to sell it as something that will make sex better.

Now... I think that the argument being made is pretty thin. Essentially, I think they're arguing that encouraging people to use Viagra to enhance sex is encouraging sexual behavior, which inherently encourages unsafe sexual behavior. THAT argument is bullshit.

Some of our models, none of whom have erectile dysfunction, have told us that Viagra and Cialis do give them more intense erections, and do enhance sexual pleasure, so it's obvious that the drug has a place as a sexual enhancement. But FDA hasn't approved its sale for that purpose, and I think that's the argument that AHF is using.

I agree with Tony, it's a huge waste of nonprofit resources. If they really want to do something to curb HIV, they need to decrease the availability of crystal meth. I've heard from a lot of people that Tina does, in fact, cause or encourage you to throw your responsibility out the window and just have sex, and it seems a lot of the guys with HIV claim to have done meth and then gone on a sexual frenzy. No firsthand experience, so I can't say, but I've heard that enough times to assume there must be some truth.