Imagine the TV ads for the new little pink pill

As readers of this column have come to expect, today's topic is in the worst possible taste. The subject, however, is one that is regularly aired on the nation's TV channels in terms that once would have made a longshoreman blush.

With rampant pharmaceutical advertising of naked couples in twin outdoor bathtubs (apparently an alternative form of birth control); women with come-hither looks, and men throwing footballs through suspended tires to get in the mood to go hither, fools such as myself feel only the urge to rush in where angels fear to tread.

Still, angels do not need Viagra and Cialis. There, I have named the troublemakers. Take this as fair warning.

Yes, this column will contain bad puns, unseemly references, squalid imagery and creaking stereotypes. So please leave now if you are one of those people who like to read to the very end just to make sure you are properly offended.

Unfortunately for connoisseurs of bad taste, such references will not be gratuitous but have an actual point. This month, an advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration voted 18-6 in favor of what is being hailed as the first drug to treat a lack of sexual desire in women.

What was previously prescribed by way of treatment — not by doctors but by guys with cheesy grins — was dinner, a show, candy, flowers, jewelry ("take two pearl earrings and see me in the morning"), mood music and, for those who are old school, oysters and Champagne.

None of this is guaranteed to work.

A woman may soon be able to eliminate the middle man, so to speak, and just pop a pill, which is very much in the spirit of the age. While some may miss the flowers, there's no stopping progress.

Indeed, the potential approval of the pill after a strong lobbying campaign and two previous rejections is being seen as a great breakthrough for the cause of women's equality. They will now have their own Viagra.

Of course, it is important not to risk the disappointment of premature congratulations. The FDA might still reject the advice of its panel to approve the drug, flibanserin, which is a little pink pill, whereas Viagra is famously a little blue pill. And how cute is that?

Assuming the FDA gives its approval, the marketing of flibanserin poses problems. For all the good talk about equality, men and women are built differently, as some of you may have noticed.

The makers of Viagra turned a standard warning about the drug's side effects into a marketing bonanza. In TV ads, they delightedly mentioned that a Viagra-taking man might have to visit the emergency room if his — er, manifestation — were to last more than four hours.

Although such rare episodes can be serious, men in droves dreamed of such an outcome, proving that when it comes to male enhancement what we needed first was a drug for our brains.

My fear is that, having come up with such a winner, the pharmaceutical industry may try a variation of that tried-and-true warning in order to sell women's Viagra.

This will have to be done delicately. It comes down to Dr. Freud's famous question: What do women want?

I would have supposed back rubs. But granting them a little respect appears a safer bet for uncomprehending corporations and individual men alike.

Thus, expect to see these voice-overs in ads coming shortly to TV:

"If after taking flibanserin you experience phone calls to your mom and girlfriends lasting more than four hours, consult your cellphone provider and ask for a better plan."

"If after taking flibanserin you experience criticizing your male partner, or any other male, for more than four hours — or asking your spouse for more than four hours whether your outfit makes you look fat, do not go to the emergency room. You are normal."

It's a brave new world but, as always, equal opportunity does not necessarily translate into equal outcomes.