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 partially for the social control of sexuality, in fact has its origin in modernity. In this essay, Viagra will be analyzed from the perspective developed by A. Giddens and U. Beck concerning risk and reflexive modernity. I argue that different from traditional aphrodisiacs, Viagra is a genuine modern "sex drug". The use of Viagra is not really different from other modern drug uses, although Viagra has not reached full 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 drug-use 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 over-simplified. In the analysis and criticism of the popular discourse on Viagra, this essay, celebrates the aesthetic dimension in the abuse (excess) of Viagra.