Abstract
It seems many men continue to be obsessed with their penis and especially its size and look. Two-thirds of men in a recent UK study reported some dissatisfaction with their genitals. Arguably much of this anxiety is perpetuated by the media and marketers, but it may also follow more general trends in male body image consciousness. Marketers have been quick to offer both surgical and non-surgical remedies to help change the size, shape and image of the penis, especially online. Stepping aside from more traditional scholarly foci on culture, media, social and personal relationship issues, I focus instead on how men account for pubic hair shaving to enhance image. I use discourse analysis to examine online electronic dialogue in response to an advert promoting male groin grooming showing the complex ways in which men discursively negotiate their interest in this non-typical gender practice. The analysis shows charges of vanity are swept under the carpet in favour of heterosexual pleasure, cleanliness, self-respect and individuality. The implications for understanding traditional and contemporary masculinities are also discussed.
Introduction
Appearance for men (and women) is becoming an increasingly important feature of modern consumerist and individualistic societies and a key resource for identity construction (Featherstone, 1991; Giddens, 1991). Where once a man’s identity was largely drawn from work, sport and family discourses, the exponential growth in consumerism and the media has provided men with a multitude of alternative identity discourses – ones which they are tasked with, and accountable for, designing and maintaining (Giddens, 1991). The payoff for such identity and body work is social and psychological well-being, that is, as many marketers promote ‘look good, feel good’ (Featherstone, 1991; D’Alessandro and Chitty, 2011). Whilst more traditional discourses clearly remain available and influential, men are increasingly held accountable if they fail to invest time and resources in their appearance (see Hall et al., 2012a, 2012b). As Grogan (2010) points out, these modern pressures often lead to men and boys (and women and girls) developing anxieties around body image – size, shape, colour, muscularity, thinness and tone for the body as a whole and its individual body parts.
Men’s genital size and shape appear to be no exception (Tiggemann et al., 2008; Veale et al., 2013; Wylie and Eardley, 2007). Indeed, the Online Slang Dictionary (http://onlineslangdictionary.com/) boasts 165 English slang terms for the penis. Many of these refer to size and specifically the penis as long and thick. For example: babies arm, bratwurst, chopper, dong, one-eyed-monster, one-eyed-trouser-snake, pocket rocket, pork sword, trouser meat, whanger and so on. This isn’t surprising given that penis size has traditionally been a symbol of masculinity, particularly when erect. Wylie and Eardley (2007: 1449) point out that ‘in many cultures it has come to symbolise attributes such as largeness, strength, endurance, ability, courage, intelligence, knowledge, dominance over men, possession of women; a symbol of loving and being loved’, and also fertility. Given this symbolism, it’s understandable that some men may feel inadequate if they don’t meet perceived cultural norms. Indeed, two-thirds of men in a recent UK study (Veale et al., 2013) reported some dissatisfaction with their genital size and shape. Tiggemann et al.’s (2008) research reported penis size as the third biggest concern for men (behind body weight and muscularity).
Much of this is arguably perpetuated by perceptions of the penis in the media. For example, the UK newspaper The Daily Mail (Gayle and Jones, 2012) ran an article titled ‘Sorry boys, size DOES matter: Scientific journal confirms men’s worst bedroom fear’. Apparently, researchers found that women who reported regular vaginal orgasms (as opposed to clitoral) said size is a key factor. Similarly, Time magazine (Szalavitz, 2013) ran an article titled ‘Size does matter: Study shows women judge male attractiveness by penis size’. Yet men might be consoled in other media articles such as ‘Does size matter to women?’ (Burton, 2013), reporting that ‘women simply don’t care about size. There will be the odd ones who say it is very important, but they are usually the ones who love aggressive sex’. With such mixed messages it’s not surprising then that some men are sensitive about their genitals. For some, an inordinate fascination with size leads to the development of ‘small penis syndrome’ and associated psychological issues (Wylie and Eardley, 2007; see below).
Penis size is not the only concern for men. Besides the traditional importance of symbolism and function, men are increasingly interested in its aesthetics. Flowers et al.’s (2013) paper elegantly presents an overview of recent trends in which long-standing penis anxieties have been reframed within the context of health and aesthetics. New penis enhancement possibilities for size and aesthetics, not previously available, mean that men are increasingly confronted with ideas that they should change their penis. Marketers now capitalize upon and promote penis-related products, helping to increase mediated penis anxieties. Size and aesthetics concerns are reported to produce a multitude of psychological problems such as body dysmorphophobia. 1 Phillips and Castle (2001) argue that about 15% of men have presented to physicians in the UK with this more severe body image disturbance condition which manifests itself as a preoccupation with an imagined or slight defect in the appearance of their penis, which has caused clinically significant distress or impairment in its function. Indeed, conditions such as erectile dysfunction, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobia, relationship and emotional problems, along with anxiety and depression, were also reported in Lever et al.’s (2006; see also Levine, 2000, for a more detailed examination) internet survey of 52,031 heterosexual men and women. Kilmartin (2000: 215–16) points out that psychological-based issues with the penis manifest because ‘Real men are … described as having huge penises’. Wylie and Eardley (2007) report ‘these concerns, when severe, can lead a man to go to extreme lengths to try to change the size of his penis’.
Many marketers now offer remedies and procedures for those interested in altering their penis. One only has to look in one’s ‘junk mail’ box or conduct a simple ‘Google’ search to see the vast array of quick fix solutions such as non-surgical remedies to extend and reshape the penis. These range from weights (BlueKink 1 lb weight) to electrical devices (X4 Labs Extender) and pumps (Bathmate Hercules hydro pump), herbal (Virectin pills, Ozomen oil) and pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. human growth hormone – HGH), self-administrable such as clamping (restricting blood flow) and Jelqing (massaging blood flow). On a more extreme level penile augmentation surgery procedures such as penoplasty or phalloplasty 2 are available. The numbers of men opting for these types of cosmetic procedures are steadily increasingly according to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery and the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (see Aitkenhead, 2005).
The plethora of penis enhancement products, along with men’s psychological presentation to physicians (Lever et al., 2006; Levine, 2000; Kilmartin, 2000; Phillips and Castle, 2001; Wylie and Eardley, 2007) are markers of men’s penis size disturbances. Marketers such as Gillette – the global men’s grooming giant (Forbes, 2012) – have been quick to furnish and contribute to such insecurities by expanding the use of their product range from facial hair to include non-head body hair removal. For example, in a recent animated tutorial video, doubling as an advert, Gillette instruct men on how to shave their groin. Apparently shaving the groin area makes the penis looks bigger and better, marketed with the amusing and catchy slogan ‘when there’s no underbrush the tree looks taller’. ‘How to Shave Down There’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TiJNewpCnY) is the most popular viral video on groin shaving out of the seven specifically targeted at men with over 6,074,474 views and 5129 comments (as of 6 June 2014). The popularity of its closest rival comes in with a mere 814,485 views and 814 comments.
There are two potential problems for men who openly ascribe to undertaking groin shaving. Firstly, to do so might imply one is concerned with their penis size and, secondly, genital grooming, like many modes of grooming for men, has traditionally been associated with women and femininity (Edwards, 2003). Indeed, Edwards (2003: 141–2) argues that men and image-enhancement practices are still considered ‘antithetical if not an outright oxymoron’. Other image-conscious research on the metrosexual (Hall et al., 2012a, 2012b), men’s health and lifestyle practices (Watson, 2000), obesity (Gough et al., 2013), illness (Robertson et al., 2010) and body hair removal (Immergut, 2010) support this view, showing that men must simultaneously disavow any ‘inappropriate’ interest in their own appearance in order to maintain ‘manliness’ or risk being cast as vain, weak, effeminate or gay. In other words, they can’t appear to be feminine but neither can they get away with being a slob (Gill et al., 2005). Building on this work, I examine how men account for pubic hair grooming.
Focusing on men’s electronic responses to the Gillette groin shaving advert also offers several important points of entry into the study of men and masculinities. Firstly, examining men’s talk offers an example of how some men construct and negotiate masculinity in relation to a traditionally non-typical gender activity. Secondly, the focus on men’s groin shaving offers an important example of a wider trend in men’s image-conscious practices (Hall et al., 2012a, 2012b) and what that means for our understanding of men’s embodiment (Grogan, 2007, 2010). Lastly, examining the deployment of masculinities in situ helps us evaluate the application of existing theoretical concepts on masculinities and men’s body image to men’s everyday practices and signal whether all, or aspects of these, might need to be reworked or rethought in light of modern developments. These would include concepts such as ‘hegemonic masculinity’, which is understood to be the variety of masculine identities amassed around expectations of what masculinity is presumed to be; even though most men do not enact them, all men are required to position themselves in relation to them (Connell, 1995: 77). Such masculinities are often portrayed in films by characters played by Vin Diesel – tough, emotionally stoic and muscular. Yet many men seem to reject some aspects of the dominant attitudes or traits in various contexts and are more willing to embrace traditional feminized ones instead (e.g. childcare and grooming). Bridges (2014) argues such practices indicate that masculinities are becoming more ‘hybrid’. Yet other scholars, such as MacInnes (2001), argue that because of feminist equality pressures, some men have found it difficult to orientate to traditional gender-distinct identities or embrace aspects of femininity (e.g. work in traditional feminine jobs) and, as such, this has resulted in masculinities being in ‘crisis’. In the realm of body image too, men’s increasing attention to the body to enhance image suggests that theoretical notions of gender-discrete practices (e.g. cosmetics use, body hair removal) and body structure (e.g. muscularity, thinness, curvature) might be in the process of being challenged and reworked (Grogan, 2007, 2010). I explore the implications of these in the discussion after the analysis of the online talk.
Data and method
The dataset is drawn from the premier internet video publisher YouTube (Nielsen, 2009). Founded in February 2005, YouTube allows people to easily upload and share video clips on a range of topics including ‘how to’ demonstrations and adverts. As with other online sites, YouTube provides viewers with the ability to engage with the material they encounter through computer-mediated communication channels – text and video comments. These allow viewers to write comments on, and rate responses to, their favourite videos. More recently this has been extended to display first top-rated comments from others in one’s Google+circles and comments with many ‘likes’ and replies. Replies can now be email threaded to follow specific conversations and creators. In addition, respondents can moderate other’s responses to their material.
Two points need to be noted about these new developments. Whilst these help bring to life the electronic talk for respondents, threads (or parts of them) can disappear quickly and become truncated, interfering with the context of the remaining text. Secondly, by providing email and social circle links, a greater potential arises for the disclosure of respondents’ personal details via hyperlinks to home pages. Having consulted the British Psychological Society’s Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research (2013) and the relevant university-approved ethics, I opted to anonymize all responses with made-up tags to minimize the risk of pseudonyms, tags and hyperlinks being identified by others. Attempts to access individual permission were dismissed since many had posted with pseudonyms and tags and hadn’t provided hyperlinks to personal details.
Video Response Types.
The analysis I present is a selection of the accounts that emphasized eloquently the specific reasons for their groin shaving. I present the extracts in full as they appear on YouTube, including spelling mistakes, colloquial language and emoticons.
Before analysing the electronic data it’s important to discuss the goals of discourse analysis in general. A general aim is to explore how ‘versions of world, of society, events and inner psychological worlds are produced in discourse’, and so discourse analysis has ‘a concern with participants’ constructions and how they are accomplished and undermined’ (Potter, 1996: 146). In other words, there are a multiplicity of versions of the world that can be worked up at any given time and on a moment-to-moment basis during conversational interaction. Yet the specific version(s) will depend on the topic of conversation (e.g. general, technical, delicate), whom one is conversing with (e.g. mother, close friend, employer), the context (complaint, justification), location (face-to-face, telephone, social media) and time.
In order to see how such things come into play within a stretch of talk I follow a step-by-step procedure identifying how each extract fits together and what the respondent was achieving at each and every stage (Edwards and Potter, 1992). Each segment of text is analysed for its individual, sequential, relational and contextual relevance following these three steps: locate the central themes that are named and/or implied in the talk; focus on the discursive activities with each text; look at how respondents construct accounts, produce descriptions, manage stake, frame specific activities and make connections for the implied social actions.
Although following these analytical steps allows us to see how versions of the world are worked up in talk-in-action, analysts need to be mindful of over analysing the text and drawing on their own knowledge of social norms and expectations. Edwards and Potter (1992) argue, therefore, that to avoid analyst-led interpretations of real-world phenomena, analysts should instead read the interactions, that is, only what is made relevant, of the participants involved. This later point is one of the major differences discourse analysis has from other discursive methodologies (e.g. critical discourse analysis or Foucauldian analysis). Where discursive methodologies such as critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2001: 229–66) and Foucauldian analysis (Foucault, 1980) become interpretative commentaries is when they attempt to make links between what emerges from a micro-analysis and the macro-issues such as the operation of power, ideology, and persuasion. What discourse analysis argues is that macro-structures can only be commented on if the participants in the interaction make it relevant. If not, then it is simply an analyst commentary. I follow this perspective in the following analysis and discussion.
Analysis
One would expect most respondents to be male given the focus of the video. However, research suggests that some online users present unrealistic or deceptive image of themselves (Epstein, 2007; Gibbs et al., 2006; Schmitt, 2002; Toma et al., 2008; Wiszniewski and Coyne, 2002), creating a ‘mask’. Individuals and groups are able to do this because they are in a position to control the flow of information that others receive (Hollingshead, 2001). Since the ‘true’ identity of the respondents is almost impossible to ascertain without direct contact, the gender of the respondent can be presumed through their gender indexing. Indexing can be explicit with traditional names for men (now anonymized), male positioning in relation to females (girls, women, their, us), male action references (Ffs i shaved down there before I watched this) and invoking typical masculine markers (have no pubes girls will give head easier). These are treatable as ‘male’ even without this identity being ‘named out aloud’ (Antaki and Widdicombe, 1998: 4). In the following analytical section I examine the response types; size, health and hygiene, heterosexual pay-off, equality, self-respect and individuality. For ease of understanding and reading I have loosely presented them within the analytical sections: (Dis)engaging with size; A female and heterosexual imperative; Gender distinction or equality?; Individuality and minimization.
As expected, size was evident in many responses. The following two extracts show interesting ways in which men both engaged or disengaged with size concerns. The respondent in the next extract is orientating to Gillette’s claim that ‘the tree looks taller’:
(Dis)engaging with size
Extract 1 Jimbob 1. Nope, it reveals nothing. Because no 2. matter how big dick is, it still is good 3. when it looks even bigger …
Jimbob’s opening line ‘Nope, it reveals nothing’ contains a definitive ‘Nope’ and an extreme-case formulation ‘nothing’ (Pomerantz, 1986). As Edwards (2000: 348) points out, these serve as discursive devices in ‘defending positions against refutation, making complaints, and justifying factual claims’. Therefore Jimbob’s initial sentence is readable as a refutation. In refuting people tend to, or are required by others to, provide an account for this discursive action (Potter, 1996). Jimbob’s account centres on the presumption that any practice that makes the one’s ‘dick’ ‘look even bigger’ is ‘good’ regardless of ‘how big dick is’. In doing so he is refuting Gillette’s implied claim that this practice is for those with a smaller penis. What this also does, however, is imply that penis size is important for many men (see Kilmartin, 2000: 215–16; Wylie and Eardley, 2007: 1449), and so any practice that increases size potentially also increases one’s masculinity (Wylie and Eardley, 2007). In contrast to this response, the poster’s comment in the next extract discounts size concerns. Extract 2 Ontherodney 4. They put a negative spin on it with a 5. corrupt motive – to ‘make the tree look 6. taller.’ Bad idea. Don't fall for that crap. 7. Most of us aren't trying to fool anyone. It'’ 8. just getting it cleaner and free of unwanted 9. hair. I don't see why they have to repeat that 10. juvenile deceptive crap. It sends a bad 11. message about insecurity and trickery. 12. Gillette hits a sour note for no reason. It’s 13. about hygiene and natural beauty of the skin, 14. nothing else.
The overall context of Ontherodney’s response is a critique of the advert for containing a ‘negative spin’, ‘a corrupt motive’, ‘juvenile deceptive crap’ regarding penis size. Indeed, penis size ‘insecurities’ are presented as predominantly adolescent (‘juvenile’). Like Jimbob, Ontherodney’s critique requires an account, which centres on the presented ‘fact’ that ‘Most of us’ (men) aren’t concerned with trying to make our penis look longer; genital grooming is about ‘hygiene and natural beauty’. In other words, cleanliness and aesthetics. The implication is that this pubic hair shaving is a common practice for men and a modern aspect of masculinity. What’s also notable is that ‘Most’ is a ‘softener’ or ‘non-extreme-case formulation’ (Edwards, 2000: 352). The use of softeners indicates the possibility of some readers undermining his claims (Edwards and Potter, 1992). That is, if a respondent anticipates others questioning their claims an account may be worked up beforehand, especially if, like pubic hair shaving, it is a ‘delicate’ topic or non-typical gender activity (Silverman and Peräkylä, 2008). So, although Ontherodney positions pubic hair grooming as common for men, it also references it as a non-traditional practice for some men – a point made more explicit in other responses, as we will see.
The non-normativity of genital grooming for some men combined with his pragmatic justification (‘It’s just getting it cleaner and free of unwanted hair’) summons discourses of choice, individuality and self-respect (see Gill et al.’s (2005) interview research on these as conventional category predicates of masculinity). Ontherodney is therefore reframing this masculine activity with recourse to conventional masculine markers. In doing so, he masculinizes this activity but also inoculates it from charges of penis size and feminine interests (see Edwards and Potter (1992) on ‘stake inoculation’). Since body hair removal has traditionally been seen as an activity of women and femininity (Edwards, 2003), and since nearly two-thirds of men have genital dissatisfaction (Veale et al., 2013), it is hardly surprising that this topic is ‘delicate’, requiring careful management to avoid unwarranted charges.
In the following extracts Diamongeezer, Sammyboy and Justintime reframe pubic hair grooming as a requirement of female preference and heterosexual endeavour, albeit in differing ways.
A female and heterosexual imperative
Extract 3 Diamondgeezer 15. Ffs i shaved down there before I watched this 16. video and now its itchy as fuck. Btw if you 17. have no pubes girls will give head easier and 18. won't be disgusted by your pubes
Diamondgeezer’s opener ‘Ffs’ (Acronym for, for fuck’s sake; Urban Dictionary, 2014) acts an exclamation for the activity ‘i shaved down there’ which ‘now its icthy as fuck’. What’s also evident is that the marker of time ‘before’ works to position himself as a novice who should have watched the advert before trying this activity. Yet we get a sense of the ‘delicacy’ in the account which he provides (Silverman and Peräkylä, 2008). Diamondgeezer manages his ‘stake’ (Edwards and Potter, 1992) in this practice by stating as ‘fact’ that ‘girls will give head easier’ (fellatio), which centres on pubic hair as unpalatable ‘disgusted by your pubes’. This achieves several things. It places some accountability for shaving pubic hair with women’s preferences but ultimately with men’s own pleasure. The implied pleasure payoff ‘girls will give head easier’ draws on a classic marker of masculine status – frequent heterosexual activity (see Donaldson (1993) on more traditional masculine markers). The final point to note is that by undertaking this reframing action Diamondgeezer deflects attention from charges that he is doing this to enhance his penis. Similarly, this framing of genital grooming as sexual pleasure and female preference is evident in the next extract, albeit differently: Extract 4 Sammyboy 19. I really didn’t want to do that but my girl said I 20. had to or else I don’t get any:(
Sammyboy begins with by personalizing his account ‘I’, which is immediately followed by an extreme-case formulation (Pomerantz, 1986) ‘really’. The deployment of this maximizes the properties of his claim ‘I … didn’t want to’, reducing the basis for others to search for an additional accounts – possibly penis size or aesthetic interests. Yet like other posters Sammyboy still manages his stake in this non-typical masculine practice by offering an account which centres on framing it as his girlfriend’s demand (‘or else’) ‘my girl said I had to or else I don’t get any’ (like Diamondgeezer the payoff is heterosexual activity). Extract 5 Justintime 21. Most of the (str8) young males that I know say 22. they shave-off their bush. It is b/c females want 23. the guys to shave their bush so it doesn't scratch 24. their sensitive shaved pubic area during sexual 25. intercourse. Twenty years ago it was unheard of, 26. or weird, for a guy shave-off his bush
It would be easy to simply gloss this response as another ‘(str8) young male’ justifying pubic hair shaving as a female requirement for intercourse. Yet that would miss many other important features of the text. For example, although ‘most’ is a softener (Edwards, 2000), it also acts an orientation device for him as a member of the collective category (‘(str8) young male’) but in referencing ‘their’. His membership of this category of men is affirmed by his access to other members (‘young males that I know’) and members’ knowledge (‘they shave-off their bush’). In doing so, Justintime sets up a contrast pair of identity categories – those who do/don’t shave pubic hair (Smith, 1978). By invoking the commonality of ‘Most’ it positions those who don’t shave pubic hair as in the minority and therefore accountable for their non-activity. Like the previous two extracts this is accounted for by recourse to heterosexuality (‘sexual intercourse’) and what women want (‘females want the guys to shave their bush’). Also like Diaomondgeezer, Justintime provides this as a ‘factual’ description ‘so it doesn’t scratch their sensitive pubic area’, which works to strengthen his position. However, Justintime does still recognize that some might not agree with his participation in this activity and so further positions this act as modern (‘Twenty years ago it was unheard of … for a guy shave-off his bush’) and in doing so is able to hold those who don’t participate in this action as outmoded.
Implicating women for men’s actions was a common feature of the dataset even when men (and teenage boys) did state that they ‘shave their junk becuz it can get pretty sweaty and stuff down there’ or ‘i like the feel of no hair down there’ for personal reasons. Yet what was also evident from all the comments that did reframe pubic hair shaving in this way was that none of them said that women wanted it removed so that their penis size would be enhanced (sexual activity and pleasure were instead foregrounded)
In the following sequence the debate centres on gender equity and whether this practice should be suitable for either sex as a practice for cleanliness.
Gender distinction or equality?
Extract 6 Silversimon 27. Why should women be 28. expected to keep it clean down there 29. but not guys? Its respect. I don't like 30. hair, and I'm sure women don't either. 31. They appreciate a clean shaven man 32. and I'm happy to give it them. Welcome 33. to the 21st century. Dannyboy 34. Women shouldn’t be shaving “down 35. there” either. You can be clean without 36. removing every piece of hair on your 37. body. Certain aspects of shaving (men’s 38. faces and backs, womens legs and 39. underarms) I will admit make a person 40. look neat and contribute to a nice appearance. 41. Woman with matted leg hair under stockings 42. or men with messy long beards and shaggy 43. hair look gross. But this is an extreme. Silversimon 44. I disagree, for one, I have a tongue ring, hair 45. wrappes around that easily. Plus, it dont matter 46. how short you trim it, you have the prickly 47. feeling on your tongue, and for some people, 48. its like a jungle down there. Disgusting. I dont 49. shave/remove hair all over my body, there are 50. many places I like hair to be, but thats just a 51. place I think is so 70's and its just gross looking. 52. Skin against skin will ALWAYS feel better 53. then skin against hair.
Silversimon links pubic hair shaving as an activity for keeping genitalia clean (‘to keep it clean down there’). His questioning of gender inequity based on ‘Its respect’ identifies this as a typical activity for women and femininity, supported also by Silversimon’s personalized perspective (‘I don’t like hair’), which suggests others may not agree. Like previous accounts, Silversimon presents this firstly as a desire of women (‘I’m sure women don’t either’) which is then upgraded to a factual based assessment (‘They appreciate a clean shaven man’). This upgrading of his knowledge from ‘presumed’ to ‘known’ supports his discursive strategy of inoculation from charges of doing this for reasons other than equality. What’s also interesting is that, like Justintime, this activity is seen as a modern aspect of masculinity (‘Welcome to the 21st century’), one that draws on contemporary notions of the equality of the sexes and a rejection of some aspects of conventional masculinities (see Bridges (2014) for more on hybridization). In doing so, those who don’t participate in this activity can be held accountable for being sexist.
Similarly, Dannyboy invokes a reverse style of equality (‘Women shouldn’t be shaving “down there” either’), presenting it as a critique (‘You can be clean without removing every piece of hair on your body’). But risking advocating no body hair removal at all he genders aspects of body hair removal (‘men’s faces and backs, womens legs and underarms’), accounting for non-participation as ‘gross’. What is evident from Dannyboy’s post is that whilst he critiques modern body hair practices as ‘extreme’, he is simultaneously advocating the status quo, that is, gender specific grooming to ‘look neat and contribute to a nice appearance’ (see Immergut (2010) for more detail on specific body hair removal).
Silversimon’s initial rebuttal centres on Dannyboy’s account as being outdated, since keeping pubic hair ‘wrappes around a tongue ring’ – aspects of some modern identities (Carroll and Anderson, 2002). Yet ‘I dont shave/remove hair all over my body, there are many places I like hair to be’ suggests he doesn’t want to risk appearing too ‘extreme’ and distances himself from Dannyboy’s more normative gender position. Interestingly, the second way he manages stake is in recycling his earlier comment of this being a modern aspect of masculine identity (‘I think is so 70’s’). However, perhaps the most novel, and riskier, aspect of his account is advocating intimacy (‘Skin against skin will ALWAYS feel better then skin against hair’). Combined with supporting gender equality, Silversimon’s account can be read as both an ‘inclusive’ masculinity (Bridges, 2014) but also a ‘gender rebel’ (Wetherell and Edley, 1999).
Positioning oneself as ‘gender rebel’ was a similar tact by Cityboy in the following extract. However, unlike Silversimon, he doesn’t draw on more modern ‘inclusive’ aspects of masculinity, but rather draws on more conventional ‘individuality’ (Gill et al., 2005).
Individuality and minimization
Extract 7 Cityboy 54. I have been shaving down there for a long time and 55. I like and prefer it that way. To each his own and 56. everyone should respect that. I'm sure people have 57. searched much more weird and bizarre things than 58. that! Groin shaving is tame compared to things I've 59. seen here.
Cityboy’s initial sentence (‘I have been shaving down there for a long time’) marks him as seasoned and perhaps a fair bit older than some of the other posters. What this does is lend authority to the account he is about to deliver. But rather than a simple account of personal preference (‘I … prefer’) and tolerance and respect (‘each to his own’), Cityboy draws on experience to counter potential critiques (‘Groin shaving is tame compared to things I’ve seen here)’. Indeed, in positioning himself as a ‘man-of-the-world’ and inviting others to recall their own experiences (‘I’m sure people have searched much more weird and bizarre things than that!’) he is able to trivialize this activity and anybody who wishes to challenge him.
This style of countering and reframing of groin shaving as seasoned masculinity, individuality and rebellious was also deployed by Davetherave. But what is interesting and novel about this response is the way the respondent is able to discount conventional gender-discrete activities. Extract 8 Davetherave 60. I have pretty much always lived my life 61. in an unorthodox fashion. I never really 62. TRIED to be different for the sake of being 63. different … just interested in new and unusual 64. things and experimentation. You only live 65. once so I want to do more than everyday 66. mundane things to make life a bit more 67. exciting. And I do mean more exciting than 68. groin shaving … HaHah!!
As with other posters, Davetherave personalizes his account (‘I have’). But whereas Sammyboy’s deployment of ‘I’ positioned himself as like many other men (‘I really didn’t want to’ but had to), Davetherave positions himself outside gender norms (‘I have pretty much always lived my life in an unorthodox fashion’). In doing so he draws on the masculine markers of individuality (‘You only live once’), rebelliousness (‘unorthodox’), and a man-of-the-world (‘lived my life … interested in new and unusual things and experimentation’) (Bridges, 2014; Donaldson, 1993; Gill et al., 2005; Wetherell and Edley, 1999). What also supports his masculinized account of groin shaving is that it is presented as authoritative, marked by experience and time (‘I have pretty much always’), and additionally supported by the deployment of several extreme-case formulations (‘pretty much always’, ‘never really’ and ‘everyday’; Pomerantz, 1986). What’s also notable is the way he manages his ‘stake’ as non-accountable and an inherent aspect of his identity (‘I never really TRIED to be different for the sake of being different’). In other words, his ‘effortlessness’ repertoire allows him to orient to potential critiques regarding vanity and sensation-seeking.
Discussion
Clearly, in-depth discourse analysis of men and teenage boys’ accounts of groin shaving can cast light on the manifold ways interest in penis size and aesthetic practices are accounted for in masculine ways. For example, in contemporary terms groin shaving was practised for cleanliness (‘hygiene and natural beauty’) and gender equality (‘It is b/c females want the guys to shave their bush’). Whereas, in more conventional terms, individuality was signalled (‘You only live once’) along with rebelliousness (‘unorthodox’) and being worldly (‘Groin shaving is tame compared to things I’ve seen here’). Indeed, having a ‘dick’ that ‘looks even bigger’ was also presented as advantageous. Reframing groin shaving in masculine ways isn’t surprising given that a concern with the body (other than perhaps muscularity, thinness and function; Gill et al., 2005; Grogan, 2007, 2010) and hair-removal (Toerien and Wilkinson, 2003) have traditionally been seen as in the realm of women and femininity.
What was also noticeable was that only two respondents engaged with size issues (Extracts 1 and 2). Jimbob implied he already had a ‘big dick’ in stating ‘look even bigger’, whereas Ontherodney vehemently dismissed size concerns (‘It’s about hygiene and natural beauty of the skin and nothing else’). The absence of posts stating that they wanted to ‘make the tree appear taller’ is also not surprising since to suggest that is one’s objective signals to other reads and respondents that one has penis size anxieties. Whilst it would be foolish to speculate on whether the respondents suffered more extreme psychological issues (e.g. dysmorphophobia; Wylie and Eardley; 2007: 1449), we do get a sense of the changing dynamics of heterosexual relationships and emotional interactions when respondents report shaving for women (‘I really didn’t want to do that but my girl said I had to or else I don’t get any’). But what is evident from an increasing number of men and teenage boys willing to engage with this non-typical gender activity, whether by action or response (more than six million hits and over 5000 comments) is that it supports Veale et al.’s (2013) findings that men and boys are both fascinated and dissatisfied with their genitals. Men’s interest, and concern, with their penises is not a new phenomenon, but what this paper suggests is that men and boys may be developing a new fascination and anxiety with the aesthetics of their penis. Fascination with the aesthetics of the penis also fits with other studies which report men increasingly ‘window dressing’ their bodies (e.g. cosmetic use, tattoos, hair removal etc.; see Hall et al., 2012a, 2012b and Grogan, 2007, 2010) to the demands of image conscious society in which the body and identity are becoming more fluid.
Although some men talked about wanting to enhance the size and look of their penis, there was no evidence to suggest these respondents had anxieties about penis size (‘small penis syndrome’; Wylie and Eardley, 2007). One might speculate that men may not openly admit to shaving the groin for this reason since it would potentially invite ridicule. Perhaps an open, widely available public forum is not the best place to examine these issues. Yet what this study does show is that penis size is not the only concern for men. Men seem to be increasingly interested in penis aesthetics (see Flowers et al., 2013). New penis enhancement possibilities mean that men are increasingly confronted with ideas that they should change their penis. As we saw, marketers have been quick to capitalize upon and promote penis-related products. However, for men to invest in these they risk being cast as insecure or vain (Edwards, 2003). Therefore, men must simultaneously negotiate (dis)interest in their penis. The analysis demonstrated the complex ways in which men achieved this and how many men swept charges of insecurity and vanity under the carpet in favour of heterosexual pleasure, cleanliness, self-respect and individuality.
Framing groin shaving with more traditional masculine markers such as penis size (‘look even bigger’; Jimbob, Extract 1), (‘one’s own heterosexual sexual pleasure’, ‘girls will give head easier’; Diamongeezer, Extract 3), individuality (‘You only live once’), rebelliousness (‘unorthodox’; Davetherave, Extract 8), etc., indicates that the concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ still has some analytical mileage (Connell, 1995). That is, non-typical practices are reframed in traditional ways in order to avoid having one’s masculine credentials questioned (see Hall et al.’s (2012a, 2012b) studies of metrosexuality). However, whilst men must position their masculinities in relation to more dominant notions, these notions are subject to change in different eras in light of current trends and demands. The invocation of modern masculine scripts such as caring (‘It is b/c females want the guys to shave their bush so it doesn’t scratch their sensitive shaved pubic area’; Justintime, Extract 5) and equality (‘Why should women be expected to keep it clean down there but not guys? Its respect’; Silversimon, Extract 6) are two examples from the data which may challenge such dominant notions of masculinities. These, combined with men’s willingness to engage the traditional feminized practice of body hair removal, suggest that many men now display more hybrid masculinities (Bridges, 2014). Whilst modern demands (e.g. to be well-presented) mean many men’s masculinities are more hybrid, they must also simultaneously reframe their non-traditional gender practices in more conventional terms. Although there is an inherent tension here I would caution the reader in thinking this means masculinities are in ‘crisis’ (MacInnes, 2001). What this does suggest is that masculinities are being reworked in light of contemporary demands in an image conscious society.
Clearly more work needs to be undertaken if we are to gain a clearer understanding of men’s relationship with their penis, but also how masculinities are being reworked for contemporary requirements such as presenting the body as healthy and aesthetically pleasing. Other research might focus on other aspects of men’s body work such as ‘back, sack and crack’, ‘manscaping’ or changing masculinity pre-, peri, post-penis augmentation surgery. Such insight may help practitioners deal with men in vulnerable contexts, e.g. during prostate screening or when managing sexually transmitted disease. Investing time in examining men’s penis concerns and activities offers the potential to identify valuable insights in which to help men (and boys) deal with the demands or modern society.