Abstract
This study examines the practice and perception of receptive anal eroticism among 170 heterosexual undergraduate men in a US university. We analyze the social stigmas on men’s anal pleasure through the concept of homohysteria, which describes a cultural myth that the wrongdoing of gender casts homosexual suspicion onto heterosexual men. For men’s anal eroticism, this means that only gay, emasculated or gender deviant men are thought to enjoy anal pleasure. We suggest, however, that decreasing homohysteria has begun to erode this cultural ‘ban’ on anal stimulation for straight men. Our data finds self-identified straight university-aged men questioning cultural narratives that conflate anal receptivity with homosexuality and emasculation. We also show that 24 percent of our respondents have, at least once, received anal pleasure. These results suggest that cultural taboos around men’s anal pleasure may be shifting for younger men and the boundaries of straight identity expanding. We call for further research to clarify how anal erotic norms are shifting among men of different racial, geographic, socioeconomic, and age demographics, and to determine how these shifts may foster more pluralistic and inclusive views of gender and sexuality.
Introduction
This study represents the first-ever examination of how and how often heterosexual undergraduate men in the United States practice receptive anal eroticism. We show that in our sample of 170 respondents, nearly a quarter (24%, n = 40) have received anal erotic stimulation at least once in some form. Because we have not found previous research on anal erotic practices in this demographic, we cannot claim that straight American university men today are more likely to explore their own anal eroticism than generations past. However, to contextualize the data from our sample, we survey the literature on social stigma regarding heterosexual men’s anal pleasuring. Using this literature, we highlight an attitudinal change, partially decoupling the male anus from connotations of homosexuality and feminization. Whereas cultural narratives about men’s anal eroticism have long assumed that only gay, emasculated or gender deviant men would enjoy anal pleasure, our data suggest that these narratives may be fraying in heterosexual undergraduate male culture today. We analyze this data in relation to the concept of ‘homohysteria’, which Eric Anderson (2009) defines as heterosexual men’s fear of being perceived as gay, especially when they transgress masculine gender norms. We also call for further research on the anal erotic practices of other demographics, such as older men – including older men’s recollection of their undergraduate sexual practices – as well as men who have not attended university. We believe that these broader investigations will more fully illuminate how shifting erotic and gender norms are impacting men’s receptive anal erotic practices – and, in turn, how these anal practices are impacting men’s sexual identities.
The male 1 anus can be a highly pleasurable sex organ. With its dense network of sensory nerves that are shared with the genitals and with the muscles involved in orgasm, few other male organs besides the penis are as anatomically equipped to promote orgasm intensity (Agnew, 1985; Morin, 2010; Silverstein et al., 2003). This is especially true of the prostate, which is sometimes termed ‘the male G-spot’. Culturally, however, there exists a wide assumption that only gay and bisexual men desire or receive anal pleasure. These stereotypes about the male prostate are characterized by two key ideas: 1) that it is seen as analogous to the G(raffenberg) spot in women; and 2) that a man who enjoys receptive anal pleasure is socially perceived as gay and/or emasculated. Even as anal pleasure is stigmatized by its connotations of homosexuality and feminization, so in turn are gay and bisexual men frequently denigrated as dirty, emasculated, or deviant precisely for their cultural association with anal eroticism (Agnew, 1985; Branfman and Stiritz, 2012; Hite, 1981; Morin, 2010).
Relatively few academic studies have examined how men view, practice, and experience receptive anal pleasure (Agnew, 1985; Branfman and Stiritz, 2012; Hite, 1981; Morin, 2010). Those studies that do investigate male anal eroticism have largely focused on same-sex penile-anal intercourse, usually ignoring how men might receive anal pleasure during heterosexual play, as well as ignoring all forms of anal stimulation without a penis (McBride and Fortenberry, 2010). Further, most studies have examined men’s anal sex through a lens of disease, and not one of pleasure or eroticism (Exner et al., 2008), frequently treating it solely as a risky sexual behaviour related to the transmission of HIV.
Apart from some insightful non-academic work (see Glickman and Emirzian, 2013), we know of only one peer-reviewed study examining heterosexual men’s receptive anal pleasuring practices (Branfman and Stiritz, 2012). Yet that article is primarily theoretical and historical: Using feminist and queer theory to analyze the social stigmas around men’s anal pleasure, the authors argue that educators can employ the topic of male anal pleasure to help students critically analyze the social construction of sex, gender and sexuality. In the present article, the same authors join with sociologist Eric Anderson to utilize the same 2011 data set, but this time to empirically examine how frequently heterosexual respondents reported receiving anal erotic stimulation, and what cultural meanings they attached to this practice.
Based on the ambiguous and contradictory views and practices that our respondents report, we argue that decreasing cultural homophobia opens space for heterosexual men to engage in a variety of sexual and non-sexual behaviours that once were considered taboo for heterosexual men. We view this new permission in relation to homohysteria, which Anderson (2009) defines as the social fear that heterosexual men maintain of being socially perceived as gay, especially when transgressing masculine gender norms. Evidencing this shift, we show that nearly a quarter of our heterosexual participants (24%, n = 40) reported having previously engaged in some form of receptive anal play. These results suggest that young adult, heterosexual university men are beginning to accept and engage in the stimulation of the male anus and prostate for enjoyment, albeit oftentimes in a restricted form. This acceptability poses critical questions about the ongoing ability of homophobia to bifurcate men into exclusively gay and straight categories, or to assign specific sex acts to those categories, and opens up the possibility for men to think about their sexual identities in ways beyond ‘exclusively straight’.
Gender, sexuality and sexual stigma
The mainstream culture of the United States commonly conflates anatomical sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. For example, in their work on the ‘implicit inversion hypothesis,’ psychologists Deaux and Kite (1987) found that gay men are commonly assumed to have a feminine gender identification and characteristics, while lesbian women are commonly assumed to have a masculine identification and characteristics. This mainstream perception differs from academics’ and activists’ widespread recognition that sex, gender, and sexuality are distinct social categories and identities, interrelated through complex power relations (Schwartz and Rutter, 1998). In examining these tangled associations as they interact with anal eroticism – especially the cultural conflation of anal pleasure, gayness and feminization – we do not intend to reproduce the problematic conflation of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Instead, we seek to accurately map how these constructs are experienced and policed in men’s lives.
We borrow Anderson’s notion of ‘homosexualization’ (2008) to describe the way that certain activities are culturally coded as ‘gay’ and hence can throw a man’s heterosexual identity and reputation into question. One key example of homosexualization is the cultural belief that straight men who stimulate their own anus, or willingly allow another to stimulate it, must really be gay. A man who is known to enjoy or pursue anal pleasure, a pleasure associated with gay sexual orientation and feminine receptivity, is ‘homosexualized’ in the eyes of his peers, and (as our data show), possibly in his own eyes as well.
This taboo on men’s anal eroticism fits within the much broader phenomenon of stigma that has historically been used to police multiple non-normative sexual behaviours under a rubric of individual and social harm (Gray et al., 2014; Rubin, 1984). In this capacity, stigma related to heterosexual men’s anal pleasure is akin to older taboos, including the past taboo on clitoral eroticism, which was long associated with female homosexuality (Maines, 2001). For example, Stiritz (2008) has argued that for much of the 19th and 20th centuries, many women were instructed to avoid clitoral stimulation out of fear of being thought lesbian and/or improperly masculine.
This stigma on receiving anal pleasure is also reminiscent of other homosexualizing sexual behaviours for men. One example is masturbation, which was believed throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries to be a perverse behaviour interrelated with homosexuality or ‘sodomy’ (and was thus possibly homosexualizing for straight men doing it) (Chauncey, 2004). Because of the stigma around homosexuality, and in accordance with the principle of dyadic completion (Gray et al., 2014), by which people ascribe harm to harmless acts out of moral repugnance, masturbation was believed to cause deep psychological and societal ramifications. At least one medical authority of the late 19th century ascribed to it intense social ills, writing: Neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of Onanism [masturbation]; it is the destroying element of civilized societies. (Dr. Adam Clarke on masturbation; quoted in Kellogg, 1890: 233)
Homohysteria and the fear of anal sex
Anderson (2009) describes homohysteria as a conceptual tool to understand the production, stratification, and policing of men’s sexualities as culturally valued or subjugated through gendered performances (see also McCormack and Anderson, 2014). Homohysteric cultures are ones in which homophobia is deployed to regulate gendered behaviours. This is to say that the social stigma on male homosexuality also limits the sexual and gendered lives of heterosexual men (Pollack, 1999). Just as gay men must avoid certain feminized behaviours if they desire to be thought socially heterosexual, so too must straight men.
Thus, one way of looking at the distinction between homophobia and homohysteria is that whereas homophobia refers to antipathy toward sexual minorities and the social problems they face because of this, homohysteria names the social paranoia and problems that heterosexuals face because of homophobia. This definition of homohysteria does not imply that straight people suffer the same levels of social stigma, economic and legal discrimination, or physical and emotional violence as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, intersex, or asexual people. Rather, the concept of homohysteria offers additional vocabulary for describing how the homophobic and misogynist systems which materially privilege straight men also exact a severe price from those men (for more on this topic see Anderson, 2009; Brod, 1987; Connell, 1987, 2005; Kimmel, 1996, 2001; Pascoe, 2007). Hence, while diminishing homophobia in contemporary society (Keleher and Smith, 2012) primarily leads to improving cultural conditions for sexual minorities, it also diminishes homohysteria, freeing heterosexually-identified people from the compulsive need to avoid any hint of homosexualizing behaviour.
The desire to be perceived as heterosexual and masculine is understandable in a culture that distributes privilege unequally according to gender and sexuality. Consequently, when boys and men fear the stigma of homosexuality, they normally conceal their same-sex sexual practices (Lancaster, 1988). According to this model, the only way for a man to be considered heterosexual and masculine is to avoid any same-sex sexual act and to avoid admitting same-sex sexual desire. Anderson (2009) argues that this behaviour is more salient in a culture of homohysteria, and that it not only regulates gendered behaviours but that it also regulates sexual, or pseudo-sexual behaviours with other men.
Borrowing from the one-drop theory of race (Harris, 1964), in which a dominant white culture often still views anyone with even a portion of black genetic ancestry as black, Anderson (2008) calls the behavioural component of this model the one-time rule of homosexuality. This term reflects the cultural tendency to equate a man’s one-time same-sex sexual experience with a homosexual orientation in masculine peer culture. However, the inverse of this rule does not apply evenly to gay men: A gay man who once sleeps with a woman is not socially perceived as straight. Schwartz and Rutter (1998: 12) therefore write: We have to rethink how we have demonized the power of homosexuality so that we assume it to be the greater truth of our sexual self – as if one drop of homosexuality tells the truth of self while one drop of heterosexuality in a homosexual life means nothing.
Given the common conflation of sexual orientation with gender, this one-time rule carries a double risk for men who reveal they have experience with same-sex sex. It disqualifies them from achieving the requisites of heterosexuality and it diminishes their masculine capital among peers. As many scholars have noted, this judgment often does not hold true for women, who often face the opposite problem. Lesbian and bisexual-identified women are frequently dismissed as just experimenting or going through a phase, even after consistently having sex and/or relationships with other women (Schwartz and Rutter, 1998).
How does men’s anal pleasure, even in heterosexual scenarios, relate to the one-drop rule of homosexuality? We argue that a man’s socially perceived heterosexual identity is partially conditioned not only upon sex with ‘appropriate’ (opposite-sex) partners, but also upon ‘appropriate’ sex roles. According to this social norm, heterosexual men who wish to avoid stigma must penetrate women, not stimulate or penetrate their own orifices, or allow their orifices to be stimulated or penetrated by others – even if those others are women. While stimulating one’s own anus is not direct sexual contact with another male, homohysteria constructs anal stimulation as a homosexual affair, even if performed in the absence of another male (Agnew, 1985; Hite, 1981; Morin, 2010).
Decreasing sexual stigma
The myths and misattributions of the one-time rule of homosexuality were particularly prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, a time of peak homohysteria in the United States (not least because of homophobic, racist, classist, and sex-phobic reactions to the outbreak of HIV). Yet attitudes toward sex and sexuality are changing in US society (McCormack and Anderson, 2014). Recent decades have brought an erosion of orthodox views and institutional control of sexual behaviours and relationships. This shift is made evident in the growing percentage of people who engage in pre-marital intercourse (Bogle, 2008), the social and legal permission for divorce, decreasing social prohibition on oral sex (Vannier and O’Sullivan, 2012), group sex (Frank, 2013), masturbation (Laqueur et al., 2002), BDSM (Weiss, 2011), pornography (McNair, 2002) and prostitution (Vanwesenbeeck, 2013). Perhaps the best-known example of this social loosening is the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision which declared all sodomy laws unconstitutional (Chauncey, 2004). As we discuss below, sociological research suggest that there has been a corresponding loosening of the one-time rule of homosexuality (Anderson et al., 2012).
We argue that at least some of these trends are related to an increase in the social acceptance of alternative categories of sexuality (Weeks, 2007), including homosexuality, and a category of men describing themselves as ‘mostly straight’ (Savin-Williams and Vrangalova, 2013). 2 McCormack and Anderson (2014) suggest that as homophobia declines (or at least becomes less blatant and institutional) in the United States, so too does homohysteria. Part of this shift is the cultural reinterpretation of sexual and social behaviours that once homosexualized American men. For example, Anderson, Adams and Rivers (2012) have shown that, while there is no previously documented history of western men kissing each other on the lips, data from 145 interviews among British undergraduate men finds that 89 percent have done so. In replicate research on 90 heterosexual undergraduate males in Australia, Drummond, Filiault, Anderson and Jeffries (2015) find 29 percent have kissed other men. Survey data from 475 men from throughout 11 American universities, and 75 in-depth interviews with American undergraduate men, indicate that male-to-male kissing occurs among undergraduate, heterosexual men at the rate of 10 percent (Anderson, 2014). Furthermore, in this special issue, Scoats, Joseph and Anderson show that threesomes comprised of two men and one woman do not necessarily homosexualize men in their eyes or others’, so long as sexual activity between the two men occurs at the request of the female and avoids anal sex. However, Glickman and Emirzian (2013) suggest that young, straight-identified men are increasingly willing to be anally penetrated by a sex toy under the control of a woman.
Despite the fascinating data that these studies offer, there remains a lack of research that directly examines the changing role of anal erotic pleasure in young straight men’s sexual practices. The present study moves toward filling that gap with empirical data.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were a self-selecting snowball sample of 228 undergraduate men, representing many sexual and ethnic identities, but here we only report data from the 170 respondents who self-identified as heterosexual. All participants attended the same Midwestern university in the United States, which draws approximately 12,000 graduate and undergraduate students from all regions of the country. The university’s population is disproportionately white and affluent.
In regards to norms of gender, sexuality, and sexual practice, the site of this study is particularly progressive for the region: The university houses one of the oldest programs in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies in the country, and general education requirements draw many students to these courses, regardless of their academic fields. Many of the campus fraternities have openly gay members, some of whom bring their male dates to formal fraternity events. Given this environment, the results of this study likely reflect more progressive views on masculine norms in general – including those around anal pleasure – than those held by the general population of the United States.
Survey respondents were recruited by email to participate in an anonymous online survey. We did not ask about identifying as ‘mostly straight,’ instead offering choices of straight, bisexual, gay, asexual, or other. The survey, approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, included 45 questions and took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Survey questions concerned a wide array of experiences, beliefs, and knowledge regarding male anal sexuality and the related taboo. Virtually every question provided a text box for comments and invited respondents to write in additional thoughts.
In January 2011, the researchers initiated a snowballing process by emailing the survey link to student acquaintances, then asking those acquaintances to forward the link to their peers. Specific attempts were made to distribute the survey among differing age groups and social cohorts, such as sports teams, singing groups, and fraternities. However, since all responses were anonymous, it is not possible to determine how fully the sample represents the university’s heterosexual male undergraduate population.
Before presenting questions, the survey required respondents to read an IRB-approved summary of the study and indicate their informed consent. The survey’s opening questions then screened participants for eligibility based on: age (18 to 23); being anatomically male; and current undergraduate status. Among the heterosexual respondents, the mean age was 20.15 years. The sample was over 80 percent white, with East Asian comprising the next largest ethnic demographic (9%), and a variety of ethnicities comprising the final 11 percent.
Measures and coding
The analysis of measured data for this article comes from Likert scale responses, open-ended responses, and written commentary. Concerning Likert scale questions, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with various statements. For example, those who had experienced anal eroticism were asked to rate their agreement with eight statements concerning shame about their anal experiences. Examples included: I’m ashamed of exploring anal pleasure and I’m ashamed that I enjoy being anally penetrated. This quantitative data were downloaded from Surveymonkey into SPSS to generate descriptive statistics for analysis. In cases where respondents used 7-point Likert scale responses to express agreement with a given statement, responses were simplified into three categories: 1–3 (disagree), 4 (neutral), and 5–7 (agree). The first measures we surveyed concern participants’ beliefs about the homosexualizing nature of male anal stimulation. For example, we had students rate their agreement or disagreement with the phrase Straight men can’t enjoy anal pleasure, and similar phrases.
Because this is an exploratory study, our statistics are purely descriptive. We encourage others to replicate this study with larger samples so that they may find statistically significant correlations and comparisons (for example, between the attitudes of gay and straight men, or the attitudes of men in ‘masculine’ social terrains like football teams versus those on ‘feminine’ terrains like cheerleading).
Open-ended questions were also asked. For example, respondents were asked why, in their opinion, male anal pleasure is not discussed more often, and why men might avoid exploring or discussing anal pleasure. These open-ended responses were then coded by the researchers. For example, written responses like ‘Men are afraid of being seen as gay’ and ‘Because it is associated with gay males … which makes people avoid discussing it, for fear of being associated with its negative image’ were uniformly coded as Men are afraid they’ll be perceived as gay. Respondents were also asked if a sexual partner had ever spontaneously touched their anus without invitation and how they reacted to this situation. The open-ended responses were then recoded (i.e. ‘It was awesome’ and ‘I loved it’ were uniformly coded as It felt good.)
The third category of data came through written commentary, where respondents were provided with a text box in which to reply. Respondents were, for example, asked in several ways if they personally wanted to explore anal pleasure. The researchers then recoded the open-ended responses (i.e. ‘view it as a gay-oriented act’ and ‘just think it sounds too gay’ were uniformly coded as I associate it with homosexuality). Using the same system of researcher triangulation, other qualitative responses of ‘I think society would more strongly associate penetration with homosexuality’ and ‘Anal penetration is like having sex with a guy’ were uniformly coded as Being penetrated is seen as a homosexual act.
Homosexualization of the male anus
Throughout the survey, straight men reported knowing that anal pleasure exists as a potential function of male anatomy. Most straight respondents (n = 162, 95%) had previously heard of men’s anatomical capacity for anal pleasure, and 72 percent (n = 123) had considered this information reliable. One respondent stated, ‘I thought it was common knowledge.’ Indeed, only about 11 percent (n = 20) of respondents expressed surprise when presented with our passage explaining the anatomy of anal pleasure and methods for safely stimulating the prostate. Respondents most commonly reported that they first learned about male anal pleasure from unofficial sources such as pornography (n = 55, 36%) or a friend (n = 73, 48%). By far the least common source was a family member (n = 1). However, several students (n = 24, 16%) reported learning about male anal pleasure in high school sexual education classes.
While many respondents reported knowing that the anus has pleasurable potential, they were also aware that this pleasure carries stigmas of homosexuality and emasculation. They expressed a range of conflicting views on how valid they believed these stigmas to be. Of 116 straight respondents who proposed explanations for the stigma on men’s anal stimulation, the majority (n = 72, 62%) cited cultural connotations of homosexuality; only 7 percent (n = 8) cited hygiene concerns as the reason for stigmatizing or avoiding men’s anal eroticism. Indicating the influence of homohysteria, 20 percent (n = 24) specifically cited that other straight men might fear being thought gay. As one respondent stated, ‘this stigma stops many men from learning or practicing it as an option for pleasure.’ Another noted that because anal eroticism ‘carries a very homosexual connotation for all men,’ those who engage in it risk becoming ‘the subject of ridicule by ourselves, our friends, and our communities.’ A third wrote: I wish it was talked about more. I’m a straight man, and I see no problems with anal stimulation (for any type of sexual partners). I would venture to guess that the stigma of anal stimulation is still linked with homophobia to some degree.
In a question about whether respondents associate anal erotic play with gay men, one respondent commented, ‘I take “associate” to mean that I have an immediate, stereotyping thought of this group of people when I hear about anal pleasure. I do believe that all of the groups above (except for asexuals) engage in anal pleasure!’ Likewise, another student commented, ‘Though not all gay/bisexual men use anal stimulation as a source of pleasure, the idea is associated with homosexuality.’ As one respondent elaborated, ‘Gays and straights all have a prostate, nah mean? That shit feels awesome, pun intended.’ The same respondent later added, ‘Everyone likes playing with that ass, some people just won’t admit it.’ Thus, as these comments reflect, our participants commonly reported that anal eroticism is linked with homosexuality – yet many quantitative and qualitative responses about personal attitudes and beliefs highlight a disjuncture from this homohysteric belief.
As further evidence that many of our respondents question the notion of male anal eroticism as explicitly the domain of same-sex attracted men, just 5 percent (n = 8) of respondents agreed with the statement, Straight men can’t enjoy anal pleasure and 24 percent (n = 41) agreed with the statement, Only gay men like to be anally stimulated or penetrated during sex. Meanwhile, 23% (n = 39) agreed with the statement, In men, I think anal pleasure is homosexual pleasure. Despite the general disagreement with these ideas, it is noteworthy that responses varied so widely with regard to relatively similar statements. This variation may suggest that, as with many topics, respondents’ beliefs are ambiguous and contextual.
Finally, despite this trend to reject the stereotypes about anal pleasure, most participants reported that they did not consider anal play a common activity for straight men. Only a minority, albeit a noteworthy one (n = 59, 35%), agreed with the statement, Many straight men like to be anally stimulated during sex. Respondents were especially unlikely to view anal penetration as a common activity for straight men: Whereas 59 respondents agreed that many straight men like to be anally ‘stimulated’ during sex, less than half that number (n = 24, 14%) agreed with the statement, Many straight men like to be anally penetrated during sex. As we discuss in our next section, men’s reported rates of actual anal erotic practices were also lower than their beliefs about the practice might indicate.
Personal practices and experiences
Our survey also asked respondents about their own anal erotic practices in three categories: At least once in the past, At least once a month, and At least once a week. In each category, the most commonly selected activity was Rub my own rectum, followed by Use a finger to anally penetrate myself. A notable minority of the men reported past anal activity of some kind (n = 40, 24%). Sixteen percent (n = 28) had used a finger to anally penetrate themselves at least once in the past. However, only 5 percent (n = 9) of straight respondents reported rubbing their own anus at least once a month. This point indicates that even for straight respondents who had explored anal eroticism, anal pleasure was not a consistent part of their sexual lives.
Of respondents who reported past anal erotic experience, 10 percent (n = 17) had their experience with a sex partner. In explaining how they perceived this action, the most common responses were, It felt good (n = 15, 31%), followed by, I was surprised (n = 12, 25%) and I went along with it (n = 10, 21%). One respondent wrote: ‘It was incredible.’ However, seven respondents stated that they would react very negatively if a sex partner touched their anus. For example, one wrote, ‘I would freak out and tell them to get the hell away from my anus. I would then ask them to leave. I don’t want to be sexually involved with someone who tries to touch my anus.’
Respondents who reported past anal stimulation also reported a narrow repertoire of anal erotic acts (i.e. auto-stimulation, auto-penetration, receiving analingus, etc.), averaging less than two types of anal erotic acts. Nevertheless, some respondents had explored an unexpected variety of anal behaviours. For example, one respondent noted that he had once ‘Lost a bet and let a female partner anally penetrate me.’
Of 37 respondents who reported on whether they found anal stimulation enjoyable, 68 percent (n = 25) reported finding it pleasurable, and 5 percent (n = 2) found it ‘extremely pleasurable’. Only two found it ‘not at all pleasurable’, one of whom limited his statement: I’m learning what I like in much the same way that females go through the process of learning how they like their clitoris stimulated. I really like anal exterior stimulation but penetration can be harder to make pleasurable. I still need to find the prostate down there!
The survey also explored why straight men do not participate in the stimulation of their own anuses. When given a list of reasons to choose from, the most common reasons for not wanting to explore anal eroticism were: Just not interested (N = 25, 29%), followed by, It sounds physically painful/uncomfortable (n = 15, 17%) and, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of anal play (n = 12, 14%). Hence, very few respondents cited the connotations of homosexuality (n = 3, 3.5%) or emasculation (n = 1) as personal reasons to avoid anal eroticism.
Even while these findings suggest the decoupling of homohysteria from anal eroticism, some respondents continue to ascribe homosexualization to men who pursue such eroticism. One respondent called anal sexual play ‘unnatural, disgusting, and emasculating’ and another remarked, ‘I wouldn’t want to rupture my asshole. I also just think it sounds too gay’. Another said, ‘I’m not homophobic, but my ass has a one way policy’. Conversely, a student commented, ‘I’d love to explore it more. Sometimes it’s tough (tight ass:-/) but I’m getting better. I use gloves I steal from SHS [Student Health Services], haha’.
The above quotes indicate that, for most men, homohysteria has not been completely de-coupled from homosexuality. As further evidence of this point, 79 percent (n = 135) of heterosexual respondents agreed with the statement, I’d be embarrassed to ask a female partner to anally penetrate me (i.e. with a finger). Qualitative comments included a variety of opinions on this topic, too. One participant said, ‘Many females would be receptive to penetration with a finger and not question the man’s orientation’. Conversely, another wrote, ‘cultural perceptions really blow if you want a finger in your butt. I’m serious’. Another student wrote, ‘Definitely more trust involved in asking to be played with anally than there is in asking to handcuff her or experiment with other kinks’. Another wrote, ‘I’m not sure I would feel comfortable stepping over the taboo line and asking a female partner to stimulate me in a way sometimes associated with homosexual men’.
Discussion
The quantitative data and qualitative comments that we report above highlight the personal and social complexity and ambiguity of uncoupling homosexuality from anal eroticism in men. The sexual and gendered lives of young, heterosexual males are in rapid flux; millennial men are rapidly casting off traditional sexual and gendered views (Anderson, 2014). This study both adds to and nuances a body of research that shows a loosening of gender-regulated behaviours for men of the generation we study here (i.e. McCormack, 2012), and research that shows a loosening of sexual restrictions on homosexuality, or sexual acts between heterosexually-identified men (Ward, 2015).
As we discuss in our literature review above, Anderson (2008) has previously shown that limited forms of same-sex sex are socially permissible for heterosexual-identified men within the context of a threesome; and research on British (Anderson et al., 2012), Australian (Drummond et al., 2014) and American (Anderson, 2014) men shows that certain, limited forms of same-sex kissing is no longer automatically homosexualizing. Anderson and McCormack (2014) also show heterosexual undergraduate men cuddling in bed together is the norm among team-sport athletes. These studies suggest that young heterosexual men take a more complicated view of men’s sexuality today, compared with men of recent decades (Adams et al., 2010; McCormack et al., 2014) in that many eschew binaristic thinking of gay-and-straight and dismiss the one-time rule of homosexuality (Ward, 2015).
We contribute to this body of literature in two ways. First, we provide the first-ever data on the prevalence of heterosexual university men’s anal receptive anal sex practices, and views about these practices. We suggest that homohysteria may count among the reasons why this topic has not been previously researched – perhaps an assumption amongst even sex researchers that straight-identified men would not do such a thing. We hope that other researchers will investigate, retrospectively, older heterosexual males’ anal erotic behaviours in order that a hypothesis about whether and how much such practices are changing might be upheld or rejected. While we cannot make a longitudinal claim to changing anal practices in this article, we nonetheless show an equally if not more compelling cultural change, that of attitudinal change.
Whereas research from the last few decades has shown that anal stimulation inherently placed a man’s heterosexuality in question (Agnew, 1985; Hite, 1981; Morin, 2010), the majority of our respondents did not consider receptive anal play the exclusive domain of gay men; nor did they see anal play as a sign of gayness or failed manhood. Yet it is also important to note that a sizeable minority of respondents did strongly espouse stigmatizing views of anal eroticism, and that most respondents reported being aware that such stigmas exist. We thus argue that declining cultural homophobia has decreased homohysteria in ways that leave cultural narratives about anal eroticism open to new ambiguity, question, and challenge. In this context of shifting sexual and gender norms, anal eroticism may come to feature as more and more ‘normal’ in a recalibrated notion of heterosexuality and masculinity.
Whereas Belkin (2001) has written about the multiple and contradictory meanings of anal penetration for straight men, we find different narratives about penetrative experiences. Belkin argues that the US military is a site in which the capacity to endure anal penetration sometimes carries associations of resilience, toughness, and heteromasculinity – thus suggesting that anal receptivity by straight men isn’t always a sign of liberation or a loosening of male gender norms. Our data, however, reveal that in other social and institutional contexts, such as universities, men’s anal eroticism may be increasingly recast by straight men as a ‘normal’ activity in ways that do not simply shore up heteromasculinity.
Instead, we argue that the decrease in cultural homohysteria has permitted more cultural discussion of a once-taboo sex practice. That is, just as recent decades have eroded social stigma around pre-marital intercourse (Bogle, 2008), oral sex (Vannier and O’Sullivan, 2012), group sex (Frank, 2013), masturbation (Laqueur et al., 2002), BDSM (Weiss, 2011), pornography (McNair, 2002) prostitution (Vanwesenbeeck, 2013), and same-sex kissing among straight men (Anderson et al., 2012), we suggest that there has also been a corresponding loosening of homohysteria around anal eroticism – questioning the anus as an inherently homosexualizing location in a straight male’s body.
Although previous research on the pleasuring of the heterosexual male anus demonstrated that it was culturally viewed as emasculating, deviant, and homosexualizing (Morin, 2010), our multiple response-type survey of 170 heterosexual undergraduate men at one university suggests that students hold diverse and ambivalent views on this subject. While participants report believing that Americans, in general, view anal eroticism as a marker of homosexuality and emasculation – which can then be used to delineate the boundaries of ‘acceptable’ masculine gender and sexuality – the majority indicated that they personally contest these assumptions. Thus, there may be a third-party effect in operation, by which men perceive others as being more homohysteric than themselves, and hence police their own actions and statements accordingly. This phenomenon may be one reason why most respondents reported disinterest or ambivalence about personally exploring anal pleasure, with only a few reporting enthusiastic interest.
Likewise, although only a few respondents reported vehement rejection of their own potential for anal eroticism, men were still embarrassed to ask a female partner to anally stimulate or penetrate them, and only 10 percent said that women sex partners had ever taken the initiative to stimulate their anus. It thus appears that few women are talking about this with their male sexual partners, and this suggests that a cultural decoupling of male anal eroticism from homosexuality is only a work in progress, for both genders.
Our findings thus suggest an in-process cultural decoupling of male anal eroticism from the connotation of homosexuality. We suggest that as cultural homohysteria dissipates, the anus becomes more open for heterosexual male eroticism. This is a trend that is increasingly reflected in and produced by popular culture too. The visibility and representation of pegging (where a female uses a strap-on dildo to penetrate a male) in mainstream American television shows like Broad City (see the episode ‘Knockoffs’, 2015) has expanded. There has also been an expansion of cultural interest in the straight male anus, perhaps best evidenced by its discussion in the multiple works of sex columnist Dan Savage (2001), and the popularity of the porn series Bend over Boyfriend (Rednour, 1998).
The flux and contestation that we observed among our respondents may act in a circular process too. If anal eroticism becomes viewed and experienced as ‘normal’ for heterosexual men, this change may in turn reduce part of the stigma on gay and bisexual men. Further, if anal eroticism, man-to-man kissing, and other gay-coded activities do indeed become more widespread among men who identify as heterosexual, in some social milieus the very categories of gay, straight and bisexual orientation may fall increasingly into question or become more popularly perceived as less relevant. The cultural context which has enabled ‘mostly straights’ to be recognized as a legitimate sexual identity may be the same social milieu that enables men to explore their own anal pleasure zones. In other words, heterosexual men’s identities may be shifting to encompass behaviours, pleasures, and experiences once exclusively considered ‘gay’ and hence may blur the socially constructed boundaries of heterosexuality. It is therefore possible that the G spot in men will lose its connotation as the g(ay) spot, and as more heterosexual men come to profess the pleasures of an anally enhanced orgasm, it may increasingly be viewed as simply akin to the female Grafenberg spot.
We note that this utopian vision is far from guaranteed. As Branfman and Stiritz (2012) have written, exploring anal pleasure does not automatically transform straight men’s politics or their treatment of sexual and gender minorities. In fact, if anal pleasure does indeed lose its cultural association with homosexuality and feminization, this decoupling may simply free straight men to explore it without critically questioning their own oppressive beliefs about gender and sexuality. Meanwhile, Jane Ward’s fascinating work in Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men (2015) illustrates how entire subcultures of men can maintain strict homophobic, racist, and misogynistic norms even while participating in the most homosexualizing of activities.
Therefore, rather than offering sweeping, universal claims about the meaning and impact of relaxed norms around male anal eroticism, we offer a contextually specific and contingent conclusion. Based on our data, we suggest that the destigmatization of anal pleasure at least has the potential to open space for critical questions and dialogues about gender and sexual orientation that would previously have been silenced. From a social justice standpoint, we believe that even as decreased homophobia opens space for straight men to experiment with previously homosexualizing activities like anal eroticism, so in turn may increased understanding of anal pleasure help reduce stigma projected onto gay, bisexual, and other queer-identified men. In openly discussing all men’s capacity for anal pleasure, receptivity, and penetrability, young men might question accepted gender norms and the stigmas of emasculation, deviance, and dirtiness that are so often used to degrade it. We therefore conclude by calling for further study of this topic across various demographics, to help illuminate what shifts are actually happening in men’s anal erotic practices. In turn, we believe that this data will help clarify how such sexual practices both reflect and amplify changes in dominant sexual and gender categories, stigmas, and power imbalances.