Responsible or reckless men? Sexuopharmaceutical messages differentiated by sexual identity of users.

Abstract

This study focuses on popularized representations of sexual enhancement medication (SEM) use. Relying on online forums, a discourse analytic approach (i.e., treating talk as action and as identity practice; Wetherell & Edley, 2014) examines how these portrayals are positioned within dominant discourses about male sexuality and masculinity. Intending to examine both SEM user testimonials and health expert advice about recreational SEM use, we found that men who have sex with men (MSM) user narratives were virtually nonexistent; only men who have sex with women (MSW) user narratives were locatable. SEM experiences of MSM are consistently filtered through health advocacy warnings about risks, in both mainstream and queer sites. Two prominent discourses emerged: SEM among MSW—legitimacy, heteronormativity, and relationship preservation and SEM among MSM—recreation, risk, and excess. The skewed representation of SEM used by MSM in empirical literature and sexual health advice and the omission of MSM from mainstream marketing, is shaping health discourses that link recreational uses of these drugs with gay men and risky sexual behavior (Wentzell, 2011). This reflects a broader cultural rhetoric that associates the sexuality of MSM with sexual health risks and concurrent illicit drug use.

Sexual dysfunction or sexual discipline? Sexuopharmaceutical use by men as prevention and proficiency

“…Results of impotence severity self-reports (mild, moderate, complete) from men aged 40 to 70 years (in 1987–1989) were pooled during Viagra clinical trials. The qualifier “degree” conceals large data variability (partial, temporary, or occasional erectile difficulty) (Gurevich et al., 2017a), in addition to Pfizer’s omission of the fact that the 40% figure is based on a single question for a small group of men recruited from a university urology clinic (Lexchin, 2006). These responses were then used to estimate prevalence for a much larger group recruited from the Boston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.…”

“…Prestage et al., 2014). Notably, popular medical representations of such recreational use position MSW as responsible partners motivated by sexual and relational enhancement goals, while MSM are depicted as sexual dissidents in pursuit of reckless, drug-fuelled sexual conquests (Gurevich et al., 2017b).…”

“…One specific instance of the way commerce and sex converge upon men’s meanings and practices of embodiment (Gill, Henwood, & McLean, 2005) is crystalized in popularized discourses about EM. Both popularized medical advice (Gurevich et al., 2017b) and pharmaceutical campaigns (Gurevich et al., 2017a) promote EM as a state-of-the-art new sexual capital for (increasingly younger) heterosexual men. We present a discourse analysis of online popularized EM messages.…”

“…Recreational EM use is also growing among younger men with no ED diagnosis, both for men who have sex with women (MSW) (Harte & Meston, 2012) and for men who have sex with men (MSM) (Prestage et al., 2014). Despite this installation of EM as increasingly routine, the last near decade has seen relatively fewer analyses of updated EM marketing and popularized information (see Berry, 2013; Gurevich, Leedham, Brown-Bowers, Cormier, & Mercer, 2017a; Gurevich, Mercer, Cormier, & Leedham, 2017b for exceptions). Mainstream medical and social science research on recreational EM use – sidestepping analyses of pharmaceutical messaging – is preoccupied with sexual health risks and constructing hierarchies of risky groups (Gurevich et al., 2017b).…”

“…Despite this installation of EM as increasingly routine, the last near decade has seen relatively fewer analyses of updated EM marketing and popularized information (see Berry, 2013; Gurevich, Leedham, Brown-Bowers, Cormier, & Mercer, 2017a; Gurevich, Mercer, Cormier, & Leedham, 2017b for exceptions). Mainstream medical and social science research on recreational EM use – sidestepping analyses of pharmaceutical messaging – is preoccupied with sexual health risks and constructing hierarchies of risky groups (Gurevich et al., 2017b). While feminist scholarship on the medicalization of (especially women’s) sexuality (e.g.…”