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

Abstract

In the first decade following Viagra’s appearance, feminist and critical scholars documented the sexuopharmaceutical expansion of definitions of erectile dysfunction and its target consumer. As we approach Viagra’s 30th anniversary, while feminist scholarship on the medicalization of sexuality flourishes, the impact of erectile medication has received much less attention. This paper (re)casts a critical lens on popularized erectile medication sexual health messages in the context of current pharmaceutical marketing targeting users as neoliberal aspirational sexual subjects. Discourse analysis reveals that online advice about erectile medication use leverages the increased preoccupation with health risk assessment and prevention technologies to normalize erectile dysfunction as a risk for all men, irrespective of age and health status. Erectile dysfunction is presented as inevitable, pathological, and requiring vigilance and expert consultation; penile performance acts as a predictive health gauge. Erectile medication users are situated as model masculine subjects, (medically) augmenting sexual proficiency in romantic or sexually experimental contexts.

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

“…MSM’s experiences are consistently filtered through health advocacy warnings about risks, in both mainstream and queer sites. Further research can address WebMD advice specifically tailored to heterosexual young men, as we have begun to do in a related project (Gurevich, Cormier, et al, 2016). A targeted search of online queer media sources can also extend the current analysis for MSM.…”

“…As SEM marketing expands the definition of ED and its intended users, SEM is being touted both as a performance enhancer and as a preventative measure against sexual failures (Bass, 2001; Lexchin, 2006; Loe, 2001; Vares & Braun, 2006). The therapeutic claims of these drugs exceed their established medical efficacy, promising to enhance pleasure and desire, mend relationships, increase self-esteem, and reaffirm masculinity (Fishman & Mamo, 2002; Lexchin, 2006; Mamo & Fishman, 2001; Gurevich, Cormier, Brown-Bowers, & Mercer, 2016; Gurevich, Leedham, Brown-Bowers, Cormier, & Mercer, 2017). Dominant Western discourses equate men’s psychological competence with physical mastery, rendering erectile capacity synonymous with proficient masculinity (Potts, 2000; Tiefer, 2004) in the face of common precarious masculinity concerns (Vandello & Bosson, 2013).…”

“…3An examination of the official websites of the four major PDE5 inhibitor manufacturers did not reveal adequate information for the current analysis, comparing MSM and MSW messages. Pharmaceutical advertising in relation to broader (hetero)sexuality discourses are described elsewhere (Gurevich, Cormier, et al, 2016). …”

Sexual Subversives or Lonely Losers? Discourses of Resistance and Containment in Women's Use of Male Homoerotic Media

“…Indeed, the symbolic embodiments of masculine physicality (erection, the cumshot) have long been relied upon as tangible proof of the authenticity of men's sexual pleasure in pornography (Lodder, 2016;Shamoon, 2004;Williams, 1999). However, the validity of these markers, too, can be called into question, for example, by the existence of "fluffers," the ability to edit video to produce the illusion of unbroken penile tumescence, marathon-esque longevity, and powerful ejaculations, and the rampant use of sexual enhancement medications in pornography (Farvid & Braun, 2006;Gurevich et al, 2017;Gurevich, Cormier, Leedham, & Brown-Bowers 2018;Potts, 2002, Williams, 1999. Thus, representations of masculine sexuality are no more likely to be reflections of "real" sexuality than those of women's sexuality in heterosexual and "girl-on-girl" pornography.…”

Medicalized Masculinities

“…Existing studies have ignited important discussions about the cultural impact of Viagra, and how Viagra has contributed to the medicalization of male bodies, narrowing discourse on both masculinity and sex (e.g. Mamo & Fishman, 2001;Gurevich et al, 2018;Tiefer, 2006;Vares & Brown, 2006). Although it may be tempting to write of spam as an illicit activity that has no effect on our lives aside from it being a nuisance in our online presence, studies suggest that it also does build on, reflect and transmit gender ideologies in ways similar to regular advertising (e.g.…”