Heteronormativity, Stigma, and the Intersections of BDSM And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JHPXXX10.1177/0022167819882148Journal of Humanistic PsychologyPitagora 882148research-article2019 Re-Imagining “Kink”: Transformation, Growth and Healing through BDSM Journal of Humanistic Psychology 1 –23 Pleasure, Power, or © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: Both? Heteronormativity, sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167819882148DOI: 10.1177/0022167819882148 Stigma, and the journals.sagepub.com/home/jhp Intersections of BDSM and Anoreceptive Heterosexual Males Dulcinea Alex Pitagora1 Abstract Despite the direct connection between anal sex and pleasure, the majority of academic literature frames anal sex in terms of homophobia and/or disease. In the large body of literature on anal sex, only two academic articles have been published on anoreceptive heterosexual males (ARHMs), despite evidence of this type of sexuality dating back to Ancient Egypt and Greece. A review of the literature suggests that the lack of empirical research on ARHMs is due to compulsory heteronormativity, which can instill sexual shame in those with nonconforming sexual preferences. Some ARHMs are BDSM-oriented, and given that BDSM behavior and identity are also stigmatized, BDSM-oriented ARHMs have an additional concealable status that is subject to prejudice. Skills such as higher level communication and self-reflection often inform BDSM interactions and relationship structures, therefore, BDSM-oriented ARHMs may have more opportunity to develop skills to offset shame and stigma, and may take pride as well as pleasure in subverting traditionally heteronormative anoreception roles. 1New York University, New York, NY, USA Corresponding Author: Dulcinea Alex Pitagora, Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 110 Lafayette Street, suite 501, New York, NY 10013, USA. Email: [email protected] 2 Journal of Humanistic Psychology 00(0) Keywords BDSM, sexual minority pride, sexual shame, male heterosexuality, anal sex Throughout history, the most memorable published depictions of BDSM— de Sade’s (1785/1966) 120 Days of Sodom, von Sacher-Masoch’s (1870) Venus in Furs, Réage’s (1954) The Story of O, and James’ (2011) Fifty Shades of Grey—tend to be controversial if not reductive, dysfunctional, and/or nonconsensual (and therefore not actually BDSM). In works such as these, the focal point tends to overemphasize presumed danger and dark- ness. However, in the past two decades, sexuality, psychology, and sociol- ogy researchers have increasingly reported the positive relational and therapeutic benefits of engaging in BDSM, including heightened intimacy, strengthened partner bonding, increased well-being and self-acceptance, and reduced stress (e.g., Khan, 2015; Lee et al., 2016; Lindemann, 2011; Newmahr, 2011; Pitagora, 2017; Weiss, 2011; Yost, 2010). There has also been an emphasis in the literature on the pursuit of pleasure as the founda- tion of and motivation for BDSM interactions (Beckmann, 2009; Newmahr, 2011; Ortmann & Sprott, 2013; Weiss, 2006). There is an interesting overlap in the narratives around BDSM and recep- tive anal sex, particularly as it pertains to heterosexual males who are anally receptive (i.e., anoreceptive heterosexual males, or ARHMs1). In the early work on BDSM aforementioned, de Sade made specific reference to ARHM behavior in describing “sodomites” who defined “their sexual interests not so much by the gender of their sexual partners but by the orifices being used” (as cited in Poster, 2006, p. 246). The way BDSM participants and ARHMs have historically been perceived by the mainstream is strikingly similar, in the tendency to pathologize and demonize those who engage in these sexual behaviors. In another way analogous to BDSM, experts have asserted that anal sex is predominantly about pleasure (Carter, Henry-Moss, Hock-Long, Bergdall, & Andes, 2010; Eskridge, 2008; Glickman & Emirzian, 2013; Hite, 1981; Kippax & Smith, 2001; Komisaruka & Whipple, 2011; Morin, 2010). There are sometimes logistical practicalities to engaging in anal sex; for example, as a means of birth control, or when the desire for penetrative sex is prioritized over the desire to penetrate a vagina specifically. There are also psychosexual motivations for engaging in anal sex, such as choosing anal sex as a way to enforce power and vulnerability, or the drive toward taboo, such as in BDSM-oriented power dynamics. These reasons for choosing to engage in anal sex are valid and common, yet perhaps ancillary to the primary focus of pleasure-seeking (Glickman & Emirzian, 2013; Morin, 2010). Pitagora 3 Despite a direct connection between anal sex and pleasure, the majority of academic literature on anal sex frames the topic in terms of homophobia and/or disease (e.g., Brody & Weiss, 2011; Halperin, 1999; Hollows, 2007; Leichliter, 2008; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010; McBride & Reece, 2008). This pathologizing framework around anal sexuality leads to a stifling of disclosure among ARHMs, given that they may not want to be misidenti- fied by others as nonstraight and consequently be subjected to prejudice and discrimination (Bosson et al., 2005). In the large body of literature on anal sex, only two academic articles have been published on the topic of straight men who enjoy anoreceptive sex: a needs assessment with the goal of filling this gap in sexuality education (B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012); and an empirical study on the anoreceptive practices of straight men (J. Branfman, Stiritz, & Anderson, 2017). Though all genders and sexualities have the potential to experience plea- sure during anal sex, a review of the literature suggests that pervasive hetero- sexism contributes to stigmatization of individuals with nonconforming sexual interests and behaviors (Ayres & Leudeman, 2013; Bosson, Prewitt- Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012; Crane & Crane- Seeber, 2003; Heasley, 2005; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010; Melby, 2007), such as ARHMs. Recent public discourse on ARHMs has been on the rise (Aguilar, 2017; Ayres & Leudeman, 2013; Clark-Fory, 2011; Glickman & Emirzian, 2013; Hollows, 2007; Nault, 2010; Savage, 2001), and research suggests an increase in heterosexual anal sex among all genders in the past two decades (B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012; Brody & Weiss, 2011; Leichliter, 2008; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010; McBride & Reece, 2008; Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005). Also within the past two decades, there has been only one published study analyzing attitudes around the “men’s anal taboo” (B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012, p. 405), and no empirical research investigating the psychosocial experiences of ARHMs (Hollows, 2007; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010). This is an important gap in research to fill, as the literature suggests that societal cues around enforcing heteronormativity might lead to a stifling of sexual expression and psychological difficulties related to internalized sociocultural stigma (Bosson et al., 2005; B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012; Heasley, 2005; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010). There is a large body of work on the subject of anal sex, though research tends to focus on women and nonstraight men as receptive partners, and pathologizes receptive anal sex (e.g., Ayres & Leudeman, 2013; Johnson, 2004; Lehmiller, 2013; Yarber & Sayad, 2013). Male-receptive anal sex has been referred to in nonacademic literature since prior to the 1700s (Poster, 2006), but reference to heterosexual anal sex in the literature is much less abundant, and is often pathologizing in its association of the behavior with 4 Journal of Humanistic Psychology 00(0) sexual dysfunction and sexually transmitted infections (e.g., Brody & Weiss, 2011; Halperin, 1999; Hollows, 2007; Kaestle & Halpern, 2007; Leichliter, 2008; Leichliter, Chandra, Liddon, Fenton, & Aral, 2007; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010; McBride & Reece, 2008). Research also tends to be biased due to assumptions made about heterosexual males exclusively being the insertive partner (e.g., Halperin, 1999; Herbenick et al., 2010a, 2010b; Hollows, 2007; Kaestle & Halpern, 2007; Lane, Pettifor, Pascoe, Fiamma, & Rees, 2006; Leichliter et al., 2007; McBride & Fortenberry, 2010; Yarber & Sayad, 2013), and often culls outliers who do not conform to the sexual ori- entation binary, in effect negating their existence and overestimating the occurrence of heteronormative sexual behavior (e.g., Dahlhamer, Galinsky, Joestl, & Ward, 2014). Despite the invisibility of ARHMs in academic literature and societal rein- forcement of receptive anal sex as taboo, there is a great deal of awareness about the potential for pleasure via prostate massage, as indicated by a Google search in July of 2012 for “male g spot” that produced over five million results (B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012). Because male-receptive anal sex remains taboo outside of the gay and openly sex-positive communities (and sometimes within those communities as well), many may never think to explore this potential for sexual pleasure (J. Branfman et al., 2017; Glickman & Emirzian, 2013; Hardy, 2010). The stigma engendered by the ARHM taboo serves to reinforce traditional heterosexist gender roles and legitimize nonconsensual power imbalances (J. Branfman et al., 2017; B. A. Branfman & Stiritz, 2012). Language tends to describe certain sexual acts in value-laden terms that exclude the existence of a particular sex act (e.g., anoreceptive sex) by a particular type of individual (e.g., heterosexual males), so the drive to cre- ate new terminology to describe ARHM sexual behavior is understandable (B. A. Branfman