Article

Sexualities
0(0) 1–19
Relaxing the straight ! The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
male anus: Decreasing sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1363460716678560
homohysteria around journals.sagepub.com/home/sex

anal eroticism
Jonathan Branfman
The Ohio State University, USA

Susan Stiritz
Washington University, St. Louis, USA

Eric Anderson
University of Winchester, UK

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 homo-
hysteria 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, socio-
economic, and age demographics, and to determine how these shifts may foster more
pluralistic and inclusive views of gender and sexuality.

Keywords
Homohysteria, anal, masculinity, homophobia, one-time rule

Corresponding author:
Eric Anderson, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK.
Email: professorericanderson@gmail.com
2 Sexualities 0(0)

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 ¼ 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 male1 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 stigma-
tized 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).
Branfman et al. 3

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 permis-
sion 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 ¼ 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 stimu-
lation of the male anus and prostate for enjoyment, albeit oftentimes in a restricted
form. This acceptability poses critical questions about the ongoing ability of homo-
phobia 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 experi-
enced and policed in men’s lives.
4 Sexualities 0(0)

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 homosex-
ualization 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 homosexua-
lizing 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 homosexualiz-
ing 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)

As this quote indicates, the current view of anal eroticism as wrong, shameful,
dirty, or unnatural interacts with a long genealogy of stigmas on sexual acts
deemed socially disruptive because they are non-procreative and/or gender-trans-
gressive (Herek, 2007).

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
Branfman et al. 5

regulate gendered behaviours. This is to say that the social stigma on male homo-
sexuality 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 homo-
hysteria 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 def-
inition of homohysteria does not imply that straight people suffer the same levels of
social stigma, economic and legal discrimination, or physical and emotional vio-
lence 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 com-
pulsive 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 mas-
culine 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.

Whereas the one-drop rule exists to reify white privilege by policing the categories
of pure whiteness, the one-time rule exists to maintain heterosexual hegemony. This
6 Sexualities 0(0)

rigid social border serves to naturalize straight men as a real category that is
innately superior to penetrable queer men and women (Pronger, 1999).
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, het-
erosexual 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 par-
ticularly 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 behav-
iours 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 homo-
sexuality, 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
Branfman et al. 7

United States, so too does homohysteria. Part of this shift is the cultural reinter-
pretation 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, indi-
cate 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-identi-
fied 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 undergradu-
ate 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 envir-
onment, 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 offer-
ing choices of straight, bisexual, gay, asexual, or other. The survey, approved by
8 Sexualities 0(0)

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 under-
graduate 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 heterosex-
ual 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 ques-
tions, 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
Branfman et al. 9

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 tri-
angulation, 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 homo-
sexual 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 ¼ 162, 95%)
had previously heard of men’s anatomical capacity for anal pleasure, and 72 per-
cent (n ¼ 123) had considered this information reliable. One respondent stated, ‘I
thought it was common knowledge.’ Indeed, only about 11 percent (n ¼ 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 ¼ 55, 36%) or a friend
(n ¼ 73, 48%). By far the least common source was a family member (n ¼ 1).
However, several students (n ¼ 24, 16%) reported learning about male anal pleas-
ure in high school sexual education classes.
While many respondents reported knowing that the anus has pleasurable poten-
tial, 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 explan-
ations for the stigma on men’s anal stimulation, the majority (n ¼ 72, 62%) cited
cultural connotations of homosexuality; only 7 percent (n ¼ 8) cited hygiene con-
cerns as the reason for stigmatizing or avoiding men’s anal eroticism. Indicating the
influence of homohysteria, 20 percent (n ¼ 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,’
10 Sexualities 0(0)

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.

However, our respondents problematize the exclusive association of anal eroticism

with male homosexuality. While 66 percent indicate that anal eroticism is culturally
associated with homosexuality, and 95 percent (n ¼ 161) reported that they also
associate anal pleasure with gay men, many also challenged the validity of such
social beliefs. For example, 80 percent (n ¼ 136) disagreed with the statement: Any
guy who enjoys being anally penetrated during sex is probably gay.
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 imme-
diate, stereotyping thought of this group of people when I hear about anal pleas-
ure. 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 homosexu-
ality.’ 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 ¼ 8) of respondents agreed with the statement, Straight men can’t enjoy anal
pleasure and 24 percent (n ¼ 41) agreed with the statement, Only gay men like to
be anally stimulated or penetrated during sex. Meanwhile, 23% (n ¼ 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 ¼ 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 ¼ 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.
Branfman et al. 11

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 ¼ 40, 24%). Sixteen percent (n ¼ 28) had
used a finger to anally penetrate themselves at least once in the past. However, only
5 percent (n ¼ 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 ¼ 17) had
their experience with a sex partner. In explaining how they perceived this action,
the most common responses were, It felt good (n ¼ 15, 31%), followed by, I was
surprised (n ¼ 12, 25%) and I went along with it (n ¼ 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 reper-
toire of anal erotic acts (i.e. auto-stimulation, auto-penetration, receiving analin-
gus, 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 enjoy-
able, 68 percent (n ¼ 25) reported finding it pleasurable, and 5 percent (n ¼ 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 other remarked, ‘It was neither extra pleasurable nor extra painful.’ Of 37 men
who discussed their emotions about exploring anal pleasure, 40 percent reported
feeling ashamed of this exploration (n ¼ 15). However, a similar percentage
reported feeling no shame about their practices (48%, n ¼ 18). In comments that
illustrate this ambiguity, one participant wrote, ‘If others knew I enjoy being anally
penetrated, I’d feel embarrassed’, while another stated, ‘I talk about it with my
friends all the time’. Meanwhile, another reported that, ‘When I started experi-
menting with anal pleasure, it definitely made me question my sexuality’. This last
12 Sexualities 0(0)

comment is especially fascinating, because it demonstrates how cultural narratives

about anal pleasure can even throw a man’s self-perception into doubt.
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 ¼ 25,
29%), followed by, It sounds physically painful/uncomfortable (n ¼ 15, 17%) and, I
feel uncomfortable with the idea of anal play (n ¼ 12, 14%). Hence, very few
respondents cited the connotations of homosexuality (n ¼ 3, 3.5%) or emasculation
(n ¼ 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, disgust-
ing, 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 ¼ 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 par-
ticipant said, ‘Many females would be receptive to penetration with a finger and
not question the man’s orientation’. Conversely, another wrote, ‘cultural percep-
tions 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 hetero-
sexually-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
Branfman et al. 13

(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 homosexu-
ality (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 het-
erosexuality 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
14 Sexualities 0(0)

(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 homo-
sexualizing 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 homo-
sexualizing (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 con-
test 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 part-
ner 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 eroti-
cism. 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 hetero-
sexual, 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
Branfman et al. 15

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 bound-
aries 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 question-
ing 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 destig-
matization 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 understand-
ing 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.

Notes
1. This paper reports specifically on survey respondents who defined their anatomical sex as
‘male’ and their gender identity as ‘man’.
2. It is crucial to emphasize that shifting social norms and legal regulations on sexuality do
not help all sexual minorities equally. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex,
and asexual (LGBTQIA) people who are white, wealthy, gender-conforming, and/or
male face significantly fewer challenges and less violence than LGBTQIA people whose
encounters with homophobia and transphobia interact with structures of racism, class-
ism, and colonialism.
16 Sexualities 0(0)

References
Adams A, Anderson E and McCormack M (2010) Establishing and challenging masculinity:
The influence of gendered discourses in organized sport. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 29(3): 278–300.
Agnew J (1985) Some anatomical and physiological aspects of anal sexual practice. Journal
of Homosexuality 12(1): 75–96.
Anderson E (2008) ‘Being masculine is not about who you sleep with . . .’: Heterosexual
athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of homosexuality. Sex Roles
58(1–2): 104–115.
Anderson E (2009) Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. London:
Routledge.
Anderson E (2014) 21st Century Jocks: Sporting Men and Contemporary Heterosexuality.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderson E, Adams A and Rivers I (2012) ‘I kiss them because I love them’: The emergence
of heterosexual men kissing in British institutes of education. Archives of Sexual Behavior
41(2): 421–430.
Belkin A (2001) The Pentagon’s gay ban is not based on military necessity. Journal of
Homosexuality 41(1): 103–119.
Bogle KA (2008) Hooking up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. New York: New
York University Press.
Branfman J and Ekberg Stiritz S (2012) Teaching men’s anal pleasure: Challenging
gender norms with ‘prostage’ education. American Journal of Sexuality Education
7(4): 404–428.
Brod H (1987) A case for men’s studies. In: Kimmel M (ed) Changing Men: New Directions
in Research on Men and Masculinity. London: SAGE, pp. 263–277.
Chauncey G (2004) ‘What gay studies taught the court’: The historians’ amicus brief in
Lawrence v. Texas. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 10(3): 509–538.
Connell R (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Oxford: Polity
Press.
Connell R (2005) Masculinities, 2nd edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Drummond M, Filiault S, Anderson E and Jeffries D (2015) Homosocial intimacy among
Australian undergraduate men. Journal of Sociology 51(3): 643–656.
Exner TM, Correale J, Carballo-Dieguez A, Salomon L, Morrow KM, Dolezal C and
Mayer K (2008) Women’s anal sex practices: Implications for formulation and promo-
tion of a rectal microbicide. AIDS Education & Prevention 20(2): 148–159.
Frank K (2013) Plays Well in Groups: A Journey Through the World of Group Sex. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Glickman C and Emirzian A (2013) The Ultimate Guide to Prostate Pleasure: Erotic
Exploration for Men and Their Partners. New York: Cleis Press.
Gray K, Schein C and Ward AF (2014) The myth of harmless wrongs in moral cognition:
Automatic dyadic completion from sin to suffering. Journal of Experimental Psychology
143(4): 1600–1615.
Harris M (1964) Patterns of Race in the Americas, Vol. 1. New York: Walker.
Herek GM (2007) Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of
Social Issues 63(4): 905–925.
Hite S (1981) The Hite Report on Male Sexuality. New York: Knopf.
Branfman et al. 17

Keleher A and Smith ER (2012) Growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990.
Journal of Homosexuality 59(9): 1307–1326.
Kellogg JH (1890) Plain facts for old and young: Embracing the natural history and hygiene
of organic life. Available at: https://archive.org/details/plainfaorold00kell (accessed 15
November 2016).
Kimmel M (1996) Manhood in America: A Cultural History. London: The Free Press.
Kimmel M (2001) Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction
of gender identity. In: Whitehead S and Barrett F (eds) The Masculinities Reader.
Cambridge, MA: Polity Press, pp. 266–287.
Knockoffs (2015) Broad City TV series episode, 14 February. Comedy Central, USA.
Kite ME and Deaux K (1987) Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inver-
sion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly 11(1): 83–96.
Lancaster RN (1988) Subject honor and object shame: The construction of male homosexu-
ality and stigma in Nicaragua. Ethnology 27(2): 111–125.
Laqueur W, Lewis B and Carter A (2002) New Terrorism. New York: WW Norton.
Loftus J (2001) America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.
American Sociological Review 66(5): 762–782.
Maines RP (2001) The Technology of Orgasm: ‘Hysteria’, the Vibrator, and Women’s Sexual
Satisfaction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
McCormack M (2012) The Declining Significance of Homophobia: How Teenage Boys are
Redefining Masculinity and Heterosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCormack M and Anderson E (2014) The influence of declining homophobia on men’s
gender in the United States: An argument for the study of homohysteria. Sex Roles
71(3–4): 109–120.
McCormack M, Anderson E and Adams A (2014) Cohort effect on the coming out experi-
ences of bisexual men. Sociology 48(6): 1207–1223.
McBride KR and Fortenberry JD (2010) Heterosexual anal sexuality and anal sex behaviors:
A review. Journal of Sex Research 47(2–3): 123–136.
McNair B (2002) Striptease Culture: Sex, Media and the Democratization of Desire. Hove:
Psychology Press.
Morin J (2010) Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men, Women, and Couples.
Burlingame, CA: Down There Press.
Pascoe CJ (2007) Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Pollack W (1999) Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood. New York:
Macmillan.
Pronger B (1999) ‘Outta my endzone’: Sport and the territorial anus. Journal of Sport &
Social Issues 23(4): 373–389.
Rednour (1998) Bend over Boyfriend, film. Fatale Media, USA. Directed by Shar Rednour.
Rubin G (1984) Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality.
In: Vance C (ed) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Boston, MA:
Routledge, pp. 267–319.
Savage D (2001) We have a winner! Savage Love. Available at: http://www.thestranger.com/
seattle/SavageLove?oid¼7730 (accessed 15 November 2016).
Savin-Williams RC and Vrangalova Z (2013) Mostly heterosexual as a distinct sexual orien-
tation group: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Developmental Review 33(1):
58–88.
18 Sexualities 0(0)

Schwartz P and Rutter V (1998) The Gender of Sexuality. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Silverstein C, Picano F and Phillips J (2003) The Joy of Gay Sex. New York: Harper
Resource.
Stiritz S (2012) New directions in sex therapy: Innovations and alternatives. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy 27(3): 301–302.
Stiritz S (2008) Cultural cliteracy: Exposing the contexts of women’s not coming. Berkeley
Journal of Gender, Law, and Justice 23: 392–423.
Vannier SA and O’Sullivan LF (2012) Who gives and who gets: Why, when, and with whom
young people engage in oral sex. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41(5): 572–582.
Vanwesenbeeck I (2013) Prostitution push and pull: Male and female perspectives. Journal
of Sex Research 50(1): 11–16.
Ward J (2015) Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men. New York: New York University
Press.
Weeks J (2007) The World We Have Won: The Remaking of Erotic and Intimate Life.
London: Routledge.
Weiss M (2011) Techniques of Pleasure: BDSM and the Circuits of Sexuality. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.

Jonathan Branfman is a PhD candidate in Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies at

the Ohio State University. His research analyzes comparative racialization between
Jews and other groups, through the lens of masculinities. In addition to these
topics, Jonathan teaches feminist courses on film and popular culture.

Susan Stiritz is a transdisciplinary scholar holding MA and PhD degrees in English

and American Literature, a Graduate Certificate in Women, Gender and Sexuality
Studies, an MBA, and an MSW. She is also an Applied Psychoanalyst, a 2009
graduate of the St. Louis Psychoanalytic Institute. A Washington University
faculty member since 2001, she is a senior lecturer at the Brown School, where
she chairs the Specialization in Sexual Health and Education, which she founded in
2014. Her articles have appeared in peer reviewed, psychoanalytic, sex education
and sexuality studies journals and in law reviews. Her research focus is life course
sexology, using pleasure-oriented, feminist and rights-based frameworks. She is an
AASECT Certified Sexuality Educator and Supervisor and currently is AASECT’s
President-Elect. In 2014 she was named AASECT’s Sexuality Educator of the
Year. AASECT is the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors
and Therapists, the primary credentialing organization for sexual health
professionals.

Eric Anderson is Professor of Sport, Masculinities and Sexualities at the University

of Winchester in England. He holds four degrees, has published 17 books, and over
60 peer-reviewed journal articles. His research is regularly featured in international
television, print and digital media. He is the leading academic expert on gay men in
sport, and the architect of Inclusive Masculinity Theory, which was generated from
his research showing that deceased homophobia leads to a softening of heterosex-
ual masculinities. This permits young men to kiss, cuddle and maintain bromances
Branfman et al. 19

with other males, while also leading to semi-sexual behaviors between men and the
increased recognition of bisexuality. His sexuality research extends to the improve-
ment that decreasing cultural homophobia has on biphobia, and his work on
monogamy and cheating finds positive aspects of non-monogamous relationships,
including cheating.