The Image of Men in Pornography: Man-as-Raging-Beast//The Uncelebrated Beauty of Men's Sexuality. A Reality-Check   

By Shere Hite

It seems to me that pornography presents a highly distorted image of men. I don't believe that men are the monolithic beings depicted in most porno images, nor that they find 'their authentic selves' in pornography. My research with thousands of men shows a different picture of 'who men are sexually' whereas pornography represents the imposition of a rigid ideological view on male sexual feelings, expression and behavior rather than a realistic depiction of male sexuality. Ironically, while on the surface pornography seems friendly to men - more than to women - its underlying message makes fun of men. Subliminally, sotto voce, it implies to men that their sexual expression is ridiculous, base, crude or insensitive, even grotesque. Visually it frequently makes men look ugly and coarse, foolish and unappealing. Who hasn't seen these porno images? They¹re all around us, in sex magazines, e-mail spam, on the internet and even in 'fine art'. The makers and distributors of the images must believe men like them, that they are generally making 'what men like', because they market it 'to men', and the industry is growing. Although few women buy porno, industry spokespersons frequently claim that 'the number of women is increasing'; any 'gain' they refer to is fractional. Do most men really like pornography? Do they identify with the images, or find them laughable, 'not really me' or do they think to themselves: I wish I could be like him, lucky guy? Whether men like the way they are portrayed in porno is difficult to know, since most are brought up with the idea that if you find something revolting, you must not flinch but look it 'straight in the eye' and say: "Wow! I like it! I¹m bad!" Boys are not supposed to shy away from 'vulgar things'; doing that makes you 'girlish'. Therefore, the more disgusting a pornographic visual is, the more a Œreal man¹ shouldn¹t show disgust. But, privately, do most men really think they are 'like that', or do they experience their sexuality as more subtle, more diverse, possibly more erotic and even spiritual?

Of course not all men look at porno so why is it generally considered 'for men'? Is it because women supposedly don't need to 'jerk off'? Or because the material puts 'men on top' as 'the winners', denigrating women as 'the losers'?? In porno, there is a subliminal 'text' in addition to the actual visual depiction. Men are almost always presented as predators with erections, almost as rapists, really; one of the key unspoken clichés of porno is that the man must show no feelings, no sentimentality, he must follow a strictly physical sexual scenario. Porno portrays men having pleasure focused on erection and ejaculation, especially inside a woman, rarely seeking eroticism for its own sake, or other purely sensual activity, but never 'in love' or sexually active in a non-focused way. They do not show men seeking full-length body contact or needing to hold another person and be held, or to be penetrated themselves in some way. Sexual exuberance, desire, elation, love-not-satisfied-by-orgasm, fantasy -- these states are about something other than a biological drive to reproduce the species, the 'male sex drive' that in pornography is central to 'sex'.

Today, 'male sex drive' as a concept has taken on a sort of mystical ring. During the late 20th century this term was used more and more often, so that it became 'unquestionable truth', reality, and today is assumed to be biological. But is it? Logically, if men supposedly have a biological drive to 'thrust', then shouldn't women have a complementary reverse 'drive' to open? Or, is the entire idea of 'sex drive' a fraudulent ideological category masquerading as scientific fact?

What about the other sexual states that men experience which are not seen in porno? Are men as singularly mechanical and aggressive 'by nature' as they are depicted? Society has tried to insist that a real man should 'get hard' at will, whenever 'appropriate', meaning in a private situation with a reproductively-aged female, but it is impossible to will an erection into being. In truth, the penis is a delicate part of the male being, one that responds with exquisite sensitivity to every nuance of emotion a man can feel. Erections come and go in men, during sex and during sleep. Most men report that it is desire they seek, not the mechanical means of orgasm or creating erection. Desire and arousal are the pleasures that spread through the body; orgasm, after all, can be attained alone during masturbation.

The beauty of male sexuality is not so much about erection as all the gestures and subtle meaningful body movements, including the ups and downs of erection -- tumescence and non-tumescence, de-tumescence and re-tumescence -- ways in which the body makes itself known or Œspeaks¹. These movements represent a man's beauty and personality and are very erotic. Pornography as we know it does not represent that variety and diversity of expression, it simply pretends to be 'revolutionary' and 'avant-garde' by being 'shocking', passing itself off as 'incredibly open' when compared to the old value system of 'prudery'. But it is not 'revolutionary'. Such images do not address a more valuable and interesting view of 'who men are sexually'.
What is "male sexuality"? Why is it so closely identified with intercourse in a reproductive scenario? The answer involves understanding centuries of enforcement of the idea of 'sex' as an animalistic physical desire, to be controlled by putting it into a reproductive context within marriage. Yet this early ideology contained the seeds of its own destruction by furthering the idea that men are somehow in the harness of Œreproduction within marriage¹, that their sexuality can only be 'freely experienced' outside the family. In my research, it seems that the ideological split between 'body' and 'mind' or Œsoul¹ -- as pornography depicts -- is the crux of the problem men experience, not whether or not they are in a 'reproductive relationship'. The definition of sex created to go with our social order and family structure, originating about 3,000 years ago, has been focused on the reproductive act, to the detriment of other activities, because we have evolved from a culture that wanted to increase reproduction to one in which, now, most of us use birth control.

Men¹s 'sexual nature' is very ³polymorphous-perverse², as a New York Times Book Review characterized the picture of men that emerges from The Hite Report on Male Sexuality. Men in my research show a great diversity as this extract shows: Masturbation: this can be one time a man expresses his sexuality without a focus on reproduction or coitus. As one man puts it, 'I have more or less two sex lives, one with my wife and one with myself.' Men in my research say they enjoy masturbation or having sex alone, because they can fantasize about whatever they want and there is no pressure on them to perform for another person. During masturbation, in my research, men stimulate themselves in many more places than they do when with a partner. And this one: Anal stimulation: in my research, men express a hidden desire to be caressed and 'penetrated' -- possibly by a finger -- anally, since just inside the anus in men (but not in women) there is proximity to a gland that when stimulated causes orgasm, so much so that most urologists stimulate men to ejaculation during their examinations in this way.

However, most men do not allow themselves to explore the various feelings they wish to express during sex with a partner, especially a female partner, but instead try to follow as 'perfectly' as possible, the reproductive scenario depicted in most pornography. Our sexual acts have been channeled into too limited a form of expression; sex could be more interesting if it was not always focused on one scenario: Œforeplay' followed by 'penetration', the high point being 'fucking', coitus or 'the act'.

The appearance of Viagra and the fear of HIV have increased rather than decreased the focus on erection; for example, many men are nervous about having to put on a condom and consequently losing their erection or their sexual desire. Not only are men asked to use condoms, they are expected to provide clitoral stimulation to orgasm in many cases. But many men cut short Œforeplay¹ because they are afraid they may lose the erection which they have been taught is necessary to enjoy sex and which would be Œshameful¹ to lose. More men could reach much higher peaks of feeling and arousal if they did not feel anxious about how they Œshould¹ behave sexually.
Today, many men seem to be withdrawing from 'sex' in various ways. This withdrawal can take the form of claiming 'erectile dysfunction', 'religious purity' deferring 'commitment' or preferring non-standard 'kinky' sex. This may be a reaction to the cliches that surround society's view of men, seen increasingly through modern advertising as well as pornography. If men are told they are 'cheap', their bodies mechanically obedient to 'lurid' stimulus (akin to the response of Pavlov's dogs to a dinner bell), of course the more sensitive men will react by withdrawing. It would be better to change outdated stereotypes of 'sex' than to withdraw, thus bolstering the ancient dichotomies that have caused a problem.

How do men feel about how they are depicted as treating women in pornography and about the violence to women shown in most pornography? Most men feel perplexed, and wonder why this can excite them. Although pornography frequently denigrates women - showing women beaten, black and blue, and so on -- and liking it - it also denigrates men, cheapening and brutalizing their sensibilities, destroying their possibility of personal sexual discovery, implanting clichés such as 'a real man is the one with the biggest, hardest erection', and so on, blocking their power to express themselves with others. In my interpretation, sex and violence are mixed during the Oedipal stage of boys' development, at the time when they are emotionally leaving 'the mother' and simultaneously becoming increasingly sexual. But pornography's frequent implication that 'men are beasts whose underlying unchangeable natures make them likely to be violent to women' is incorrect, misleading and dangerous.

Porno's messages bisect men psychologically, showing sexuality as separate from emotion and the soul. This can affect men in a very negative way, though many remain unconscious of the origin of their discomfort; these non-verbal messages cause them to think that they are 'two people' -- the sexual 'animal' and the thinking, spiritual individual. One thinks of the separation of women and men in Moslem mosques. For this reason, the vast majority of men find it confusing when they actually fall in love, and mix 'body' and 'soul'. The increasing male aversion to falling into these stereotypes of 'male sexuality' can also be seen in a broader political sense: male Islamic extremists in Afghanistan proclaimed in many of their public statements that they wanted to ³create a more pure society² that would be less sexual, a scoiety in which women's bodies would be covered, hidden from sight (or were women being punished?). Both Western and Eastern traditions pose a problem for men in terms of integrating 'mind', 'body' and relationships with women.

Pornography is above all propaganda -- an ideological construct used to direct men toward a certain style of reproductive sexual activity, to tell them the kind of attitude they should have towards sex and women. Women in pornography serve the basic purpose of legitimizing the male sexual expression. Pretending to represent 'nature', pornography touts an ideological view of how men should behave. It is a brainwashing device. In fact, pornography is one of the areas of 'globalization' that presents the most negative outdated versions of 'who men are' to the rest of the world; if we change our basic views of 'what sex is', then we will contribute to a better form of globalization.