Suchergebnisse

This paper analyses online texts concerning the supposed 'rules' and 'etiquette' of heterosexual casual sex, exploring how 'ideal' casual sex was constructed – as object and practice. We examine how casual sex was constituted by authors who positioned themselves as knowledgeable and/or expert in relation to casual sex and demonstrate the discourses that their accounts drew on in constructing archetypal casual sex. Our analysis is situated within feminist/critical theorising and debates regarding the institution of heterosexuality and, in particular, construction of monogamy as 'ideal' when it comes to heterosexual relationships. We argue that casual sex was constituted as not a natural act through the specific instructions of how to 'do casual sex right'. We outline the construction of an attraction imperative in relation to casual sex, its hierarchies of respectability, and address what an analysis about casual sex tells us about contemporary heterosexuality. This paper demonstrates that although casual sex could possibly offer an alternative to the currently pervasive mononormativity, it fails to provide this in accounts of 'ideal' casual sex as relayed in the public arena.

Men's interest in the contraceptive and reproductive spheres is often considered to be minimal, with management of these domains traditionally constructed as "feminine." Despite this, some men, who have no interest in having children, choose to take a higher degree of control over their reproductive bodies, voluntarily seeking a "preemptive" vasectomy. This article reports on interview data with twelve men who had preemptive vasectomies, describing the shared meaning making (and subject positions) many of these men took up in relation to the operation. The subject positions can be identified by (1) descriptions of themselves and/or their lifestyles as "selfish," and (2) descriptions of themselves and/or their lifestyles as "unconventional." While these self-descriptors might be construed negatively, an indication of marginalization, the authors would argue that the men were able to put a positive spin on these features using neoliberal discourses of choice and personal responsibility. Access to such discourses might be seen as an indication of the men's privileged rather than marginalized status, allowing them to make such a decision "easier" than it might be for many women. The authors would also suggest that having a preemptive vasectomy might be seen as a rejection of contemporary modes of involved fatherhood.

This article examines vasectomy as a gendered practice of (non)reproductive masculinity. Reporting on interview-based data, in which a number of New Zealand men made sense of the operation, this article used critical thematic analysis to extract themes from semi-structured interviews with participants who had vasectomies in 'typical' circumstances. Primary themes of 'taking responsibility' and 'vasectomy as an act of minor heroism' were extracted from the data. We will argue that men constructed their 'new found' responsibility (and the heroic slant they added to it) within an 'economy of gratitude', meaning any involvement by men in the reproductive/contraceptive sphere is worthy of particular praise and value. While there may be some strategic value in these ideas, they draw upon existing discourses of orthodox masculinities and in this way may perpetuate (rather than challenge) the notion that men are doing something 'special' by having a vasectomy. This 'specialness' has the potential to ratify ongoing male privilege within heterosexual relationships, rather than the disruption that (at face value) it appears to be generating.