Sex, lies and stereotypes

Do men and women talk about sex differently? Ronan thinks so. He argues that men will be honest about their sexual attraction to someone, but women will hedge and call it ‘aesthetic appreciation’ instead. Sometimes it really is aesthetic appreciation, I argue – admiration without sexual attraction.

The conversation got me thinking – do we talk about sex differently? And if so, do the words we use shape the way we think about sex too?
I polled 50 people of various ages, genders and sexual orientations to find out what words they would use to describe a carnal encounter. The most popular terms of all were ‘having sex’ and ‘shagging’. Each of these garnered around 30% of the vote, with no significant difference between the sexes. A close second was ‘fucking’, although this was slightly more popular with women than men.
Of course there are hundreds of words and phrases to describe sex, so plenty of people preferred terms like ‘getting laid’, ‘getting some’ and the amusing if somewhat coy ‘struggle snuggle’. Interestingly, only one person, and a man at that, opted for ‘making love’.
Perhaps that’s not surprising. We choose to use one term over another because we prefer its connotative meaning. ‘Making love’ may be a very satisfying experience, but even if a sexual experience is particularly romantic, describing it in these terms makes it seem a bit dull – or like something that people used to get up to in the ‘70s, complete with fluffy rugs and moustaches.
Admittedly my survey wouldn’t meet the rigorous standards of science, but it does suggest that men and women talk about sex in pretty much the same way – which is interesting, but perhaps not that surprising. But here’s the thing – if men and women use the same language themselves, why do magazines use different approaches to discussing sex, depending on the gender of their readers?
At a cursory glance you’d conclude that for the most part women’s and men’s lifestyle magazines talk about sex in much the same way. Both accept it as an important part of life and dispense advice on skills and techniques. So far, so similar, but there are subtle differences at work.
In women’s magazines there is a generally a presumption that sex is taking place within the context of a relationship. This can be gleaned from the language used. Cosmo and her sisters will tell you how to please ‘your man’ or ‘boyfriend’. Magazines, like Men’s Health, don’t shy away from the terms ‘girlfriend’ or ‘wife’, but a lot of the time they prefer to talk about pleasing ‘women’. ‘Women’ doesn’t imply a relationship and is a plural too. Lads’ mags are a different story altogether and the language used tends to be cruder. If you’re female in lads’ mag land you’re a ‘girl’, ‘babe’ or possibly a ‘hottie’.
Does the language we use make a difference? Linguists say it does. Professor of Applied Linguistics Dr. Penelope Gardner-Chloros has argued that language can reflect a society’s entrenched attitudes. That’s why activists often focus on language – if a racist, sexist or homophobic term of abuse is popular or widely accepted, then racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes are prevalent too.
A subtle but pervasive sexual double standard can be seen in magazines. If men’s magazines reckon their readers need to sexually satisfy ‘women’ and women’s magazines think their readers want help pleasing a ‘boyfriend’ then, linguistically speaking, men’s magazines contain a tacit acknowledgement that male readers might like to spread it.
Of course, women’s magazines do sometimes pay attention to the fact that not all sex takes place within a relationship, but even so they generally assume that women prefer relationships and that all single gals are out there, looking for that special someone. Worse still, in some women’s magazines, female promiscuity, at least after a certain point, is seen as indicative of emotional or psychological problems. Promiscuous men have notches on their bedposts; promiscuous women have unresolved issues.
Magazines have been coming under fire recently for their sex-related content. Pressure groups in the UK have been advocating that lads’ mags should be sold in non-transparent wrappers; meanwhile, earlier this year, a group petitioned the USA’s Federal Trade Commission claiming that Cosmopolitan was a threat to young people. In both cases it has been argued that the cover imagery of these magazines is unsuitable for the innocent eyes of under-18s.
I don’t think anyone would deny that many magazines trade in hypersexual imagery, but in fact what gets me is that the content tends to be pretty damn conservative, with sexuality and gender portrayed in reductive and often insulting ways.
There has been a lot of work done by scholars and activists on the reductive ways lads’ magazines portray women and an equal amount of criticism has been levelled at women’s titles for the way women are presented. Certainly there are issues here, and as a woman I find it insulting to be described as a ticking biological time bomb who is desperate for marriage and addicted to shoes.
However what is frequently overlooked is the way men and male sexuality are portrayed in the mass media – a lot of which is also downright offensive.
Magazines addressing a predominately female readership spend a lot of time subtly warning their readers about the failings of men, who are often portrayed as overgrown children, stupid or dangerous. ‘Boyfriends’ require constant maintenance and surveillance – unless you decode his secret desires, he will forget your birthday, drink too much and sleep with your best friend.
The situation isn’t any better in magazines written for men. In his study of Maxim magazine, the scholar James P. Davis concluded that not only did the magazine show contempt for obvious targets such as women, but that the magazine routinely displayed disdain for its own readers and encouraged them to engage in various forms of self-loathing.
“The contempt for feminists is absolute. The contempt for women is explicit. The contempt for ‘sensitive’ men is pervasive, the hostility toward gays transparently anxious. Equally clear is that such brazen whooping-it-up constructs the reader as profoundly insecure, neurotically in need of step-by-step guidance in how to be a man…. the Maxim reader, according to both editors and advertisers, is a loathsome, unhygienic, congenitally dishonest, opportunistic, disorderly, selfish creature of unrestrained animal appetites,” writes Davis.
Nobody can say with any great certainty how much influence magazines or the mass media have in shaping our understanding of ourselves, our sexuality and others. There are too many factors that come into play: parents, religious or ethical beliefs, the kind of friends we are close to, our life experiences – and so on.
Equally however, we can’t say that what we see and read has no influence at all. It is a pity, therefore, that there are not more magazines that offer us inclusive or flexible definitions of what it means to be a man or a woman.
If magazines were to be believed, the sexes are constantly at war – men are desperately trying to trick women into bed, while women are trying to hoodwink men into marriage. The truth is that most people, whether they are men or women, gay or straight, want sex and enjoy sex, and equally that most of us, if we find the right person, are happy to settle down.
Men and women may be different, but we’re not that different. I can’t help but think that if we weren’t constantly being told to keep a wary eye on one another, to distrust the opposite sex and to treat them with disdain, we’d be a lot happier. Negative thoughts about ourselves and about others follow us into bed and affect how we relate to each other sexually. If we liked and trusted each other I suspect that more of us would be ‘having sex’, ‘shagging’, ‘fucking’ or ‘making love’ with creativity, honesty and passion.