Anal Intercourse and Power in Sex Between Men

Abstract

Anal intercourse between men is discussed using various texts, primarily interview narratives. The focus is upon the way men talk about and experience anal intercourse as a relation of power between men. Drawing upon the work of Foucault, a distinction is made between power as domination and power as negotiated between people. The latter opens up the possibility of intimacy and mutual pleasure within fantasies of domination and submission. Some of the men's narratives embraced the idea that the anally insertive partner dominated the receptive partner. Others resisted such an understanding by drawing upon the concepts of `versatility', `getting on top', `sex is not about power' and `active passivity'. It is argued in the article that such resistant practices redistribute power from the insertor to the insertee rather than eliminate power in sex, and this argument is supported through Norbert Elias's concept of power chances. The idea that the receptive partner in anal intercourse is `vulnerable' is discussed with reference to how the practice is structured historically, linguistically and corporeally.

“There are too many gay categories now”: Discursive constructions of gay masculinity.

“…As Kippax and Smith (2001) observe, for a man with a masculine subjectivity to be a bottom might threaten their masculine identity. The participants in this study suggested that some bottoms seek masculine capital in other domains-for example, by exercising to achieve muscularity-in an attempt to overcome the feminine connotations of being a bottom, and thus to ameliorate this threat to their masculinity.…”

“…The significance of sexual role in anal intercourse for gay men has been the subject of previous research. Kippax and Smith (2001), for example, found that most gay men described gay anal intercourse in terms of masculine-feminine and dominance-submission binaries, associating the insertive role with masculine dominance and the receptive role with feminine submission. However, as in the present study, some of the gay men in Kippax and Smith's (2001) study also contested these binary descriptions, constructing bottoms as powerful, and having "strength in submission" (p. 430).…”

“…Kippax and Smith (2001), for example, found that most gay men described gay anal intercourse in terms of masculine-feminine and dominance-submission binaries, associating the insertive role with masculine dominance and the receptive role with feminine submission. However, as in the present study, some of the gay men in Kippax and Smith's (2001) study also contested these binary descriptions, constructing bottoms as powerful, and having "strength in submission" (p. 430). In this study, the power bottom was identified as a sexual role and a secondary gay identity that has the potential to be more masculine (in hegemonic masculinity terms) than the top, despite being an anally receptive role.…”

Top or Bottom? Varsity youth talk about gay sexuality in a Stepping Stones Workshop: Implications for sexual health

“…Other research shows that the use of labels of top or bottom also relate to other intricate dynamics of power and erotics and that such labels do not easily demarcate who is passive or powerless in the relationship (Hoppe 2011;Kippax and Smith 2001). Foucault's (1993) notion of the productive nature of discourse is useful to thinking about the place of power here.…”

“…Constructs of sexuality in terms of being a 'top' or a 'bottom' have been explored by researchers interested in the sexual identification and practice of gay men, and attest to the complexities of identification that language and labelling practice imply in general (GrundyBowers, Hardy and McKeown 2015;Johns et al 2012;Kippax and Smith 2001;Matebeni and Msibi 2015;McGill and Collins 2014a;McGill and Collins 2014b;.…”