‘Most of Us Guys are Raring to Go Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere’: Male and Female Sexuality in Cleo and Cosmo

Abstract

Women’s magazines are a popular site for analysis of socio-cultural messages about gender, sex, and sexuality. We analyzed six consecutive issues of Cosmopolitan and Cleo to identify the ways in which they construct and represent male and female sexuality. Overall, male sexuality was prioritised, ‘real’ heterosex was depicted as penetrative, and orgasm was given precedence. Two main accounts of male and female sexuality were identified. Men’s need for (great) sex positioned men as easily aroused and sexually satisfied, but women as needing to develop ‘great’ sexual skills to keep their men from ‘straying.’ Accounts of pleasure, performance, and the male ego represented men as concerned about women’s pleasure, about their own sexual performance and as sensitive about suggested sexual ‘inadequacies.’ We discuss the implications of these constructions for women’s gendered (sexual) subjectivity, sexual practices, and identities.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
‘Most of Us Guys are Raring to Go Anytime, Anyplace,
Anywhere’: Male and Female Sexuality
in Cleo and Cosmo
Panteá Farvid &Virginia Braun
Published online: 17 November 2006
#Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006
Abstract Wom en ’s magazines are a popular site for
analysis of socio-cultural messages about gender, sex, and
sexuality. We analyzed six consecutive issues of Cosmo-
politan and Cleo to identify the ways in which they
construct and represent male and female sexuality. Overall,
male sexuality was prioritised, ‘real’heterosex was
depicted as penetrative, and orgasm was given precedence.
Two main accounts of male and female sexuality were
identified. Men’s need for (great) sex positioned men as
easily aroused and sexually satisfied, but women as needing
to develop ‘great’sexual skills to keep their men from
‘straying.’Accounts of pleasure, performance, and the
male ego represented men as concerned about women’s
pleasure, about their own sexual performance and as
sensitive about suggested sexual ‘inadequacies.’We discuss
the implications of these constructions for women’s gen-
dered (sexual) subjectivity, sexual practices, and identities.
Keywords Women’s magazines .Heterosexuality .
Male/female sexuality .Sex .Gender
Women’s magazines provide an abundance of readily
available advice regarding sex and sexual practice, and, as
such, they are a popular site for feminist analyses of socio-
cultural messages about sex and sexuality, as well as about
femininity, and, more recently, about masculinity. In the
present study, we continued and expanded the feminist
academic interest in cultural messages about sex and
sexuality. We focused on two popular women’s lifestyle
magazines, Cleo and Cosmopolitan (Cosmo), and on the
constructions of male and female sexuality contained within
them. A critical focus on masculinities (and indeed male
sexualities) fits within recent theorising of masculinity as
constructed, and thus as deconstructable (e.g., Potts, 2002),
and with feminist interest in this area (e.g., Gardiner, 2002;
Ramazanoglu, 1992; Robinson, 2003). Here we discuss
how these magazines construct female sexuality through
their depiction of male and female sexuality, as male and
female sexuality were intricately linked in most accounts.
Specifically, we consider the implications of these repre-
sentations of (hetero)sexuality for women, as women are
the target audience of such magazines.
Reading Women’s Magazines
Over the last three decades, a considerable amount of feminist
research has been carried out on women’s magazines (e.g.,
Ballaster, Beetham, Frazer, & Hebron, 1991; Dermarest &
Garner, 1992; Gadsden, 2000; Hermes, 1995; Krassas,
Blauwkamp, & Wesselink, 2001; Machin & Thornborrow,
2003; McCracken, 1993; McMahon, 1990; Peirce, 1997;
Triece, 1999; Winship, 1987). The majority of this work has
analysed the content of women’s magazines and their
representations of women’s identity (e.g., Dermarest &
Garner, 1992; Johnston & Swanson, 2003). For example,
researchers have examined how women are represented with
regard to sexual health and sexuality (e.g., Durham, 1996),
weight and body image (e.g., Cusumano & Thompson,
1997), how these representations are situated within partic-
ular socio-cultural contexts, and how they may reinforce
particular gender(ed) ideologies (e.g., Ballaster et al., 1991;
Damon-Moore, 1994; Scanlon, 1995; Triece, 1999).
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310
DOI 10.1007/s11199-006-9084-1
P. Farvid (*):V. Braun
Department of Psychology,
The University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019,
Auckland, New Zealand
e-mail: p.farvid@auckland.ac.nz

Most previous researchers have been critical of women’s
magazines, maintaining that they portray a simplified
version of the world to their readers—a world where
everything is reduced to gender oppositions (Eggins &
Iedema, 1997); where there are no social class, racial, or
political differences (Machin & Thornborrow, 2003); and
where Western ideals of beauty (i.e., young, White, thin)
are prioritised, as is heterosexuality (Jackson, 1996;
McLoughlin, 2000). Others maintain that we need look no
further than the huge business of dieting, the cosmetic and
fashion industry, and the growing popularity of cosmetic
surgery to propose that the idealised (and unrealistic)
representations of beauty in women’s magazines may be
damaging to women’s development, health and self-esteem
(Bordo, 1993; Wolf, 1991).
In addition, many researchers have argued that women
are continuously portrayed as sex objects within women’s
magazines (Ferguson, Kreshel, & Tinkham, 1990). How-
ever, since the so-called sexual revolution, women’s
magazines have openly described and celebrated an ‘active’
female sexuality; Cosmo, in particular, has pushed the
notion of ‘egalitarian’and ‘emancipated’sex (Ussher,
1997) and constructed the ‘fun, fearless female’(Machin
& Thornborrow, 2003, p. 462) as the embodiment of a
desirable feminine sexuality. Despite some changes in the
representation of sexuality, many feminists have continued
to critique the ongoing relentless focus on heterosexual
relationships and the limited perspective in the coverage of
sex and sexual practices in women’s magazines (Gauntlett,
2002). The sexual acts that are represented are found to be
only mildly transgressive, and still based on traditional
gender roles (Caldas-Coulthard, 1996), although this has
recently been ‘masked’by the represention of women as
‘daring and dangerous through sex’(Machin & Thornborrow,
2003 p. 455). In addition, women’s magazines usually
emphasise sexual difference, ‘advocate understanding and
compromise from both parties as a resolution to sexual
conflict’(Ballaster et al., 1991, p. 143), and often reiterate
dominant gender ideologies and discourses (McMahon,
1990).
An ongoing debate exists regarding feminist moral
positioning in relation to magazine consumption (Currie,
1999): Should women’s magazines be viewed as the
oppressive ‘purveyor of pernicious ideology to be con-
demned’or as a legitimate avenue for ‘women-centred
pleasure’to be embraced (Ballaster et al., 1991,p.4;
Currie, 1999). Traditionally, feminist critiques of main-
stream media (including magazines) portray the media as
‘ideologically manipulative’(Gough-Yates, 2003,p.7)in
the sense that they project messages about the nature of
femininity that serve to legitimate and naturalise patriarchal
domination. Women’s magazines are seen to be very
limited in scope: primarily about beauty, fashion, and
‘how to get a man.’Not only have previous researchers
frequently found and reported an obsession with men in
women’s magazines (e.g., McMahon, 1990; Wray & Steele,
2002), but the magazines are regularly seen as reinforcing
the idea that a man is the route to happiness and that, if
women are ‘good enough,’the right man will ‘come along
and sweep them off their feet—ideally into wedded bliss’
(Gauntlett, 2002, p. 190).
1
However, as problematic as they appear to be through
such critical analysis, women’s magazines sell widely all
over the world and are easily accessible to many women.
They appeal to women both visually and emotionally by
offering colourful advertising and fashion spreads, as well
as information and support about women’s everyday lives
(Ferguson, 1983; Winship, 1987; Wolf, 1991). McMahon
(1990) has suggested that one of the reasons readers get
‘hooked’on lifestyle magazines such as Cosmo is that they
often provide (temporary) solutions to social and personal
conflicts. Although many feminists continue to argue that
women’s magazines offer up oppressive imagery, others
have challenged oppression as a necessary outcome of such
representation. Winship (1987) was one of the first to
dismiss the idea that women’s magazines are only about
patriarchal oppression. Although she critically analyzed the
content of women’s magazines (e.g., Wom en’sOwn,
Cosmopolitan) and their contradictions and identified their
limitations (of reinforcing dominant ideologies), Winship
also highlighted the magazines’appeal to women and their
potential for change.
So although women’s magazines may be seen as a ‘bit of
fun’or even as helpful to some women, feminists maintain
that these magazine’s represent only a partial view of the
world. It is argued that the reality represented is largely
based on the interests of advertisers and masculine desires
that sexualise women’s submissiveness and objectification
1
The focus of this article is women’s magazines, but it is important to
note that analyses of a particular genre of adolescent girls’magazines
(such as Teen,Seventeen), which have also been studied for over three
decades (e.g., Carpenter, 1998; Duke & Kreshel, 1998; Frazer, 1987;
Kehily, 1999; McRobbie, 1978; Schlenker, Caron, & Halteman, 1998;
Willemsen, 1998), have yielded similar findings, such as a relentless
focus on boys, fashion, and beauty (Duke & Kreshel, 1998;
Willemsen, 1998). One difference is that these magazines tend to
promote an ‘emphasised femininity’(Kaplan & Cole, 2003) and to
focus on attracting boys’attention (often through one’s looks) and
how to get a boyfriend (Wray & Steele, 2002). Women’s magazines,
in contrast, tend to be more explicitly about sex (McMahon, 1990),
albeit often framed within the context of a (monogamous) relationship.
It would seem that adolescents’magazines teach girls how to become
heterosexually ‘feminine,’and women’s magazines advise on how
femininity should be moulded, sexualised, and practiced as one gets
older. So women’s and adolescent girls’magazines are somewhat
distinct in prioritising different aspects of heterosexuality, which are
related to the target age groups of the magazines’consumers but
operate within a similar ideological framework.
296 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

(Bordo, 1993; Durham, 1996; McCracken, 1993; Winship,
1987). Contained within women’s magazines are a myriad
of articles and columns, alongside the advertising, that
purport to offer women advice on how to behave, or what
products to buy, in order to attract and maintain relation-
ships with men (Durham, 1996; Ferguson, 1983;
McCracken, 1993; Winship, 1987). Although we do not
focus on it further here, the relationship between advertis-
ing and editorial and other content of these magazines is
potentially complex, contradictory, and worth consideration
(e.g., see Baker, 2005; Ballaster et al., 1991; Courtney &
Whipple, 1983; Frith, Shaw, & Chen, 2005; Lindner, 2004).
The research we have discussed thus far has primarily used
content- or representation-focused approaches (e.g., Ballaster
et al., 1991; Krassas et al., 2001; McMahon, 1990; Peirce,
1997). More recently, audience ethnography approaches (e.
g., Boynton, 1999;Hermes,1995; McCleneghan, 2003;
Winship, 1987), which explore the ways readers make sense
of magazines, have been used in an effort to present a more
comprehensive analysis of women’s magazines. Audience
ethnography examines the meanings that readers take from
women’s magazines (e.g., Boynton, 1999;Hermes,1995;
Kalof, 1999). Such studies demonstrate that although
particular gendered ideologies may be prioritised within
women’s magazines, readers interpret these in complex ways
(e.g., women discussing sexually explicit material in ‘top
shelf’magazines aimed at heterosexual women have been
reported to do so in mixed and varied ways; see Boynton,
1999). The portrayed ideas are not simply ‘automatically’
absorbed by the readers—readers also offer critiques of
particular representations (e.g., the representations of
beauty in popular magazines; see Kalof, 1999).
Given the variety in which readers may engage with the
portrayals in women’s magazines, questions have been
raised regarding the validity of analyses that focus on the
text in the absence of readers’interpretations. For instance,
Hermes (1995) suggested that the texts alone are not that
important, and that women’s magazines are not meaningful
when analysed outside of the context of the readers’daily
lives. Others, however, have argued that, although it is
clearly problematic to suggest that magazine representa-
tions are directly embraced by readers, our social realities
and ‘social identities are constructed through language’
(McLoughlin, 2000, p. 95, emphasis added). Magazines
necessarily provide a space for, and contribute to, (societal
and individual) discourses of femininity, masculinity, and
sexuality (McRobbie, 1996), and the critical analysis of
magazine texts is one important mode of inquiry into their
social construction. We must also recognise that (different)
masculinities, femininities, and sexualities are not con-
structed as equal, and are not equally available to all
people, as some sexualities are dominant and some
subordinate in society. Magazines can contribute to the
availability and relative positionings of their different
forms.
Theorising Sex and Sexuality
The theoretical position taken in the present study is social
constructionism (e.g., Tiefer, 1995); ‘human sexuality’is
seen as a social and historical construct, and ‘a product of
many influences and social interventions,’which does not
exist outside of our interpretations and understanding of
sexual practices (Weeks, 1986, p. 31). This means that
‘what counts as sex; where, when, and with whom one has
sex; as well as the meanings attributed to, and the
experiences of, sex’(Braun, Gavey, & McPhillips, 2003,
p. 237) are all socially and culturally produced. This
approach problematises the notion that ‘sex is a natural
act’(Tiefer, 1995). Instead, sexuality is seen to be shaped
by language, discourse(s), and other representational prac-
tices, and these are ‘seen to enable, and limit the
possibilities of, material discursive practices’(Braun et al.,
2003, p. 238). Discourses about sex are the means by which
people come to understand sexuality and to produce/
experience their sexual behaviour (Duncombe & Marsden,
1996). Dominant (and subordinated) discourses of sex and
sexuality are also implicated in the construction of
individual subjectivities and identities.
Discourses and representations of sex and sexuality
abound, and the media are a key site for the (re)production
and contestation of discourses about sex and sexuality
(Holmberg, 1998). The West can currently be seen as a
predominantly ‘liberal’pro-(hetero)sex environment for
both women and men. Here ‘the societal message is that
you have to be sexual, you have to want to be sexual, you
have to be good at being sexual, and you have to be
normally sexual’(Tiefer, 1995, p. 129, emphasis added).
However, historically, prevailing discourses about sexuality
have made clear (and largely dichotomous) distinctions
about what constitutes ‘male’and ‘female’sexuality.
Dominant discourses have constructed male sexuality as
driven by a strong biological ‘need’for (coital) sex for its
own sake (Weeks, 1986)—what Hollway (1989) identified
as a ‘male sexual drive’discourse. Male sexuality has been
framed in opposition to female sexuality, with a strong
emphasis on the man’s sexual ability, performance, and
competence (Kilmartin, 1999). Primacy has been given to
the penis, erection, and orgasm (Tiefer, 1995). It has been
argued that this ‘masculine’model of sexuality is the most
prevalent understanding of ‘generic’sexuality, and it is still
how sexuality is broadly understood (Jackson, 1984;
Kilmartin, 1999). The notion of male sexuality as (inher-
ently) performance-oriented has been challenged by many
(e.g., Kilmartin, 1999; Seidler, 1989; Tiefer, 1995). As sex
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 297

is linked to masculine accomplishment, self-esteem, and
identity, possibilities of sexual inadequacy become linked
to masculine inadequacy.
Women have not been generally understood to be
as ‘naturally’sexual as men (Roberts, Kippax, Waldby,
& Crawford, 1995). Traditionally, ‘female sexuality’has
been defined as passive, responsive to men’s sexual needs,
and closely associated with reproduction (Gavey &
McPhillips,1999; Weeks, 1986). Jackson (1984) contended
that female sexuality has been characterised as ‘both
different and the same as male sexuality; on the one hand,
less easily aroused, more emotional, and more diffuse,
while, on the other hand, stemming from the same
biological drive’(p. 49). Jackson claimed that accounts of
difference work to position female sexuality as comple-
menting male sexuality and that accounts of similarity
legitimate prevailing forms of male sexuality. Since ‘sexual
liberation,’the constructions of (female) (hetero)sexuality
have been somewhat altered, as intimacy, agency, and
mutual pleasure for both partners in sexual encounters has
been emphasised (Jackson, 1984). What Hollway (1989)
identified as a ‘permissive discourse’around heterosex has
become prevalent, as have notions of reciprocity within
heterosex (Braun et al., 2003; Gilfoyle, Wilson, & Brown,
1992). Despite such shifts, notions of sexual difference
between women and men remain.
Previous research on heterosexual relationships has
indicated that beliefs and understandings about male and
female sexuality impact women’s sexuality (Meadows,
1997). These understandings are seen to result from a
range of messages that emanate from the ‘cultural and
institutional contexts in which a person is located’
(Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thompson, 1992,p.
3,) and from expectations of, and experiences of, pressures
from men (Meadows, 1997). Thus it appears that ‘the
cultural values and social practices of heterosexuality today
still divert much of women’s agency, energy and identity
toward meeting men’s“needs,”’ rather than their own
(Holland, Ramazanoglu, & Thompson, 1996,p.146;
Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thompson, 1998, see
also, Fine 1988; Lees, 1993; Thompson, 1990).
As noted above, women’s magazines are a major source
of (sexual) information for adolescent girls and (young)
women. However, although there has been extensive
feminist research on the representations of femininity and
female sexuality within women’s magazines, analysis of
information about men in women’s magazines has been
scarce. We moved beyond a focus on what these magazines
tell female readers about their own, and other women’s,
sexuality to what the magazines impart regarding male
sexuality. This focus on men not only fits within recent
academic interest in men, masculinities, and male sexual-
ities in general (e.g., Connell, 1995; Edley & Wetherell,
1995,1997; Kimmel & Messner, 2001), but also with
analysis about men and masculinity in media representa-
tions (e.g., Krassas, Blauwkamp, & Wesselink, 2003;
Vigorito & Curry, 1998).
In the present study, we focused on the discursive
constructions of male sexuality evident in Cleo and Cosmo.
The focus on men is particularly relevant because, in a
heteronormative world, male and female sexualities are
constructed simultaneously. Therefore, although previous
examinations of constructions of femininity/female sexuality
in magazines have been useful, they are only partially
complete, as female (hetero)sexuality is also constructed
through the magazines’accounts of male (hetero)sexuality.
Our analysis of male heterosexuality necessarily involves an
analysis of female heterosexuality as well. As women are the
intended consumers of these accounts of male (and female)
sexuality, we particularly considered the potential implica-
tions of such representations in terms of the production of
(possible, sexual) identities, subjectivities, and practice for
women, but also explored the potential impact these
representations may have in terms of women’s expectations
of male sexuality. Although we identified common and
recurrent constructions of male, and female, sexuality within
the magazines, and their likely implications, it is important to
recognise that these accounts are potentially engaged in a
variety of ways by different readers.
Materials and Methods
The Sample
The data came from six sequential issues of Cleo and Cosmo
(January–June 2002). These two magazines are very similar
in content and scope, and they target largely the same
demographic (18–34 year old women, although they are read
by girls as young as 14). Cosmo is the most widely read
women’s lifestyle magazine globally (McCleneghan, 2003),
and Cleo is an Australasian magazine very similar to Cosmo.
New Zealand readers are offered the New Zealand edition of
Cleo and the Australian edition of Cosmo. In New Zealand,
each magazine has virtually identical national readership
figures, but Cleo is marginally higher (ACNeilsen, 2005).
Six sequential issues of each magazine were chosen, as we
wished to focus on the constructions prevalent in a particular
cultural moment, as opposed to identifying changes and
trends that may have occurred over a longer period of time.
Procedure
Data were analysed using a thematic approach (e.g., Braun &
Clarke, 2006; Singer & Hunter, 1999). The magazines were
thoroughly read by the first author, and any part (e.g., article,
298 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

column, except advertisements) that contained content that
made any reference to male sexuality was selected as data.
Selection of data and coding was conducted by the first
author, in consultation with the second author. Selection
resulted in a large data set: 200 pages from Cosmo and 199
pages from Cleo. Data were coded into themes through a
process of repeated reading, which resulted in the initial
identification of a number of patterned representations of
male sexuality. Initial themes were reworked and refined, in
consultation with the second author, and in relation to the
whole data set as the analysis progressed, and further sub-
themes were coded and identified.
The thematic analysis was informed by feminist post-
structuralist theories of language (e.g., Gavey, 1997;
Weedon, 1997). Language is viewed not as merely
‘reflecting’social practices, but rather as constitutive and
a social relation in itself (Weedon, 1997). In this frame-
work, language can be understood in terms of a loop:
Language is productive and produces meanings, but it also
gets its meanings from the social practices that it names.
Thus texts are constitutive of the society in which they are
produced, and discourses produce possibilities for identity
constructions that can manifest in material practices:
‘Language and discourse constitute meaning, and hence,
particular discursive resources enable and constrain
people’s choices for how to be and act in the social world’
(Braun et al., 2003, p. 241). Feminist poststructuralist
analysis of written text typically includes an ‘analysis of the
socially constructed nature of human behaviour, decon-
struction of the assumptions within language and the
processes of producing subjectivities’(Gavey, 1997, p.62).
Data were interrogated for the assumptions they rely on
and reproduce and the possibilities they offer for subjectiv-
ity and practice for women (and men). We present the
results of our analysis, grounded in a close-reading of the
data, which identifies possible limitations for women’s
sexual subjectivity. However, in line with our theoretical
position, it is important to note that, as magazines are
situated within a broader social, cultural, political, and
historical context, there is room for diverse interpretation
(Gough-Yates, 2003), and we do not claim ours as a final or
only possible reading of the data. We include illustrative
extracts discussed in relation to each theme. Where data are
presented, the extracts will include information about:
source (Cleo or Cosmo), month of publication, title of
article, and sex of author: F(female) or M(male). When
square brackets appear within the extracts (i.e., [...]), this
indicates omission of unrelated text.
Results and Discussion
The magazines’representations of sex and sexuality
continued to be ‘relentlessly heterosexual’(Jackson, 1996;
McLoughlin, 2000); however, the data were characterised
by multiple, competing, and contradictory accounts of male
and female sexuality. The depiction of female (hetero)
sexuality was ostensibly an ‘empowered’one, as there were
representations of young women as sexually active and
independent with the right to desire sex and experience
sexual pleasure. In this sense, the magazines can be seen as
sexually liberal and as offering an image of sexual agency
for women. However, concurrent with this, women were
overwhelmingly represented as wanting/needing men in
their lives and ultimately seeking (monogamous) long-term
relationships with men; this was often situated as the
desired outcome from a new date/sexual encounter:
Does he have staying power? Single-girl tips to suss
him out on the first date.He’s gorgeous-looking,
funny and he seems so, so sweet. But how good are his
long-term relationship prospects? (Cosmo, February,
Guy spy,F).
Want to make your boy-meets-girl story an unforget-
table one? Then it’s time to try a girl-meets-boy
approach. Take the risk and you just might be
rewarded with a great relationship (Cleo, June, How
to make the first move,M).
Women were constantly depicted as ultimately looking
for their ‘Mr Right’(who was presumed to exist for all
women):
We ended up going back to my flat and spent the most
incredible night together. I really thought he was going
to be “it”—The One (Cosmo, January, You love him,
he loves speed: Are drugs damaging your life
together?,F).
Kelly must realise that she won’t meet Mr Right out
on the town (Cosmo, May, Are you in a dating
drought?,F).
These extracts represent women as in pursuit of a loving,
long-term, monogamous heterosexual relationship with
‘The One,’an outcome implicitly framed as women’s
ultimate desire. Within such accounts, men were implicitly
located as the underlying source of women’s fulfilment,
security, and happiness. The magazines rarely considered a
woman’s life without a man. According to these magazines,
a‘Mr. Right’exists for each woman to find, and happiness
ultimately comes to those who find and ‘keep’him. So,
within Cosmo and Cleo, women were represented as
inherently bound to a heterosexual imperative, where desire
and success in the heterosexual world are closely associated
with finding and keeping ‘Mr Right.’Women were thus
situated as needing men. Men were rarely represented as
‘needing’women in the same manner, and their presumed
full autonomy and independence was something women
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 299

implicitly still do not possess, nor should they desire it.
This reliance on, and reiteration of, traditional notions of
gender difference (i.e., independent man, dependant wom-
an) was prevalent throughout the magazines in various
ways.
The depiction of female sexuality is only part of the
story a (female) reader may take from these magazines, as,
given their heterosexual orientation, female sexuality
always exits in relation to its ‘target’—male sexuality.
Overall, the magazines could be described as being
‘obsessed’with male sexuality; male sexuality was the
topic of many articles and other items, but was also a
central focus in accounts of female sexuality, which was
frequently oriented toward producing men’s sexual plea-
sure. So although these magazines are ostensibly ‘women-
centred,’male sexuality was prioritised in a range of ways.
Men occupied contradictory positions in Cosmo and
Cleo: They were the target of women’s desires, and thus the
magazines were largely ‘pro men.’However, simultaneous-
ly, men were depicted in more negative ways, as the source
of much stress, anxiety, and even trauma for women.
Another key positioning of men was as a voice of
(experiential) authority (see Kitzinger, 1994) in the mag-
azines. Here (ostensibly) ‘real’men’s contributions and
views implicitly worked to offer access to the ‘truth(s)’of
men’s experience and (sexual) preferences to a ‘naïve’
female readership (see Machin & Thornborrow, 2003).
Men’s voices provided accounts of how women ideally
should behave, dress, and engage in sexual practices. In line
with previous research (Gadsden, 2000), male authors
generally ‘helped women understand their male partners
and provided ways in which women could please their
heterosexual mates’(p. 51, emphasis added).
For instance, women were instructed regularly on how to
produce a sexual experience that was enjoyable for men;
men’s voices provided ‘advice’on how women should
please them sexually:
Another technique that many males adore but are
reluctant to express is having their partner maintain
eye contact during oral sex (Cleo, May, 7 ways to get
him up!M).
Please look at me while you’re giving me a head job.
There’s nothing like having a beautiful woman going
down on you and holding your gaze while she does it
(Cleo, March, 21 ways to make a naked man shiver!
M).
Such advice (by men) situates the female readership as
simultaneously potentially unknowing and as needing to
know about (the mysteries of) male sexuality. This ‘advice’
works to shape ideas about what ‘real’men’s sexual
preferences are and in what sexual activities (and how)
women should be engaged. In those extracts that portray
men as ‘adoring’eye contact during fellatio, the magazines
not only encourage women to engage in this sexual activity
(if they want to please their male partner), but to engage in
it in a particular way. Wood (1994) has suggested that one
of the dominant representations of women in the mass
media is that they exist to satisfy men’s sexual fantasies,
and Wood’s claim was supported by our data. In Cleo and
Cosmo, women were encouraged to be as ‘sexual’as
possible, but primarily in ways that made them available to
satisfy men’s purported (and reported) sexual fantasies and
desires (which, from a constructionist perspective, are
‘produced’and not ‘natural’). Although providing men
with sexual pleasure may bring pleasure and power to
women, ‘women are also [positioned as] naïve and
vulnerable...relying on the reaction of men for their self-
image and power’(Machin & Thornborrow, 2003, p. 464).
Therefore, the constant reiteration of ‘how to give men
pleasure’potentially promotes an insecure sexuality for
women.
The magazines also commonly portrayed women’s
‘atypical’sexual behaviour as particularly desired by men:
What’s the most important moment during sex?
“When she starts talking dirty or takes the initiative
and gets into a position that’s neither missionary nor
her on top. It means she has an adventurous streak.”—
Malcom, 31 (Cleo, May, 7 ways to get him up!,M).
Such sexual activities were implicitly positioned as
‘unusual’: not what would generally be expected; found
only in ‘adventurous’women. Thus they work simulta-
neously to position women in general as not sexually
adventurous, and men as adventurous and desiring (un-
common) sexually adventurous women. Women were
persistently encouraged to cater to men’s sexual needs and
desires in a relationship or sexual encounter and to become/
embody his fantasy. Thus, in line with previous research on
heterosexual relationships (e.g., Crawford, Kippax, &
Waldby, 1994), the prevailing version of heterosexual
relationships/sex represented in the magazines was male-
orientated.
Within Cosmo and Cleo, women were (still) represented
as judged and selected as sexual partners based on their
appearance. Male voices also provided views on this:
On a first date: “A woman should wear something that
makes me want to sleep with her, but not something
that makes me think 1000 men probably have. It’sa
fine line.”Steve, 27 (Cosmo, May, What makes a great
date?M).
Here female sexuality, and femininity, was linked to
physical appearance, as it often has been (Travis, Meginnis,
& Bardari, 2000). Comments such as the one above subtly
300 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

set up criteria for ‘attractive’and ‘appropriate’femininity
based on certain levels of apparent sexuality. It has been
argued that ‘the conflation of physical appearance and
sexuality is detrimental to women on individual, interper-
sonal, and systemic levels and that it ultimately sustains
gender-based oppression’(Travis et al., 2000, p. 237). This
extract nicely demonstrates the continued existence of a
‘tightrope of femininity’for women, which produces/
polices women’s behaviour (see Lees, 1993,1998). The
following observation regarding women’s magazines di-
rectly applies to our analysis of Cosmo and Cleo:
If men can define women’s gender roles and sexuality
in a woman’s magazine, women have not been
successful in claiming a social space free from male
dominance. In these magazines, males have the right
and the privilege to define notions of femininity and
confine female sexuality to the heterosexual couple.
Male authors were allowed to exist as authority
figures, reinforcing stereotypical gender ideologies.
(Gadsden, 2000, p. 56)
Overall, there was a lack of diversity in the representa-
tions of sexual activities; ‘real’heterosex was still con-
structed primarily as penetrative, ‘sexual pleasure’achieved
only through orgasm, and ‘mutual orgasm’the ‘the holy
grail of intercourse’(Cosmo, May, Help him to read your
mind [and body] in bed,F). Women were not only
encouraged to embrace sexuality as identified above, but
female sexuality itself was represented as centred or based
on these notions. Jackson and Scott (2001) refered to this as
a‘linear rationalised process’(p. 104) within heterosexual
encounters; ‘A series of stages to be gone through before
the final output: foreplay leading to coitus culminating in
orgasm’(Jackson & Scott, 1997, p. 560). Women’s sexual
pleasure (orgasm) was situated as necessary based on
reciprocity and the permissive discourse (Braun et al.,
2003), but as difficult (if not impossible) to achieve,
particularly via coitus. The magazines did not depict ‘oral
sex’or ‘masturbation’for women as ways of achieving this
orgasmic pleasure as legitimate as coitus. However, women
have reported masturbation or oral sex ‘as more or at least
as sexually pleasurable, in terms of orgasm, as intercourse’
(Gavey, McPhillips, & Braun, 1999, p.63, emphasis in
original). The magazine’s prioritised (traditional) ‘mascu-
line’sexuality and male sexual desires, and perpetuated
gendered constructions of heterosexuality and heterosex.
Men’s Needs for (Great) Sex
When you feel like having sex, just tell men. Most of
us guys are raring to go anytime, anyplace, anywhere
(Cosmo, May, 77 things to do to a naked man, M).
Within the magazines, sex was represented as very
important to men, as something that men are willing and
able to engage in ‘anytime,’something that men (always)
want. In the extract above, the phrase ‘most of us guys’
positions a continual readiness for sex as common and
normative for men,as‘just the way guys are,’and locates
men within a ‘male sexual drive’discourse (Hollway,
1989). In line with men’s reported strong sexual readiness,
it was common for the penis to be represented as ‘having a
mind of its own’and as controlling men:
[B]eing male, I find that sometimes your groin can
take over and it’s only after the deed is actually done
that you regret sleeping with the particular girl’
(Cosmo, January, We ask men answer: Is there ever a
bad time for having sex?M).
In that extract, the author depicted ‘genital control’as a
distinctive characteristic that is inherent in men. The
responsibility for certain actions (later deemed ‘regrettable’)
was represented as falling on the groin (penis), which,
presumably, is gratification-focused and needs sex. In such
accounts, the penis is constructed as ‘extrinsic to the self ’
(Kilmartin, 1999, p. 180); this can function to represent
male sexuality as not only needy/driven, but also as
uncontrollable, which potentially shifts the responsibility
of certain sexual actions (such as infidelity/cheating) away
from the man. Potts (2001) has commented that this inside/
outside distinction with regard to the penis works to
constitute a ‘hegemonic masculine subjectivity’where
‘men tend to distance themselves from the [sexual]
behaviours of their bodies’and thus ‘they may also
exonerate themselves from responsibility in sexual matters’
(p. 154), including inappropriate, risky, or even coercive
sexual practices.
These magazines also worked on, and reiterated, the
underlying assumption that women desire (or should desire)
men as sexual partners, boyfriends, and, eventually hus-
bands: modern rendering of what Hollway (1989) referred
to as the ‘have/hold’discourse. As men’s sexuality was
located in a ‘male sexual drive’discourse, once in a
relationship, (great) heterosex was represented as vital for a
‘healthy’relationship and to ensure men’s fidelity (through
sexual fulfilment). A distinction was made between good
and great sex:
In the male world, bad sex is a contradiction [...] As
long as men are concerned, there’s no such thing as an
uneventful erotic experience. There is however a
significant difference between good sex and great
sex—the kind that is so carnally explosive that your
relationship is irrevocably enhanced by it (Cleo, May,
7 ways to get him up! p. 49, M).
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 301

The notion of the ‘male world’constructs men as different
from women and invokes an implicit contrast case, the
‘female world.’‘Bad sex’was represented as inconceivable
in ‘the male world,’but implicitly not so in ‘the female
world.’Men are represented as sexual connoisseurs who can
distinguish between ‘good’and ‘great’sex. ‘Great’sex was
represented as enhancing a relationship in ways that could
not then be changed or reversed. This positions ‘great’
heterosex as a goal to strive for, not only for its own erotic
sake, but in an instrumental sense (Vanwesenbeeck, 1997)
because it has the ‘function’of ‘enhancing’(or even
instigating) a heterosexual relationship.
According to such accounts, the ability to provide ‘great’
sex to men is key in fulfilling both men’s sexual needs and
women’s relational (as well as, perhaps, thier sexual) desires.
If you want to feature in his mind 24-7, leave an
impression where it counts [...]. Personality matters,
but it is no secret that men love women who are not
only good in bed, but who enjoy it too. And we know
this because carnal cowgirls have boyfriends, lovers,
and hubbies who keep coming back for more. All you
need to do is leave him craving a repeat performance
(Cleo, June, Gothca: Secrets of girls who made it
through the first six months, p. 55, F).
Here, a memorable sexual performance was depicted as
more important than personality in terms of retaining a
man’s interest. Men were positioned as loving women who
are ‘good’in bed and who also enjoy sex. Being ‘good’in
bed is clearly framed around his sexual desires and
pleasures; her enjoyment of sex is secondary. So being
great at sex, or being the best sexual encounter he had ever
had, was thus portrayed as the way to ‘keep your man’:
Want him to think you’re the best he’s ever had?
Invent a sex trick and watch him go off [...]. If there is
one absolute must-have when it comes to claiming
great in-bed status, it’s a signature move—a complete-
ly original manoeuvre that’ll make him never want any
other woman, ever, ever, again (Cosmo, January, How
other women blow his mind,F).
According to such extracts, one way to keep ‘your man’
satisfied (and thus faithful) was to please him sexually by
‘inventing’an original ‘sex trick’or ‘signature move’so
that he has no excuse to ‘stray.’This frames sexuality as
‘work’for women, as a talent or ability to be developed.
The idea of a signature move invokes a particularly
mechanistic, non-interpersonal view of sexuality, where
pleasure is understood as ‘generic,’a signature move would
ostensibly be pleasurable for any/all men, regardless of
their individual sexual preferences. So, ‘great’sex is not
only removed from the particularities of any one interper-
sonal/relational context, but women are subtly set up for
failure, because, how many “unique”sexual moves could
there possibly be?
The magazines portrayed men as liking sex (anytime),
but women as having to work on sex and to compete with
other women with whom he has had sex, as well as women
with whom he might potentially have sex (or even just
consider having sex with) in the future in order to be
memorable and ensure his fidelity. This situation sets
women up as competing with each other for men’s attention
and (lasting) affection via their sexual technique, which
reiterates the sociocultural importance placed on ‘the
relationship’to women’s subjectivity, and ‘sex’to men’s
subjectivity (e.g., see the widely criticised/discredited work
of John Gray, 1992,1995, which emphasises these
supposed ‘differences,’see Potts, 1998, for a critique).
The common reference to great sex as stopping men
from cheating indicates another common theme in the
magazines’accounts that is linked strongly to a ‘male
sexual drive’discourse (Hollway, 1989)—that of all men
are (potential) cheaters. This representation of men as actual
or potential cheaters was prevalent:
Real men confess: the results are in and the stats don’t
lie. 44% of men claim they wouldn’t cheat on their
girlfriends, 90% of men who take a lie detector test in
infidelity are found guilty, 90% of women who take
the same test are found to have remained monoga-
mous, 54% of men have cheated on their partners,
21% would forgive their partners one-night stand,
compared to 16% of women (Cosmo, January, Guy
talk: Is there any man totally cheat-proof?,M).
Here, the reality depicted was that 54% of men have
cheated, whereas 44% claim they would not. The use of
‘claim’works to undermine the veracity of such ‘claims,’
thus effectively suggesting that these men might also really
be (potential) cheaters, they just would not admit to it.
Cheating (and not admitting to it) was depicted as the way
(most) men are, which works to construct men’s cheating as
a normative concern for all heterosexual women. It also
works implicitly to situate women in opposition to men—as
normatively not cheaters; thus (cheating) men are considered
to be a strange species to be explained and understood.
A‘male sexual drive’discourse was frequently evident
in explanations (and justifications) for men’s‘unfaithful’
behaviour. The main reasons provided for why men might
cheat were: to end a relationship they wanted to leave; a
high sex drive; and a lack of sexual satisfaction in their
current relationship. The latter two drew extensively on a
drive discourse. Framed within this, ‘opportunity’was
presented as a reason for cheating:
Another reason [...] is if it’s an opportunity he can’t
refuse [...] if a sexy woman wants to sleep with a guy,
302 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

it seems to fly in the face of fate not to take that
chance [...]. It’s a brutal truth, but if sex is handed out
on a plate with no strings attached, it’s a rare boyfriend
who will refuse it [...]. Men are only immune from
temptation when they are genuinely and utterly in love
(Cosmo, January, Guy talk: Is there any man truly
cheat-proof,M).
Such accounts invoked a ‘male sexual drive’discourse
through reference to a man who could/would not refuse an
opportunity for ‘no strings attached’sex. Phrases like ‘no
strings attached’or ‘bind-free, mind-free bonk’(Cleo,
February, Sex by numbers: What can numerology reveal
about your sexual personality,F) framed this type of sex as
‘free sex’in opposition to other kinds of (relationship) sex
with conditions or obligations involved (which, on a
‘purely’sexual level, were subtly positioned as less
appealing to men). Representations of men’s supposed
constant sexual readiness and their capacity to be unfaithful
can potentially function to produce feelings of insecurity in
a woman regarding the (constant) potential infidelity of her
male partner.
Men were portrayed as only ‘immune’from such
‘temptation’when they were ‘genuinely and utterly in
love.’In the extract above ‘love’was framed as a (rare)
condition, incompatible with cheating and an assurance
against it. This old-fashioned rhetoric positions love as
something that ‘cures all cheating ills.’However, men were
also represented as having the capacity to be unfaithful in
(presumably loving) long-term relationships, as a lack of
sexual satisfaction in their current relationship is another
common explanation offered for men’s cheating:
“Men only go out looking for sex if they’re missing
out on something at home”says Clare... (Cleo,
February, Women who have been there and done
that...tell all!,F).
Here, men’s cheating behaviour was portrayed as a
response to inadequate ‘sexual upkeep’by his female
partner. This places sexual fulfilment for men as an
important part of heterosexual relationships and as a
necessary way to keep men from ‘straying’(unless, or
even if, they are genuinely and utterly in love).
It has been suggested that the construction of men as a
homogenous group is achieved mainly by the invocation of
its supposed ‘natural opposite’—women (Ballaster et al.,
1991). So, what about women’s infidelity? Women were
rarely represented as cheaters, but when women’s infidelity
was addressed, it was done in much more severe ways,
within more elaborate and negative scenarios, and was
more condemnable, and less forgivable, than men’s cheat-
ing behaviour. Women were depicted as more morally
culpable for cheating, without the ‘excuse’of a sexual
drive. Responsibility for the cheating, in such accounts, lay
with the woman, rather than being caused by (sexual or
relational) shortcomings on the part of the man on whom
she had cheated. Inadequate sexual upkeep by men was
never an explanation for women’s cheating. Another gender
difference was evident in the construction of women as
victims of their male partner’s cheating, but men as seekers
of revenge for being cheated on by a female partner. Thus
the positions conjured up here for women and men were
quite different.
These kinds of dichotomous constructions can work to
naturalise and normalise perceived behaviour differences
between men and women. The gendering of cheating
behaviour was part of a broader general construction of
men as inherently different from women within the
magazines (e.g., in communication style, skills/abilities,
and personal characteristics). This construction is reminis-
cent of the discursive strategies deployed in pop psychol-
ogy/self-help books by authors such as John Gray (1992,
1995) (i.e., Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus and
Mars and Venus in the Bedroom: A Guide to Lasting
Romance and Passion) and A. Pease and B. Pease (2001,
2004) (i.e., Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read
Maps: How We’re Different and What to Do About It and
Why Men Don’t Have a Clue and Women Always Need
More Shoes: The Ultimate Guide to The Opposite Sex), to
explain and account for men’s and women’s behaviour.
This is not surprising, as both magazines often drew on
books such as these (with the authors positioned as
‘experts’) to provide advice and insights into the mysterious
workings of the ‘opposite sex.’Here, differences are seen
as ‘natural,’sometimes complementary, sometimes prob-
lematic, but largely as ‘the way things are.’
The persistent depictions of these ‘natural’gender(ed)
differences is an important aspect of the magazines to
highlight, as they engage in effectively constructing,
perpetuating, and naturalising gendered identities through
polarisation and difference (Hollway, 1989). The represen-
tations of these supposed difference as ‘normal’can
camouflage and naturalise mechanisms that may disem-
power and oppress women by suggesting that gender
differences (that frame the nature of femininity/masculinity
in ways that are congruent with dominant gender ideology)
are ‘natural,’unquestionable, and thus potentially ‘un-
changeable.’Differences are to be accepted, or worked
around, rather than resisted or challenged.
In Cosmo and Cleo, men were constructed as (potentially
and actually) desiring sex all the time and as being
particularly susceptible to the effects of great sex. Giving
great sex was represented in instrumental terms for women,
as a way to gain a (desired) relationship and to ensure
men’s fidelity. The focus on men as potential cheaters also
heightens the need for women to develop sexual skills that
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 303

men (supposedly) desire to keep them from ‘straying.’The
extent to which cheating was framed as always ‘wrong’fits
within the unquestioned promotion of monogamous hetero-
sexual relationships as central to women’s identity and
well-being.
Pleasure, Performance, and the ‘Male Ego’
Pleasure and performance were represented as intersecting
(and sometimes competing) components of male hetero-
sexuality. Pleasuring a woman sexually was commonly
associated with producing a women’s orgasm, and as
indicative of men’s sexual competence and notions of a
‘male ego.’Orgasm was extensively discussed and depicted
as the goal of heterosex for both women and men, and there
was an emphasis on it being the main part of ‘pleasure’
during sex. This ‘orgasmic imperative’(see Potts, 2000)
works to re-affirm a traditional model of ‘masculine’
sexuality (as discussed earlier) as the most important one,
where sex equals penetration, and coitus culminates in
men’s (and sometimes women’s) orgasm. This association
is ‘the product of culturally ordered meanings embedded in
particular social practices,’where the ‘meanings of orgasm
derive from social, not biological, contexts’(Jackson &
Scott, 2001,p.105).Cleo and Cosmo engaged in a
gendering of orgasm: men’s orgasm was constructed as
unproblematic and automatic—‘realistically a man could
come in 2 min if he really wanted to’(Cleo, February, What
men want,M)—whereas women’s orgasm was constructed
as complicated and difficult to ‘achieve’—‘every woman
seems to have her own cryptic orgasmic code [...] it could
literally take me years to get it right’(Cosmo, May, What
makes a great date?,M).
The (difficult) ‘production’of women’s pleasure by men
was closely related to notions of a ‘male ego.’A male ego
was commonly invoked (in relation to heterosex and
beyond) to explain men’s‘tendencies’or to shed light on
their sexual behaviour. Its existence was never questioned.
Rather, it was represented as ‘just the way men are.’Men
were again constructed as a homogenous group, with this a
general feature:
Guys are much more concerned about their perfor-
mance in bed than they like to admit...it’s because the
male ego is so fragile. He’s terrified that someone else
may have satisfied you more[...]. Women are used to
soothing the male ego: reassuring him that he is the
best we’ve ever had (Cleo, March: Was sex with his ex
better?F).
This male ego was used to represent men as fragile when
it comes to suggested or actual inadequacy regarding their
sexual performance. In this extract, the supposed fragility of
the male ego was utilised to account for men’s insecurity
about performance. That such information was reiterated
through the magazines suggests it as both ‘newsworthy’for
women and as normative for men, thus locating it as a
potential issue for all heterosexual women. Women’s role
was one of reassurance and support, a role that can be
associated with traditional feminine passivity within hetero-
sex (Gavey & McPhillips, 1999). This can also be located
within an ‘emotion work’(Hochschild, 1983) framework:
Women recognise their male sexual partner may be
experiencing potential feelings of inadequacy, and thus
they seek to relieve this uncertainty by reassuring him that
he matches a heterosexual ‘sexual ideal’and that he is
sexually adequate (or better). The focus was thus shifted
from woman’s participation or her own pleasure to her
worry about the male ego. The idea of a fragile male ego
and sexual sensitivity were framed as significant for men
(and, by implication, for women):
Despite the bluff and bravado, men are sensitive
creatures. This becomes problematic in that most guys
also have the innate belief that they are better-than-
average lovers—the rest of us assume we’re merely
spectacular. If you want to watch a man dissolve
before your eyes, tell him his sexual technique could
do with some work. Ladies and gentleman—instant
impotence (Cleo, January: Good relationship, average
sex?M).
In that extract, the use of extreme language (e.g.,
dissolve) constructs the issue as a serious one and the
possible act of telling a man his technique may require
some work as severe. It further suggests that women should
not bring up men’s potential sexual shortcomings directly
because no one would want to make a man ‘dissolve.’
Kilmartin (1999) has suggested that (hetero)sex ‘has been a
major way for men to demonstrate their masculinity’(p.
185), and thus feelings of sexual inadequacy can place that
masculinity in jeopardy. With sexual performance framed
as central to both the male ego and masculinity, the act of
commenting on either is positioned as one with serious
implications. It also paradoxically positions women as
‘powerful’and as having the ability to cause ‘sexual
anxiety’by pointing out men’s sexual inadequacies.
However, the magazines discouraged this on many levels
and advocated ‘subtlety’and ‘tact’when it came to any
sexual communication.
These ideas rely on, and reproduce, a stereotypically
gendered understanding of what it means to be male and
female (in general, and in heterosexual encounters):
A guy’s biggest fear is that if he doesn’t know exactly
how and when to push every erogenous button on
your body, you’ll think he’s some kind of inexperi-
enced geek. “Sometimes with a women, I suspect that
304 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

what I’m doing is wrong, but asking her for guidance
is like putting my manhood on the chopping block,”
admits Robert, 25 (Cosmo, February, Guy talk.M).
In the last line, Robert reported that asking a woman for
guidance in a sexual encounter (even when he thinks he
may be ‘doing something wrong’) is too risky. For him to
admit to a woman during sex that he thinks he may need
guidance was represented as problematic for him, arguably
because it undermines his expertise and the notion of ‘being
in control’of the (sexual) situation. Again, the use of
extreme language (‘a guy’sbiggest fear’) positions not
knowing exactly how to please a woman sexually as a very
serious concern of men. Male sexuality was framed as a
trajectory, in which past experience (ideally) leads to the
acquisition of sexual skills and knowledge. Inexperience
was constructed in negative terms, and ‘experience’was
framed as (ideally) synonymous with women’s sexual
pleasure. These accounts can work together to reproduce
inexperience as always a potential ‘identity’risk for men,
and thus any suggestion of men’s‘ineptitude’and ‘inexpe-
rience’as something women should avoid. Women, in that
extract, were positioned as not telling men what they like
sexually, as being the (silent) recipient of men’s sexual
technique, whether ‘good’or ‘bad.’
As others have noted, the emphasis on men’s‘sexual
technique’leaves no room for the man to be anything
but ‘expert’(Crawford et al., 1994). It was suggested that
men should know what to do in a sexual encounter; they
should be a ‘sexpert’(Potts, 1998), and that generic sexual
experience was, on the whole, good for improving men’s
sexual skills. Although pleasuring a woman was portrayed
as an important part of male sexuality and masculinity, this
pleasure may be as much, or more, about the man’s ability
to produce that pleasure (e.g., see Gilfoyle et al., 1992), as
about the women’s pleasure per se. For example, Seidler
(1989) has argued that, even though the focus may have
shifted to making sure a female partner experiences
‘pleasure’during (hetero)sex, ‘this still reflects back on
the male ego’(p. 39). So, women’s sexual pleasure can
serve a positive identity function for men who have sex
with women. This point of critique is perhaps a
complex one. We are not suggesting that women
experiencing sexual pleasure should serve no positive
identity functions for men. However, what is notable is the
gendering of sexual experience in the magazines, such that
women’s production of men’s pleasure was typically
framed in relationship terms, whereas men’s production of
women’s pleasure was framed in individualistic masculine
identity terms.
Although men were repeatedly represented as ‘taking
pleasure in giving pleasure,’which appears to situate
heterosex within a reciprocity discourse (Braun et al.,
2003), it was the appearance of women’s sexual pleasure
that was depicted as reassuring men about their sexual
technique:
Guys love screamers—they make them feel less
insecure about their technique. They think, “The
louder she yells, the better lover I must be. I’m
obviously doing something right to get her so worked
up”[...] they’re proud of their ability to turn up your
volume’(Cosmo, March, Pump up the volume.M).
Men were represented as feeling ‘less insecure’(but still
insecure) about their sexual technique when women
provided audible signs of pleasure during sex. As women’s
orgasm does not have clear visible signs (in contrast to
ejaculation, which is typically taken as an indication of
men’s orgasm), audible signs of pleasure (e.g., moaning,
screaming) are taken to be key indicators of women’s
sexual pleasure (Roberts et al., 1995). Roberts et al. (1995)
argued that ‘the demand for noise indicates...that hetero-
sexuality becomes an economy in which the woman’s
orgasm is exchanged for the man’s work’(p. 528).
However, as this auditory indication is not necessarily
based on any ‘real’pleasure on the part of the women, the
sceptre of faking pleasure is always possible. Faking
pleasure or pretending orgasm was frequently addressed in
the magazines:
STIFLE THESE SECRETS [...] The time you faked it:
We know, we know, every woman says she’s
pretended to orgasm at least once, and no man thinks
that it was with him. We prefer to keep it that way and
retain the fantasy that we’re super-studs in bed, thanks
very much (Cosmo, February, New sex: The surprising
things he notices,M).
Faking orgasm was framed as something men did not
want to know about. So, although genuine female pleasure
was desired, the appearance of orgasm also assured men of
their sexual technique. One possible effect of this could be
to lead women to fake pleasure in order to satisfy their
sexual partner’s ego and to enhance men’s feelings of
sexual competency (see Roberts et al., 1995).
It is important also to consider the ideas and assumptions
about ‘sexual communication’that operated in many of
these accounts. In the early extracts in this section, for
example, sex was implicitly, ideally constructed as essen-
tially non-communicative, in that it should just happen, yet
produce pleasure for both without any communication
necessary as to such things as sexual technique, prefer-
ences, and so on. Accounts of a male ego can be seen to
work against any discussion of sexual pleasure and desires
related to technique. However, the magazines also simulta-
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 305

neously advocated sexual communication as key in produc-
ing great (hetero)sex:
You may have to gently guide him to your erogenous
parts [...]. We’ve said it a thousand times: communi-
cation is the basis of any good sex life (Cleo, April,
What sizzles and what fizzles about sex? F).
Here, ‘gentle’rather than explicit guidance was encour-
aged to ensure women’s sexual pleasure. Women who
desired change in a man’s sexual technique were typically
encouraged to communicate it with caution:
Teach him the right technique [...] To work on his
technique without bruising his manhood say you saw a
cool new move in Cosmo (Cosmo, January, Did you,
um, come? Cosmo’s girl guide to getting there.F).
Here, again, the assumption of a fragile male ego
informed the advice given. Across the data, the existence
of a male ego was not questioned, nor was it depicted as
changeable. Instead, accounts focused on how women
should work around the male ego and/or how they should
work with it. The male ego was not represented as desirable
or ideal; it was depicted as just the way things are, a male
foible that (heterosexual) women have to live with.
Therefore, it was constructed as a reality to be lived with
and dealt with by women, rather than by men. One potential
impact of this is that although women were encouraged to
be (sexually) confident, they were also encouraged not to
speak their minds directly and to take a subtle approach in
relation to sexual (performance) communication. For in-
stance, there was some advice on how to get a male partner
to ‘sexually please you’(mainly in Cosmo) if you were not
sexually satisfied in a relationship. However, these were
often laden with instruction on how to do so subtly, without
‘bruising his manhood’(e.g., Private[s] tutor: Teach him
how to give you grade-A orgasms every time,Cosmo,
March, F;Help him to read your mind [and body] in bed,
Cosmo, May, F). The representation of male sexuality as
sensitive to, inherently linked to, and influenced by, a
fragile male ego works to position men’s feelings of
competence as crucial and as a cause for concern in sexual
encounters. We argue that through such accounts, these
magazines construct of the male ego as something that’s
ontologically real, potentially limiting women’s (and men’s)
sexual and relational possibilities.
Men’s and women’s pleasure and performance and the
male ego were thus complexly intertwined in the mag-
azines’representation of male (and female) sexuality. These
representations framed contemporary men’s (hetero)sexual-
ity as centred on performance, his pleasure, and the
production of women’s pleasure (i.e., her orgasm). This
construction worked to (re)produce a potentially ‘fragile’
subjectivity for/in men that women readers were encour-
aged to take account of. Although these magazines are
ostensibly concerned with women and women’s pleasure,
and have the capacity to be critical of men, they did not
question (ostensibly) problematic behaviour, such as ‘men’s
cheating,’or supposed masculine characteristics, such as
the ‘male ego.’Instead, women were instructed on how
they can work around these (potentially) undesirable, yet
unchanging (or unchangeable) masculine ways. Further-
more, the magazines rarely discussed other forms of sexual
pleasure that did not involve orgasm. Even with such a
focus on orgasm, they did not discuss oral sex for women
nearly as often as penetrative sex, as a (potentially ‘easier’)
way to achieve the sought after (women’s) orgasm. Not
only did the magazines perpetuate a traditional ‘masculine’
model of sexuality, they uncritically reproduced a wide
array of gendered assumptions regarding men and women,
relationships, and, indeed, heterosex.
Implications for Female Sexuality, Gender, and Gender
Relations
The mass media contribute to the construction of normative
(and disruptive) gender roles and sexuality (Gadsden,
2000). Our analysis has shown that earlier feminist critiques
of women’s magazines (e.g., Machin & Thornborrow,
2003;Peirce,1997) are equally applicable to more
contemporary issues of Cleo and Cosmo. Although the
magazines advocate sexual agency and individual autono-
my for women, this could more accurately be identified as
pseudo liberation and sexual empowerment, particularly
when one considers representations of male sexuality in
conjunction with representations of female sexuality.
Cleo and Cosmo reaffirmed the notion of sexual and
general gender difference by constructing male sexuality
and female sexuality and women’s and men’s relationship
desires as inherently different (despite some overlaps). Male
sexuality was framed as purely sexual, with relationships as
almost foist upon men, whereas women were framed as
ultimately desiring relationships (as much as, if not more
than, just sex). As noted, these constructions mirror the
discourses often deployed in pop psychology/self-help
books (i.e., Gray, 1992,1995; A. Pease & B. Pease, 2001,
2004). There, as in much of our data, men and women are
positioned as fundamentally and ‘naturally’different, as
inhabiting different worlds, having different subjectivities,
and different needs/desires (e.g., see Potts, 1998). Men need
sex, and women, although now ‘sexual,’still need/want
relationships with men.
It is worth noting that representations of female sexuality
were not as limited as they have been in the past: Women
were offered some form of sexual agency. The magazines
engaged in the marketing of ‘liberated’heterosexuality,
where men are objects of desire for women. However,
306 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

whereas women do not/should not need men per se, they
should nonetheless want a man (imperfect as men are) and
want to have a monogamous relationship with him.
Women, therefore, remain embedded within a heterosexist
imperative, where they should take part in the institution of
heterosexuality. Our analysis supports previous research
that, although women’s magazines may ‘recognise women
as sexual,’they have not ‘abandoned the view that women
are primarily sex objects, whose desire is best fulfilled by
remaking themselves into commodities that are sexually
available to men and designed to attract [and keep] men’
(Krassas et al., 2001, p. 768). These magazines, then, can
be seen as part of a ‘cultural apparatus that purports to
assist women to be heterosexually attractive, to be coy,
alluring, “sexy,”and flirtatious, in order to “find true love”
and to “catch a man,”and then to maintain his interest’
(Overall, 1999, p. 298) through great sex.
These constructions offer competing and contradictory
possibilities for male sexuality and female sexuality.
Masculinity has been privileged within conventional het-
erosexuality (e.g., Holland et al., 1998; Philaretou & Allen,
2001), and our analysis supports an ongoing overall
privileging of male sexuality in women’smagazines. In
Cleo and Cosmo men’s sexual needs/desires were priori-
tised. It was largely women, rather than men, who were
expected to change (or to mischievously ‘guide’men to
change their supposedly undesired behaviours) to ‘make
things work’in a relationship. Women were informed of
various things they must do to attract (and keep) men, as
well as things they must avoid. We argue that this subtly
places women in a precarious position as the ‘needy’
ones in heterosexual relations. Women are positioned as
having sex to offer men, whereas men are positioned as
having it all (i.e., sex and a relationship) to offer women.
Men appeared to have relationships almost beside
themselves and their better judgement, whereas a rela-
tionship was situated as the ultimate purpose of women’s
existence.
So, although Cleo and Cosmo might suggest equality,
their accounts belie this argument and suggest an inequality
where men have the ‘real’power: to go away (i.e., leave a
relationship); not to ‘have’that particular woman; not to be
‘The One.’So in very subtle ways, these highly gendered
messages were reproduced, with the potential to be taken-
up by women who read the magazines. Our analysis
supports Starr’s (1999, as cited in Gauntlett, 2002, p. 190)
observation that ‘for the most part...women’s magazines are
pushing the same message they were half a century ago:
women’s existence revolves around landing the right guy’
although, as Gauntlett (2002) adds, ‘today’s technique is
great sex rather than great cooking’(p. 190). Although the
magazines’content is packaged under the ‘liberated woman
motif,’they are just pushing another version of the
‘snagging and keeping a guy’theme (Starr, 1999, as cited
in Gauntlett, 2002, p. 190).
It is important to note that the content of these magazines
does not emerge in a social, discursive, or ideological
vacuum. Instead, it arises out of, and reflects, contemporary
discourses of gender, gender relations, and sexuality.
Moreover, although we have not focused on this aspect, it
is important also to note that magazine content does not
exist independently of commercial interests (Stevens,
Maclaran, & Brown, 2003). It has long been argued that
women’s magazines are mainly a means for advertising and
selling products that claim to ‘cure’women’s feelings of
inferiority and inadequacy (e.g., Lindner, 2004). Indeed the
content of women’s magazines is designed to sell the
magazines, but the magazines themselves depend on
advertising (rather than their cover prices) for their revenue
(Wolf, 1991), and they aim to provide desirable advertising
space.
So what might be the outcome of the representations
these magazines contain? Although not targeted at them, it
is our contention that heterosexual men, as a group and
individually, potentially gain from the ways women’s
magazines represent male and female sexuality, as women
are encouraged to partake in sexual activities that men
(supposedly) desire. However, men’s sexual subjectivity
was also positioned precariously through these dominant
constructions, and women’s sexuality was implicitly framed
as dependent on men’s sexuality and sexual competence.
Furthermore, women were not constructed as ‘inherently’
sexual in the way that men were. Rather, female sexuality
was (implicitly) constructed as ‘catching up’to (an ever
present and pre-existent) male sexuality, which ostensibly
constitutes ‘real’sexuality. This construction reinforces the
notion that sex and sexuality remain, to some extent, largely
men’s domains (Jackson, 1984). In various ways, then, the
magazines ultimately worked to reinforce traditional gen-
dered roles: men as sexual; women as relational.
Through destabilising the unquestioned status of the
heterosexist imperative, the prioritisation of a traditional
‘masculine’model of sexuality, and representations of
‘natural’gender(ed) differences within media representa-
tion, we hope to encourage others to question its taken-for-
granted nature. We suggest that these magazine’s ought to
offer an increased focus on more diverse forms of
sexualities and pleasures, with a recognition and emphasis
on ‘women-centred’pleasures and desires, if heterosexual-
ity really is to change to a ‘real’egalitarian sexuality. From
a constructionist perspective, media such as Cleo and
Cosmo do not represent the reality of women’s and men’s
sexual desires, they produce the possibilities, and indeed
the ‘realities,’of women’s (and men’s) desires and
fantasies, and potentialities for action alongside these.
However, as we noted in our introduction, the ways in
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 307

which such representations are taken up are also important
for understanding the ongoing construction of male and
female (hetero)sexuality. Therefore, future researchers in
this area may seek to examine how such texts and themes
are taken up and engaged in by heterosexual female and
male readers and whether/how they are resisted, challenged,
or accepted by readers.
Acknowledgments We thank members of the psychology depart-
ment’s Gender and Critical Psychology Group and two anonymous
reviewers for helpful feedback on an earlier version of this paper.
References
ACNeilsen. (2005). Media trends. Retrieved 14 March 2004 from the
World Wide Web: http://www.acneilsen.co.nz/MRI_pages.asp?
MRIID=3.
Baker, C. N. (2005). Images of women’s sexuality in advertisements:
A content analysis of Black- and White-oriented women’s and
men’s magazines. Sex Roles,52,13–27.
Ballaster, R., Beetham, M., Frazer, E., & Hebron, S. (1991). Woman’s
worlds: Ideology, femininity, and the woman’s magazine. Hound-
mills, UK: Macmillian.
Bordo, S. (1993). Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and
the body. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Boynton, P. M. (1999). ‘Is that supposed to be sexy?’: Women discuss
‘top shelf’magazines. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology,9, 449–461.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3,77–101.
Braun, V., Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (2003). The ‘fair deal’?
Unpacking accounts of reciprocity in heterosex. Sexualities,6,
237–261.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. (1996). ‘Women who pay for sex and enjoy
it’: Transgression versus morality in women’s magazines. In C.
R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices:
Readings in critical discursive analysis (pp. 250–270). London:
Routledge.
Carpenter, L. M. (1998). From girls into woman: Scripts for sexuality
and romance in Seventeen magazine, 1974–1994. The Journal of
Sex Research,2, 158–169.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen &
Unwin.
Courtney, A. E., & Whipple, T. (1983). Sex in advertising: An
annotated bibliography. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Marketing
Science Institute.
Crawford, J., Kippax, S., & Waldby, C. (1994). Women’s sex talk and
men’s sex talk: Different worlds. Feminism & Psychology,4,
571–587.
Currie, D. H. (1999). Girl talk: Adolescent magazines and their
Readers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cusumano, D. L., & Thompson, J. K. (1997). Body image and body
shape ideals in magazines: Exposure, awareness, and internal-
isation. Sex Roles,37, 701–721.
Damon-Moore, H. (1994). Magazines for the millions: Gender and
commerce in the Ladies’Home Journal and the Saturday
Evening Post, 1880–1910. Albany, New York: State University
of New York.
Dermarest, J., & Garner, J. (1992). The representation of women’s
roles in women’s magazines over the past 30 years. Journal of
Psychology,126, 357–370.
Duke, L. L., & Kreshel, P. J. (1998). Negotiating femininity: Girls in
early adolescence read teen magazines. Journal of Communica-
tion Inquiry,1,48–72.
Duncombe, J., & Marsden, D. (1996). Whose orgasm is this anyway?
‘Sex work’in long-term heterosexual couple relationships. In J.
Weeks & J. Holland (Eds.), Sexual cultures: Communities, values
and intimacy (pp. 220–238). Houndmills, UK: MacMillan.
Durham, G. (1996). The taming of the shrew: Women’s magazines
and the regulation of desire. Journal of Communication Inquiry,
20,18–31.
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Men in perspective: Practice,
power, and identity. London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The
construction of masculine identities. Discourse & Society,1,
203–217.
Eggins, S., & Iedema, R. (1997). Difference without diversity:
Semantic orientation and ideology in competing women’s
magazines’. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Gender and discourse (pp.
165–196). London: Sage.
Ferguson, M. (1983). Forever feminine: Women’s magazines and the
cult of femininity. London: Heinemann.
Ferguson, J. H., Kreshel, P. J., & Tinkham, S. F. (1990). In the pages
of Ms.: Sex role portrayals of women in advertising. Journal of
Advertising,19,40–51.
Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing
discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review,58,29–53.
Frazer, E. (1987). Teenage girls reading Jackie.Media, Culture and
Society,9, 407–425.
Frith, K., Shaw, P., & Chen, H. (2005). The construction of beauty: A
cross-cultural analysis of women’s magazine advertising. Journal
of Communication,55,56–70.
Gadsden, G. (2000). The male voice in women’s magazines. Gender
Issues,18,49–58.
Gardiner, J. K. (2002). Masculinities and feminist theory: New
directions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gauntlett, D. (2002). Media, gender and identity: An introduction.
London: Routledge.
Gavey, N. (1997). Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis.
In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology
of gender: A reader (pp. 49–64). New York: Routledge.
Gavey, N., & McPhillips, K. (1999). Subject to romance: Heterosex-
ual passivity as an obstacle to women initiating condom use.
Psychology of Woman Quarterly,23, 349–367.
Gavey, N., McPhillips, K., & Braun, V. (1999). Interrupting coitus:
Heterosexuals accounting for intercourse. Sexualities,2,35–68.
Gilfoyle, J., Wilson, J., & Brown. (1992). Sex, organs and audiotape:
A discourse analytic approach to talking about heterosexual sex
and relationships. Feminism & Psychology,2, 209–230.
Gough, B., & McFadden, M. (2001). Critical Social Psychology: An
Introduction. Houndmilss, UK: Palgrave.
Gough-Yates, A. (2003). Understanding women’s magazines: Pub-
lishing, markets and readership. London: Routledge.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. London:
Thorsons.
Gray, J. (1995). Mars and Venus in the bedroom: A guide to lasting
romance and passion. New York: HarperCollins.
Hermes, J. (1995). Reading women’s magazines: An analysis of
everyday media use. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Polity.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The Managed Heart. Berkeley, California:
University of California Press.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thompson, R. (1992).
Pressured pleasure: Young women and the negotiation of
boundaries. London: Tufnell.
Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thompson, R. (1998).
The male in the head: Young people, heterosexuality, and power.
London: Tufnell.
308 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310

Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., & Thompson, R. (1996). In the same
boat? The gendered (in)experience of first heterosex. In D.
Richardson (Ed.), Theorising heterosexuality (pp. 143–160).
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hollway, W. (1989). Subjectivity and method in psychology: Gender,
meaning and science. London: Sage.
Holmberg, C. B. (1998). Sexualities and popular culture. London:
Sage.
Jackson, M. (1984). Sex research and the construction of sexuality: A
tool of male supremacy? Women’s Studies International Forum,
7,43–51.
Jackson, S. (1996). ‘Ignorance is bliss when you’re Just Seventeen.’
Trouble and Strife,33,50–60.
Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (1997). Gut reactions to matters of the heart:
Reflections on rationality, irrationality and sexuality. Sociological
Review,45, 551–575.
Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (2001). Embodying orgasm: Gendered power
relations and sexual pleasure. In E. Kaschak & L. Tiefer (Eds.), A
new view of women’s sexual problems (pp. 99–110). New York:
Haworth.
Johnston, D., & Swanson, D. (2003). Undermining mothers: A
content analysis of the representation of mothers in magazines.
Mass Communication and Society,6, 409–425.
Kalof, L. (1999). Stereotyped evaluative judgments and female
attractiveness. Gender Issues,17,68–83.
Kaplan, E. B., & Cole, L. (2003). “I want to read stuff on boys”:
White, Latina, and Black girls reading Seventeen magazine and
encountering adolescence. Adolescence,38, 149–159.
Kehily, M. J. (1999). Teenage magazines, gender displays, and sexual
learning. European Journal of Cultural Studies,1,65–89.
Kilmartin, C. T. (1999). Pleasure and performance: Male sexuality. In
K. Lebacqz & D. Sinacore-Guinn (Eds.), Sexuality: A reader (pp.
179–186). Cleveland: Pilgrim.
Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (Eds.) (2001). Men’s lives (5th ed.).
Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Kitzinger, C. (1994). Experimental authority and heterosexuality. In
G. Griffin (Ed.), Changing our lives: Doing women’s studies (pp.
135–144). London: Pluto.
Krassas, N. R., Blauwkamp, J. M., & Wesselink, P. (2001). Boxing
Helena and corseting Eunice: Sexual rhetoric in Cosmopolitan
and Playboy magazines. Sex Roles,44, 751–771.
Krassas, N. R., Blauwkamp, J. M., & Wesselink, P. (2003). “Master
your Johnson”: Sexual rhetoric in Maxim and Stuff magazines.
Sexualities & Culture,3,98–118.
Lees, S. (1993). Sugar and spice: Sexuality and adolescent girls.
London: Penguin.
Lees, S. (1998) Ruling passions: Sexual violence, reputation and the
Law. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Lindner, K. (2004). Images of women in general interest and fashion
magazine advertisements from 1955 to 2002. Sex Roles,51, 409–
429.
Machin, D., & Thornborrow, J. (2003). Branding and discourse: The
case of Cosmopolitan.Discourse & Society,14, 453–471.
McCleneghan, J. S. (2003). Selling sex to college females: Their
attitudes about Cosmopolitan and Glamour magazines. Social
Science Journal,40, 317–325.
McCracken, E. (1993). Decoding women’s magazines: From Made-
moiselle to Ms. New York: St. Martin’s.
McLoughlin, L. (2000). The language of magazines. London:
Routledge.
McMahon, K. (1990). The Cosmopolitan ideology and the manage-
ment of desire. The Journal of Sex Research,3, 381–396.
McRobbie, A. (1978). Jackie: An ideology of adolescent femininity.
Birmingham, UK: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies.
McRobbie, A. (1996). More! New sexualities in girls’and women’s
magazines. In J. Curran, D. Morley, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.),
Cultural studies and communications (pp. 172–195). London:
Arnold.
Meadows, M. (1997). Exploring the invisible: Listening to mid-life
women talk about heterosexual sex. Women’s Studies Interna-
tional Forum,20, 145–152.
Overall, C. (1999). Heterosexuality and feminist theory. In K. Lebacqz
& D. Sinacore-Guinn (Eds.), Sexuality: A reader (pp. 295–311).
Cleveland: Pilgrim.
Pease, A., & Pease, B. (2001). Why men don’t listen and women can’t
read maps: How we’re different and what to do about It. New
York: Welcome Rain.
Pease, B., & Pease, A. (2004). Why men don’t have a clue and women
always need more shoes: The ultimate guide to the opposite sex.
New York: Broadway.
Peirce, K. (1997). Women’s magazine fiction: A content analysis of
the roles, attributes, and occupations of main characters. Sex
Roles,37, 581–593.
Philaretou, A. G., & Allen K. R. (2001). Reconstructing masculinity
and sexuality. Journal of Men’s Studies,9, 301–319.
Potts, A. (1998). The science/fiction of sex: John Gray’s Mars and
Venus in the bedroom. Sexualities,1, 153–173.
Potts, A. (2000). Coming, coming, gone: A feminist deconstruction of
heterosexual orgasm. Sexualities,3,55–76.
Potts, A. (2001). The man with two brains: Hegemonic masculine
subjectivity and the discursive construction of the unreasonable
penis-self. Journal of Gender Studies,10, 145–156.
Potts, A. (2002). The science/fiction of sex: Feminist deconstruction
and the vocabularies of heterosex. London: Routledge.
Ramazanoglu, C. (1992). What can you do with a man? Feminism and
the critical appraisal of masculinity. Women’s Studies Interna-
tional Forum,15, 339–350.
Roberts, C., Kippax, S., Waldby, C., & Crawford, J. (1995). Faking it:
The story of “Ohh!”.Women’s Studies International Forum,18,
523–532.
Robinson, V. (2003). Radical revisionings: The theorizing of mascu-
linity and (radical) feminist theory. Women’s Studies Internation-
al Forum,26, 129–137.
Scanlon, J. (1995). Inarticulate longings: The Ladies’Home Journal,
gender, and the promise of consumer culture.NewYork:
Routledge.
Schlenker, J. A., Caron, S. L., & Halteman, W. A. (1998). A feminist
analysis of Seventeen magazine: Content analysis from 1945 to
1995. Sex Roles,38, 135–149.
Seidler, V. J. (1989). Rediscovering masculinity: Reason, language
and sexuality. London: Routledge.
Singer, D., & Hunter, M. (1999). The experience of premature
menopause: A thematic discourse analysis. Journal of Reproduc-
tive and Infant Psychology,17,63–81.
Stevens, L., Maclaran, P., & Brown, S. (2003). “Red time is me time”:
Advertising, ambivalence and women’s magazines. Journal of
Advertising,32,35–45.
Thompson, S. (1990). Putting a big thing in a little hole: Teenage
girls’accounts of sexual initiation. Journal of Sex Research,27,
341–361.
Tiefer, L. (1995). Sex is not a natural act and other essays. Boulder,
Colorado: Westview.
Travis, C. B., Meginnis, K. L., & Bardari, K. M. (2000). Beauty,
sexuality, and identity: The social control of women. In C. B. Travis
& J. W. White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism (pp. 237–
272). Washington, District of Columbia: American Psychological
Association.
Triece, W. E. (1999). The practical true woman: Reconciling women
and work in popular mail-order magazines, 1900–1920. Critical
Studies in Mass Communications,16,42–62.
Ussher,J.M.(1997).Fantasies of femininity: Reframing the
boundaries of sex. London: Penguin.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310 309

Vanwesenbeeck, I. (1997). The context of women’s power(lessness) in
heterosexual interactions. In L. Segal (Ed.), New sexual agendas
(pp. 171–179). New York: New York University Press.
Vigorito, A. J., & Curry, T. J. (1998). Marketing masculinity: Gender
identity and popular magazines. Sex Roles,39, 135–153.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist pheory
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. Chichester, UK: Horwood.
Willemsen, T. M. (1998). Widening the gender gap: Teenage
magazines for girls and boys. Sex Roles,38, 851–861.
Winship, J. (1987). Inside women’s magazines. London: Pandora.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used
against women. New York: Morrow.
Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: Communications, gender, and
culture. New York: Wadsworth.
Wray, J., & Steele, J. R. (2002). Girls in print: Figuring out what it
means to be a girl. In J. D. Brown, J. R. Steele, & K. Walsh-
Childers (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media: Investigating media’s
influence on adolescent sexuality (pp. 191–208). London:
Erlbaum.
310 Sex Roles (2006) 55:295–310