Content uploaded by Flora Oswald
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Flora Oswald on Nov 11, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjsr20
The Journal of Sex Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjsr20
I’ll Show You Mine so You’ll Show Me Yours:
Motivations and Personality Variables in
Photographic Exhibitionism
Flora Oswald , Alex Lopes , Kaylee Skoda , Cassandra L. Hesse & Cory L.
Pedersen
To cite this article: Flora Oswald , Alex Lopes , Kaylee Skoda , Cassandra L. Hesse & Cory
L. Pedersen (2020) I’ll Show You Mine so You’ll Show Me Yours: Motivations and Personality
Variables in Photographic Exhibitionism, The Journal of Sex Research, 57:5, 597-609, DOI:
10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036
Published online: 18 Jul 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 30106
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
I’ll Show You Mine so You’ll Show Me Yours: Motivations and
Personality Variables in Photographic Exhibitionism
Flora Oswald
Departments of Psychology and Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies, Pennsylvania State
University
Alex Lopes and Kaylee Skoda
Department of Psychology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Cassandra L. Hesse
Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology and Special Education, The University of
British Columbia
Cory L. Pedersen
Department of Psychology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Given that the sharing of genital images –colloquially known as “dick pics”–has become
a widespread phenomenon, the purpose of the present study was to explore men’s motivations for
sending unsolicited images of their genitalia. A secondary purpose was to investigate the
personality and sexuality characteristics of men who send dick pics relative to those who do
not. 1,087 men completed an online survey, which included a demographic questionnaire and
measures of narcissism, exhibitionism, erotophilia-erotophobia, and sexism. Also included was
a measure developed specifically for the current study exploring the motivations behind sending
unsolicited genital pictures as well as reactions senders hoped to elicit from their recipients. We
determined that the most frequently reported motivational category for sending genital images
was a transactional mindset (i.e., motivated by hopes of receiving images in return), while the
most commonly desired reaction from recipients was that of sexual excitement. Further, we
determined that men who reported having sent unsolicited dick pics demonstrated higher levels
of narcissism and endorsed greater ambivalent and hostile sexism than their non-sending
counterparts. This study is among the first to provide empirical evidence into the motivations
and personality characteristics of men who send unsolicited dick pics.
The phallus and corresponding phallic imagery have long
been used to represent both the male sex in general and
a variety of traditionally masculine themes such as strength,
power, and virility. From ancient Roman graffiti to the under-
sides of school desks found in the classrooms of school-aged
boys, the masculine obsession with showcasing the penis has
been evident for as long as history records. Modern digital
technologies have allowed the phallus to continue to stand in
for the man in more realistic ways than ever before: Men are
now able to showcase their own genitalia. Genital pictures –
known colloquially as “dick pics”–are explicit digital
images of men’s genitalia sent to recipients via web or mobile
technology. Dick pics have become a topic of increased
interest and social discourse in the last five or so years
(Waling & Pym, 2017), with the Internet and texting envir-
onments key to understanding why men send them. Indeed,
the technological revolution affords great anonymity,
a condition which increases the likelihood of engagement in
sexualized behaviors, especially for men (Cooper, Delmo-
nico, Griffin-Shelley, & Mathy, 2004; Cooper, Putnam, Plan-
chon, & Boies, 1999;Griffiths, 2001; Suler, 2004).
The dick pic has been examined empirically as an off-
shoot of broader academic discussions regarding other digi-
tally-mediated sexual behaviors, such as sexting –the
sending of sexually suggestive messages, using either sexu-
ally explicit language or photos/videos (Delevi & Weiss-
kirch, 2013)–and the sending of nude images (e.g., Albury,
2015; Dobson, 2016; March & Wagstaff, 2017). While both
Correspondence should be addressed to Cory Pedersen, Department
of Psychology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, 12666 72nd Avenue,
Surrey, B.C., V3W 2M8 Canada. E-mail: cory.pedersen@kpu.ca
Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Montreal, Quebec, CA, 2018.
THE JOURNAL OF SEX RESEARCH,57(5), 597–609, 2020
© 2019 The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality
ISSN: 0022-4499 print/1559-8519 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1639036
men and women engage in the practice of sexting, research
has been mixed regarding gender prevalence. Some research
has found that both genders engage in the practice with
equal frequency (Benotsch, Snipes, Martin, & Bull, 2013;
Drouin, Vogel, Surbey, & Stills, 2013; Winkelman, Smith,
Brinkley, & Knox, 2014), while others report a greater
frequency of male sexters (e.g., Delevi & Weisskirch,
2013; Hudson, 2011) and still others report a greater fre-
quency of female sexters (e.g., Englander, 2012; Wysocki &
Childers, 2011). The primary purpose for sexting is positive,
with both genders reporting motives of confidence boosting,
relationship enhancement, entertainment, and sexual satis-
faction (Champion & Pedersen, 2015; Parker, Blackburn,
Perry, & Hawks, 2013; Woolard, 2011). The dick pic itself,
however, has yet to hold the fore in such discussions.
Though related to sexting and the sending of nude imagery,
dick pics are a unique and distinct phenomenon for several
reasons. Foremost, dick pics are a predominantly male
phenomenon –that is, there does not appear to be
a female equivalent to this practice (at least not one as
widely recognized and prevalent). This is not to suggest
that only those who exclusively identify as male can send
a dick pic (transgender and non-binary individuals may also
send dick pics), but rather that the act of sending unsolicited
pictures of one’s genitals seems to be relatively exclusive to
those who have a penis (Waling & Pym, 2017).
Men holding more positive opinions regarding sexting
may be in part due to gender differences in the processing of
visual sexual stimuli –in this particular context, for exam-
ple, nude photos. Men tend to be more interested in and
responsive to visual sexual stimuli than women (Hamann,
Herman, Nolan, & Wallen, 2004; Herz & Cahill, 1997;
Lykins, Meana, & Strauss, 2008; Symons, 1979; for review,
see Rupp & Wallen, 2008), and fMRI research has demon-
strated stronger activation in men’s amygdala and hypotha-
lamus regions in response to such stimuli (Hamann et al.,
2004). Men, therefore, are likely to be more interested in
nude photos and consequently may be more aroused by and
interested in the concept of sending or receiving nude
photos. Such an essentialist perspective, however, cannot
capture the myriad motivations which surely underlie the
dick pic phenomenon. To understand men’s specific motiva-
tions for sending pictures of their penises, we must first
make a few important distinctions.
Solicitation of Genital Images
Research and discourse relating to dick pics is often cate-
gorized into two distinct and competing frameworks. Waling
and Pym (2017) labeled these frameworks as (1) sexting and
(2) sexual harassment. These two competing frameworks
diverge on the axis of consent. The sexting framework posi-
tions dick pics as an extension of conventional and consensual
sexting behaviors, while the second positions dick pics as
a form of non-consensual sexual interaction which can be
categorized as sexual harassment, offending, or abuse.
Solicited dick pics are those which are sent following the
recipient’s consent to receive the images. The recipient may
ask for the images, or the sender may pre-emptively ask the
recipient to confirm that they would like to receive such
images. This practice, though often condemned and
regarded with great concern when engaged in by adoles-
cents (Angelides, 2013; Hasinoff, 2015; Simpson, 2013),
appears to be quite prevalent amongst adults (see Klettke,
Hallford, & Mellor, 2014 for review) despite the label of
sexual deviance (Döring, 2014). As with other sexting
practices, the sending of consensual, solicited dick pics is
likely motivated by positive factors such as those reported
above –relationship enhancement, self-confidence boost-
ing, entertainment, and sexual satisfaction.
Of greater concern are the sending of dick pics which
more clearly belong to the sexual harassment framework –
that is, those that are received without consent from the
recipient. It must be noted here that some unsolicited dick
pics are, in fact, welcome; Tziallas (2015) found that many
gay men using dating apps such as Grindr reported positive
reactions to unsolicited dick pics. However, female reac-
tions to receiving unsolicited dick pics tend not to be so
positive, with women reporting feelings of shame, harass-
ment, objectification, anger, and disgust (Vitis & Gilmour,
2017; Waling & Pym, 2017).
Unsolicited dick pics can be located along Kelly’s(1987)
continuum of sexual violence among other forms of what
McGlynn and Rackley (2017) refer to as image-based sexual
abuse, defined as the “non-consensual creation and/or dis-
tribution of private, sexual images”(p. 534). By definition,
the unsolicited dick pic is a private sexual image which is
distributed to a non-consensual audience, thus situating itself
well to the image-based sexual abuse paradigm. The unsoli-
cited dick pic is a specific, prevalent, and much-discussed
form of image-based sexual abuse which nonetheless remains
much misunderstood. One of the key unanswered questions is
why men so frequently and so blatantly engage in this form
of sexual behavior –a study conducted in 2017 found that as
many as 27% of millennial men have sent a dick pic at least
once (YouGov, 2017). Therefore, the question remains, why
do men send dick pics?
Motivations for Sending Genital Images
Despite a relative paucity of literature on the topic, there
is no shortage of theorizing regarding men’s motivations for
sending dick pics, whether solicited or unsolicited. Though
motivations likely vary between those sending solicited and
unsolicited pics, such distinctions have yet to be clarified.
Thus, for present purposes, motivations will be examined
generally –wherein specifics may be parsed from the results
later –though some theorized motivations will be more
applicable to one or the other class of dick pics. Herein,
theorized motivations are arranged into three distinct cate-
gories: Strategic motivations, deviance motivations, and
positive motivations.
OSWALD, LOPES, SKODA, HESSE, AND PEDERSEN
598
Strategic Motivations. Dick pics may be an unfortunate
side effect of 1.8 million years of human evolution. Men have
evolved to overperceive sexual intent –a well-established
finding in the evolutionary psychology literature (e.g., Abbey,
1982; Farris, Treat, Viken, & McFall, 2008; Haselton, 2003;
Henningsen, Henningsen, & Valde, 2006; Maner et al., 2005).
Modern men may overestimate women’s interest in receiving
nude imagery based on their own receptivity in reversed roles
(Ley, 2016; March & Wagstaff, 2017;Waling&Pym,2017)
and may thus send dick pics as a projection of their own sexual
desires onto women (Ley, 2016).
This perspective assumes the ignorance of male parties;
however, other perspectives suggest the opposite. That is,
dick pics may be entirely more strategic than they seem.
Sending dick pics could be viewed as a numbers game. That
is, men may send such images to numerous women hoping
that at least one will respond positively (Waling & Pym,
2017). Such an approach involves minimal investment by
the sender. In this situation, the cost of potential missed
opportunity outweighs the risk of rejection (Joel, Plaks, &
MacDonald, 2017; March & Wagstaff, 2017). With hardly
any potential recourse for the sending of dick pics (Vitis &
Gilmour, 2017; Waling & Pym, 2017), they may theoreti-
cally be evolutionarily advantageous.
Presumably, one objective of sending dick pics is reciproca-
tion –men hope that by sending such images, they will receive
nude images in return (Gibson, 2016;Ley,2016; Salter, 2016).
Indeed, this reciprocation motivation can be viewed as coer-
cive, as women sometimes report feeling obligated to send
similar photos in response (Englander, 2012; Ross, Drouin, &
Coupe, 2016; for review see Klettke et al., 2014).
Deviance Motivations. The sending of dick pics,
particularly unsolicited, is strongly reminiscent of exhibitionism
(the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unsuspecting stranger)
(Bader, Schoeneman-Morris, Scalora, & Casady, 2008).
Specifically, dick pics can be understood as a form of mediated
exhibitionism, in which nude bodies are exposed to strangers
via technological means such as the Internet (Jones, 2010).
The relative anonymity provided by technology has
been demonstrated to increase sexualized disinhibition and
exhibitionist behaviors, particularly in men (Ley, 2016; e.g.,
Jones, 2010; Munar, 2010;Suler,2004).
Men with exhibitionist tendencies are aroused by the
prospect of women being coerced into seeing their genitals
(Bader et al., 2008;Murphy & Page, 1997; Piemont, 2007).
Exhibitionism may thus motivate men to send dick pics;
such men would likely be aroused by the prospect of the
recipient unknowingly receiving and viewing these photos
(Ley, 2016). Dick pics, particularly unsolicited, are likely to
elicit shocked reactions. Exhibitionists are thus likely to be
aroused by these reactions, as the disgust and potential
rejection by the recipient of the dick pic is a turn on for
these men (Ley, 2016; Piemont, 2007). Some men may also
be seeking negative reactions; small penis humiliation is
a relatively prevalent fetish in which men are aroused by
insults to the size or appearance of their genitals (despite the
vast amount of sexually explicit material that is offered in
exploration of this subfetish, there remains a dearth of work
surrounding this phenomenon –perhaps, this fetish is but
a narrow example that can be experienced within the realm
of erotic humiliation as a whole). Men may even feel pride
that their penis is able to generate such strong reactions,
regardless of their valence (Ley, 2016).
Some feminist writers have elaborated on the sexism
inherent in the sending of dick pics. Such works suggest
that the sending of unsolicited dick pics is an act of sexual
aggression, coercion, and force which men can enact upon
female recipients with little to no recourse, an act indeed
intended to harm or negatively affect women (e.g., Powell
& Henry, 2017; Ringrose & Lawrence, 2018; Thompson,
2018; Vitis & Gilmour, 2017). Given the suggestion that
men may feel pride in response to any strong reaction to
their penis (Ley, 2016) it is possible that sexism –particu-
larly hostile sexism, which entails a strong dislike of
women –may motivate men to send dick pics in a bid to
elicit negative feelings from women recipients (and parti-
cularly feminist women, the target of many men’s rights
groups). Men may find this exertion of power over women
arousing itself, or they may find the shocked, hurt, and
angry reactions to be humorous or satisfying. Sexism may
thus motivate men to send dick pics, particularly unsolicited
ones.
Narcissism may also play a role in motivating men to
send dick pics. Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity,
a need for admiration, and an exaggerated sense of self,
including overly positive self-views of physical attractive-
ness, intelligence, and power (Oltmanns, Emery, & Taylor,
2006). More prevalent in men than in women (for review,
see Grijalva et al., 2015), narcissism has previously been
linked to deviant sexual tendencies in men, including coer-
cion and exhibitionism (Figueredo, Gladden, Sisco, Patch,
& Jones, 2015; Lang, Langevin, Checkley, & Pugh, 1987;
Widman & McNulty, 2011), arguably both features of the
sending of unsolicited dick pics. Narcissism has also been
indirectly linked to heightened sexual over-perception in
men (Wegner & Abbey, 2016). Narcissistic men may thus
be particularly likely to overestimate the degree to which
women would like to see unsolicited pictures of their
genitals. Narcissistic (and other) men may also seek admira-
tion and positive feedback through the sending of dick pics
and may send such pictures with hopes of receiving positive
feedback to bolster self-confidence.
Positive Motivations. The sending of dick pics may
also be used as a method of flirtation. It is possible that,
with awareness of the prevalence of dick pics, men may
perceive this to be a normal and acceptable strategy of
introduction and/or flirtation. It may also be that sending
a dick pic is easier than articulating one’s sexual interest
in another via words. As a form of flirtation, dick pics
may be used to enhance satisfaction in an existing
PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITIONISM
599
relationship; some couples send nudes to each other as
a method of maintaining sexual satisfaction and relational
intimacy as well as receiving positive affirmations
(Hertlein & Ancheta, 2014; Parker et al., 2013). It is
possible that the use of a dick pic may be meant to
indicate one’s intentions for a sexual relationship. If
a man sends a dick pic as a method of flirtation, it may
be to signal that he has no interest beyond that of a sexual
nature.
Purposes of the Current Study
As the sending of dick pics has risen in occurrence within
our technologically-based society, and so has subsequent
research examining the prevalence and reactions to those
receiving them, there remains a significant gap in the
research regarding men’s motivations for sending these
images, particularly when the images are unsolicited. With
the aforementioned motivations for sending dick pics in
mind, the objective of the current research was to determine
the inducements behind the sending of unsolicited dick pics,
as well as what reactions senders hope to elicit in recipients.
A questionnaire developed for this purpose inquires into
potential motivations such as flirtation, transaction, power
and control, misogyny, unresolved childhood conflict, and
personal sexual satisfaction. Further, an additional question-
naire investigated the desired reaction (fear, arousal, anger,
etc.) that senders hope to provoke in their recipient(s).
Participants were also asked to report on any previous non-
technologically mediated exhibitionist behavior and to com-
plete surveys that measure narcissism, erotophilia-
erotophobia, and sexism.
This study is the first that we know of to investigate the
relationships among men who send unsolicited dick pics and
the variables of personality, sexualities, and prevalent motiva-
tions. Thus, two predominant research foci guided this study.
First, we wished to determine where the motivations to send
unsolicited dick pics were highest across various categories
such as transactional, partner hunting, misogyny, or power and
control, and what reactions participants hoped to elicit in
recipients. Second, this study aimed to elucidate whether
there may be certain similarities among the types of men who
send dick pics, such as underlying traits of inherent narcissism,
erotophilia-erotophobia, or benevolent and hostile sexism, thus
constructing a basic profile of the personality characteristics of
unsolicited image senders. Such a profile allows future
researchers to narrow their scope and provides a foundation
for understanding exactly how various factors intersect to give
rise to the dick pic phenomenon. Due to the exploratory nature
of the present study, only characteristics previously linked to
phenomena similar to the sending of dick pics were investi-
gated. That is, we hypothesized that narcissism, sexism, and
exhibitionism would be higher among senders than non-
senders. Given the absence of previous literature on the role
of erotophilia-erotophobia in the sending of unsolicited dick
pics, this variable was included for exploratory purposes.
Ultimately, the overarching goal of this work was to
close the gap in dick pic research by offering empirical
insight into the various reasons why men send unsolicited
genital images, as well as by creating a foundational profile
of the type of men who are most likely to send them.
Method
Participants
The initial sample size was comprised of 1,307 men
recruited from several sources, including a research partici-
pant pool at a sizable Western Canadian university and
through adverts placed in local businesses, coffee shops,
and universities. Participants were also recruited via snow-
ball sampling through various social media sites, including
Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Twitter. Most of our
sample (84%), however, was gathered through Mechanical
Turk, where participants were awarded 25 cents CAD for
their participation. Participating university students were
offered course credit to specified psychology classes. Parti-
cipating members of the public were not offered any incen-
tive for their participation.
For the purposes of this study it was necessary to include
only those participants who identified as men who have sex
exclusively with women; consequently, those who identified
as men who have sex with men, men who have sex with
both men and women, and men uninterested in sex with
either men nor women had their data excluded. Men who
have sex with men were excluded from the present study as
existing data indicate that the culture surrounding unsoli-
cited genital images shared between men who have sex
differs notably from the heterosexual culture surrounding
such images; unsolicited genital images sent between men
who have sex with men are often welcomed and positively
received (Tziallas, 2015).
Surveys with insufficient completion rate (< 75%) were
excluded. Given these exclusions 220 survey responses
were omitted, resulting in a final sample of 1,087 men.
This total was divided into two participant subcategories:
men who send unsolicited genital images (n= 523 men),
between the ages of 16 and 75 years (M= 30.99; SD = 8.86);
and men who do not send unsolicited genital images
(n= 564 men), between the ages of 16 and 92 years
(M= 33.68; SD = 10.96).
Measures
Demographics. Participants were asked to respond to
a 5-item questionnaire regarding their sexual orientation (to
ascertain participant eligibility), age, ethnicity, relationship
status, and highest level of completed education.
Narcissism Personality Inventory Scale (NPI-16;
Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006). This 16-item scale
determines incidences of subclinical narcissism in
OSWALD, LOPES, SKODA, HESSE, AND PEDERSEN
600
participants. Each of the 16 items presents participants with
a pair of answers from which to choose (e.g., “I really like to be
the center of attention”or “It makes me uncomfortable to be the
center of attention”). For every pair of responses one option is
consistent with narcissism. Scoring involves computing a total
score comprised of the number of responses selected consistent
with narcissism. Previous research (Ames et al., 2006)has
reported coefficient alpha values ranging from .65 to .72. In
the current study a Cronbach’s alpha of .79 was achieved.
Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS; Fisher, Byrne, White,
& Kelley, 1988). The Sexual Opinion Survey scale
consists of 21 items to assess responses to various sexual
stimuli. The stimuli in question include: autosexual behavior
(e.g., “Masturbation can be an exciting experience.”),
homosexual behavior (e.g., “Thoughts that I may have gay
tendencies would not worry me at all.”), heterosexual
behavior (e.g., “Thinking about engaging in sexual activity
is arousing.”), sexual fantasy (e.g., “Engaging in group sex is
an entertaining idea.”), and visual sexual stimuli (e.g., “I
would not enjoy seeing a pornographic movie.”)(Rye,
Meaney, & Fisher, 2011). Responses are made on a Likert-
scale range from 1 (strongly agree)to7(strongly disagree),
where lower total scores indicate greater endorsement of
erotophilia (e.g., embracing sex and sexuality with positive
regard) and higher total scores indicate greater erotophobia
(e.g., holding negative regard to some aspect(s) of sex and
sexuality). Previous research has found reliability coefficients
ranging from α= .76 to .89 (Rye et al., 2011). In the current
study, a strong Cronbach’s alpha of .86 was established.
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory-Short Form (ASI-SF;
Glick & Fiske, 1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory
examines three components hypothesized to examine hostile
and benevolent sexist beliefs. These components include
dominant and protective paternalism, competitive and
complementary gender identity differentiation, and hostile
and intimate heterosexuality (Glick & Fiske, 1996). This
scale consists of 12 items answered on a 6-point Likert
scale ranging from 0 (strong disagreement)to5(strong
agreement). Six items measuring hostile sexism include
statements such as, “Women seek to gain power by getting
control over men”and“Women exaggerate problems they
have at work”. Six items assessing benevolent sexism include
statements such as, “Many women have a quality of purity
that few men possess”and “Women should be cherished and
protected by men”. This inventory results in two subscale
scores, one for the total of items that determine hostile sexism
and another for the total of items that determine benevolent
sexism. Previous use of this scale (Glick & Fiske, 1996)has
reported alpha values ranging from .87 to .92 for hostile
sexism and values ranging from 77 to .85 for benevolent
sexism. In the current study, strong Cronbach’s alpha values
of .89 and .81 were achieved for the hostile sexism and
benevolent sexism subscales, respectively.
Motivations Behind Sending Genital Pictures
(Oswald, Lopes, & Pedersen, 2018). For the purposes
of the current study, it was necessary to develop a set of items
that would elucidate motivations for men to send unsolicited
genital images. To this end, a 20-item scale was developed
that presented possible motivations for sending such images,
based on motivations frequently suggested in popular culture,
including those presented in online articles which consisted
of informal interviews with self-confessed dick pic senders
(e.g., Harvey-Jenner, 2016), from theorizing in existing
academic literature (e.g., March & Wagstaff, 2017), and
through informal discussions with heterosexual men who
had sent unsolicited genital images. A list of potential items
was generated from these resources, which were then
grouped into intuitive subcategories informed by these
sources. Each item thus belonged to 1 of 6 subcategories
hypothesized to be the main motivational forces behind this
phenomenon. These subcategories included: transactional
mindset (e.g., “I have sent dick pics hoping to receive sexy
pictures in return”), partner hunting (e.g., “Ihavesentdick
pics because that is a normal way of flirting”), power and
control (e.g., “I get off on the knowledge that someone was
forced to see my penis without their consent”), misogyny
(e.g., “I feel a sense of dislike toward women and sending
dick pics is satisfying”), unresolved childhood conflict (e.g.,
“I remember being made to feel shame by my parents when
I got too old to be naked around them and others; sending
dick pics makes me feel better”), and sexual or personal
gratification (e.g., “I thrive on positive feedback about my
penis”). Participants were first asked to read from a list of all
twenty motivations and to select all possible reasons they had
sent unsolicited genital images. They were then asked to
respond to each selected item on a 3-point Likert scale,
where 3 indicated the item was very much a reason why
they sent dick pics and 1 indicated the item was not a likely
reason they had sent dick pics.
Once participants had completed this section, they were
then asked to consider what reaction they hoped to elicit in the
recipient of their genital images. A list of 9 statements (e.g., “I
hoped to make the person who received my dick pic feel …”)
with varying reactions were presented and participants were
asked to choose all that apply. The reactions presented
included sexual excitement, fear, disgust, anger, shame,
shock, valued, attractive, and devalued. Additionally, partici-
pants were given two additional reaction questions that asked
respondents to indicate whether they preferred a positive
response or a negative response to their penis, and whether
they considered receiving noresponse preferable to a negative
response. Once all selections had been made, participants
were presented with the same a 3-point Likert scale in the
previous set of questions, where 3 indicated that the item was
verymuchthereactiontheywantedand1specified that the
item was not very much the reaction they wanted.
Participants were then presented with a final set of four
questions inquiring into potential exhibitionist behavior.
These questions were responded to with a yes or no
PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITIONISM
601
response. The items asked participants whether they had
ever exposed themselves in a public setting, whether they
had ever exposed themselves in a private setting either to
people they knew or to those they did not know (unre-
quested in any case), and whether they liked to spend time
where they could legally be seen naked. A Cronbach’s alpha
value of .79 was attained for these four exhibitionist items.
Design and Procedure
After receiving ethical approval from a Western Cana-
dian university Research Ethics Board, we recruited parti-
cipants to take part in a 20-minute, anonymous online
survey through the software Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.
com). This study was presented as an examination of the
different motivations that men may have for sending unso-
licited images of their genitals to others. Upon completion
of a consent form, basic demographic questions were asked,
and participants were instructed to select which sexual
identity best described them. Any response other than “I
am a man that only has sex with women”would automati-
cally take the participant to the end of the survey. All
additional demographic questions were then asked in the
same order. If participants reported having sent a dick pic
they were first asked if the recipient(s) was male, female, or
both and were then presented with the questionnaire asses-
sing motivations and hoped for reactions behind sending
genital pictures. If respondents reported not having sent dick
pics, they skipped the sending genital pictures scale and
were directed to the narcissism scale. All participants then
responded to the narcissism scale, the measure of erotophi-
lia-erotophobia, and the measures of sexism, in equivalent
order.
Results
Statistical Analyses
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MAN-
OVA), followed by a discriminant function analysis, were
determined to be the best analyses for the study’s research
question of whether personality and sexuality variables
distinguish men who sent unsolicited genital images from
those who do not. Correlations of relationships between
dependent variables are also reported. Motivational factors
for sending unsolicited genital images and hoped for reac-
tions were explored by examining frequency data.
Analyses of Differences between Senders Vs.
Non-Senders
An independent samples t-test revealed that men who
send unsolicited genital images were significantly younger
than their non-sending counterparts, t(1085) = 4.43,
p< .001. Further, chi square analyses indicated significant
differences in reported ethnicity, χ
2
(11, N= 1087) = 29.78,
p< .01, and relationship status, χ
2
(5, N= 1087) = 29.09,
p< .001. No significant difference was reported in highest
level of completed education, χ
2
(5, N= 1083) = 9.41,
p= .094. Table 1 presents participant demographics by
sending status.
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
examined differences between men who send unsolicited
genital images from those who do not send genital images
on the dependent variables of narcissism, erotophilia-
erotophobia, hostile sexism, and benevolent sexism.
A statistically significant MANOVA effect was obtained,
Wilks’sΛ= .92, F(4, 1082) = 25.20, p< .001, partial
η
2
=.09. The multivariate effect size implies that 9% of
the variance in the combined dependent variables was
accounted for by sending versus not sending unsolicited
pictures of one’s genitals. Means and standard deviations
are provided in Table 2.
A follow-up discriminant analysis examined sending
status as the dependent variable and narcissism, erotophilia-
Table 1. Distribution of demographic characteristics by genital
image sending status
Senders
n= 523
M
age
=33.68
(SD = 10.96)
Non-Senders
n= 564
M
age
=30.99
(SD = 8.86)
1) Ethnicity
a) African/Black
b) Caucasian/White
c) East Asian
d) Eurasian/Central Asian
e) Hispanic
f) Indigenous
g) Middle Eastern
h) Pacific Islander
i) South Asian
j) Southeast Asian
k) Multiracial
l) Did not specify
41 (7.8)
259 (49.5)
18 (3.4)
4 (.8)
33 (6.3)
4 (.8)
2 (.4)
1 (.2)
142 (27.2)
11 (2.1)
6 (1.1)
2 (.4)
22 (3.9)
332 (58.9)
21 (3.7)
0 (0)
22 (3.9)
3 (.5)
3 (.5)
3 (.5)
127 (22.5)
8 (1.4)
15 (2.7)
8 (1.4)
2) Relationship Status
a) Single
b) Casually dating
c) Non-married
committed
d) Married/Civil union
e) Legally separated/
divorced
f) Widowed
138 (26.4)
114 (21.8)
87 (16.6)
177 (33.8)
7 (1.3)
0 (0)
157 (27.8)
65 (11.5)
83 (14.7)
248 (44.0)
7 (.7)
4 (.7)
3) Education
a) Some high school
b) High school diploma
c) College/university
studies
d) Postgraduate studies
10 (1.9)
46 (8.8)
395 (75.5)
72 (13.8)
11 (2)
39 (6.9)
402 (71.3)
112 (19.9)
4) Recipients of (my) dick
pic(s)
a) Females
b) Males
c) Both females and males
459 (87.8)
40 (7.6)
24 (4.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Percentages appear in parentheses.
OSWALD, LOPES, SKODA, HESSE, AND PEDERSEN
602
erotophobia, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism as pre-
dictor variables. A single discriminant function revealed
a reliable association between sending status and three of
the four predictors, χ
2
(4, N= 1087) = 96.48, p< .001. As
seen in Table 3, the loading matrix of correlations suggests
that the variables of narcissism, benevolent sexism, and
hostile sexism served as significant predictors. The derived
canonical coefficient generated by this discriminant analysis
also revealed that 63% of cases could be correctly classified
as either senders or non-senders based on their narcissism,
benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism scores. These results
indicate that this set of constructs in combination provide
significant discrimination between men who send and do
not send unsolicited genital images.
Correlations among Dependent Variables for Senders of
Unsolicited Genital Images
Correlational analyses were employed for our investi-
gation of personality characteristics of men who reported
having sent unsolicited dick pics. Results of the correla-
tional analyses in Ta ble 4 illustrate that several signifi-
cant relationships were found. For instance, both the
benevolent and hostile sexism items, along with exhibi-
tionism and erotophilia-erotophobia, were all signifi-
cantly positively correlated with narcissism, suggesting
that both ambivalent and hostile sexism –and greater
exhibitionism and erotophobia –are related to overall
increased excessive interest in or admiration of oneself
and one’s physical appearance in men who send unsoli-
cited genital images.
An interesting result was the finding that exhibitionism
was significantly positively correlated with erotophobia
(holding negative views of sex and sexuality), suggesting
perhaps that men who have the compulsive desire to expose
their genitals to unsuspecting strangers hold more sex- or
genital-related concerns such as a fear of sexuality, a fear of
sexual intercourse, or a low sense of genital-esteem.
Motivations for Sending Unsolicited Photos
Motivational factors were used as exploratory variables to
investigate whether reasons for sending unsolicited genital
images vary among senders. These motivations were orga-
nized into six separate categories including: Transactional
mindset, partner hunting, unresolved childhood conflict, mis-
ogyny, sexual or personal gratification, and power and con-
trol. As indicated in Ta ble 5 , the transactional mindset was
the most highly endorsed motivation for sending genital
images, with an average of 43.6% of senders endorsing the
items in this category. Within the transactional mindset, the
most popular endorsement was “I have sent dick pics hoping
to receive sexy pictures in return”followed by “I have sent
dick pics hoping that the person will want to have sex with
me”. The second most frequently reported motivational cate-
gory was partner hunting, with an average of 32.5% of
senders endorsing each item in this category. Within the
partner hunting motive, the most popular validations included
“I have sent dick pics in the hopes of turning someone on”
and “I have sent dick pics to let someone know I have
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for dependent variables of men
who send and do not send unsolicited genital images
95% CI
MSELower Upper
Senders
Narcissism 6.68 .158 6.37 6.99
Erotophilia-erotophobia 60.26 .788 58.72 61.81
Benevolent sexism 18.26 .282 17.70 18.81
Hostile sexism 17.54 .312 16.93 18.15
Non-Senders
Narcissism 4.87 .152 4.57 5.17
Erotophilia-erotophobia 59.47 .759 57.98 60.96
Benevolent sexism 16.31 .271 15.78 16.84
Hostile sexism 14.52 .300 13.93 15.11
Note: Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of each construct. Nar-
cissism range = 0–16; erotophilia-erotophobia range = 21–147; benevolent
and hostile sexism range = 0–60.
Table 4. Summary of dependent variable correlations among
senders of unsolicited genital images
12345
1. Narcissism –
2. Erotophobia .29** –
3. Benevolent sexism .26** .30** –
4. Hostile sexism .32** .26** .52** –
5. Exhibitionism .39** .44** .20** .24** –
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01
Table 3. Discriminant function analysis: classifying senders and
non-senders
Variable
Correlations with
discriminant function Univariate F(1, 1085)
Narcissism .82 68.11*
Erotophilia-erotophobia .07 .526
Benevolent sexism .50 24.73*
Hostile sexism .70 48.78*
Classification Summary
Actual group Functions at Group
Centroids
Predicted group
Senders Non-senders
Senders .317 331 (63.3%) 192 (36.7%)
Non-senders −.294 212 (37.6%) 352 (62.4%)
62.8% of cases correctly classified
*p< .001.
PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITIONISM
603
a sexual interest in them”. Unresolved childhood conflict,
misogyny, sexual or personal gratification, and power and
control were less frequently reported motivators than the
transactional mindset and partner hunting rationales.
Hoped for Recipient Reactions
Hoped for reactions of recipients to receiving an unsoli-
cited dick pic were also examined among participants who
send unsolicited genital images. Of the nine reactions offered
to participants as possible recipient reactions, the most fre-
quently endorsed involved sexual excitement, with 82% of
senders selecting the statement, “I hope to make the person
who received my dick pic feel sexual excitement”. The next
most popular hoped-for reaction endorsed attractiveness, with
50% of senders selecting the statement, “I hoped to make the
person who received my dick pic feel attractive”. Third,
participants selected valued reactions, with 22% of senders
endorsing, “I hoped to make the person who received my dick
pic feel valued”.Interestingly,asignificant number of unso-
licited genital image senders indicated that they hoped to
provoke negative emotions in recipients, with 17% hoping
for shock, 15% hoping for fear, and 11% hoping for disgust.
Overall, 27% of unsolicited senders would rather receive
a positive response to their penis than a negative response
and 10% considered receiving no response worse than receiv-
ing a negative response (see Table 6).
Table 6. Hoped for recipient reactions among senders of unso-
licited genital images
“I hoped to make the person who received
my dick pic feel …”
Frequency
n= 523
Percentage
(%)
Sexual excitement 431 82.4
Attractive 262 50.1
Valued 115 22.0
Shock 88 16.8
Fear 76 14.5
Disgust 57 10.9
Anger 45 8.6
Shame 42 8.0
Devalued 36 6.9
“I would rather receive a positive response to
my penis than a negative response”
139 26.6
“I consider receiving no response to my penis to
be worse than receiving a negative response”
54 10.3
Table 5. Endorsed Motivations for Sending Unsolicited Genital Images
Motivational Categories and Items Frequency
Percent Per
Item
Percent Per
Category
Transactional mindset 44%
I have sent dick pics hoping that the person will want to have sex with me. 188 35.9
I have sent dick pics hoping to receive sexy pictures in return. 268 51.2
Partner hunting 33%
I misinterpreted the person’s sexual interest in me. 93 17.8
I have sent dick pics because that is a normal way of flirting. 113 21.6
I feel that if I send out enough pictures of my penis, someone will eventually respond. 113 21.6
I have sent dick pics to let someone know I have a sexual interest in them. 254 48.6
I have sent dick pics in the hopes of turning someone on. 277 53.0
Sexual/Personal gratification 18%
I have sent dick pics because I like having my penis insulted. 42 8.0
I am not confident about the appearance of my penis and hope that someone will respond positively to boost
my esteem.
55 10.5
I thrive on positive feedback about my penis. 100 19.1
I think my penis is something that others would be excited to see. 116 22.2
I’m proud of the way my penis looks and want to share it with others. 124 23.7
Sending dick pics turns me on. 141 27.0
Power and control 9%
I get off on the knowledge that someone was forced to see my penis without their consent. 39 7.5
I like to make people angry by sending dick pics in response to a disagreement. 40 7.6
Sending dick pics gives me a feeling of control over the person that I have sent it to. 53 10.1
I think it is funny to send dick pics to someone who didn’t request one. 65 12.4
Unresolved childhood conflict 6%
I remember being made to feel shame by my parents when I got too old to be naked around them and others;
sending dick pics makes me feel better.
25 4.8
I miss the freedom of being naked around others that I experienced as a young child; sending dick pics is a way
of reliving that feeling.
35 6.7
Misogyny 6%
I don’t like feminism and sending dick pics is a way to punish women for trying to take power away from men. 29 5.5
I feel a sense of dislike towards women and sending dick pics is satisfying. 30 5.7
Note: Raw data and percentages reflect instances endorsed across 523 senders.
OSWALD, LOPES, SKODA, HESSE, AND PEDERSEN
604
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate differ-
ences in the motivations, personality aspects, and sex-
ualities of men who send unsolicited genital images
relative to men who do not send such images. Within
our sample of 1,087 heterosexual males, 48% (n= 523)
confirmed that they had engaged in sending unsolicited
dick pics, suggesting that this behavior is common
amongst heterosexual men. Though the frequency of
this behavior is not well established in the literature,
this rate does align with previous research on the pre-
valence of sending sexts with photo content (for
a review, see Klettke et al., 2014), a base of literature
which examines both genders and does not make
a distinction between solicited and unsolicited images.
In our study, participants reported a variety of motiva-
tions for their sending of unsolicited genital images. The
most frequently reported motivational category for this
behavior was the transactional mindset, suggesting that the
sending of these images is motivated by hopes of receiving
images in return. The second most commonly endorsed
motivations fell into the category of partner hunting, further
suggesting that individuals send such images with the hopes
of sexually arousing the recipient, and thus potentially
receiving similar images in return. These findings are con-
sistent with previous literature indicating that men often
send such images in the hopes that the recipients will be
turned on by the images and reciprocate the behavior
(Gibson, 2016; Ley, 2016; Salter, 2016). Although this
appears to be a functional mindset in some non-
heterosexual contexts (e.g., Tziallas, 2015), such behavior
in heterosexual contexts may be representative of male
over-perception of female sexual interest, given that
women tend not to appreciate or reciprocate upon reception
of these images (Ley, 2016; Ringrose & Lawrence, 2018;
Vitis & Gilmour, 2017; Waling & Pym, 2017).
For some men, a recipient’s negative response to their
unsolicited images may have been reinforcing. Misogyny
and power and control were motivational categories
endorsed by some senders; men whose motivations fell
into these categories endorsed statements such as “I feel
a sense of dislike toward women and sending dick pics is
satisfying”and “Sending dick pics gives me a feeling of
control over the person that I have sent it to”. These findings
are consistent with feminist literature which purports that
men send unsolicited genital images because of aggrieved
entitlement and a desire to disturb women (Hayes & Dra-
giewicz, 2018; Ringrose & Lawrence, 2018; Thompson,
2018; Vitis & Gilmour, 2017). Though theoretical works
proposing misogyny and control as motivations for sending
unsolicited genital images have been countered as presump-
tuous and accused of painting men’s heterosexuality as
predatory and problematic (e.g., Beasley, 2015; Waling &
Pym, 2017), the present results indicate the validity of these
motivations for a small percentage of men in our sample.
Of interest, only approximately 18% of men reported send-
ing unsolicited genital images specifically for their own sexual
or personal satisfaction, endorsing that “sendingdickpicsturns
me on”and “I’mproud of the way my penis looks and want to
share it with others”. This seems to indicate that the act of
sending images itself is not typically motivated by sexual
arousal, which is further corroborated by our finding that
there were no group differences in erotophilia-erotophobia
between individuals who reported sending unsolicited dick
pics and those who did not. Thus, the popular suggestion that
men send dick pics because of uncontrollable sexual desires or
sexual disinhibition (e.g., Criss, 2019; Harvey-Jenner, 2016)is
not supported by the present data.
Instead, men who send dick pics seem more interested in
arousing the recipient of their images. Of the men who
reported sending unsolicited genital images, 82% reported
that they hoped to make the recipient feel sexually excited,
while a further 50% stated that they hoped to make the
recipient feel attractive. Though these findings suggest
positive intentions on the part of the image senders, these
motivations fail to acknowledge the inherent issue of con-
sent which is violated by the sending of unsolicited dick
pics. It is possible that this failure to acknowledge the issue
of consent is related to male sexual over-perception bias;
that is, men may fail to acknowledge that this is an issue
because they themselves would appreciate reception of such
images even when not solicited (Ley, 2016; Waling & Pym,
2017). This discrepancy may be related to men’s greater
response to visual sexual stimuli (Hamann et al., 2004; Herz
& Cahill, 1997; Lykins et al., 2008; Symons, 1979; for
review, see Rupp & Wallen, 2008), such that men may be
more aroused by unsolicited images, and sexual over-
perception bias leads them to erroneously believe that
women will be similarly aroused by such images, regardless
of consent.
It is also possible that men who send dick pics are
intentionally violating the consent of their recipients. Our
results indicate that a significant minority of men reported
sending dick pics with the intention of eliciting negative
emotions in the recipients, primarily shock, fear, and disgust.
Further, approximately one quarter of unsolicited image
senders reported that they would rather receive a positive
response to a dick pic than a negative response. These
findings corroborate feminist theoretical works suggesting
that unsolicited genital images can be construed as a form
of sexual harassment and intended to harm or negatively
affect women (e.g., Powell & Henry, 2017;Ringrose&
Lawrence, 2018;Thompson,2018; Vitis & Gilmour, 2017).
This suggests that the failure to acknowledge the issues of
consent inherent in the sending of unsolicited dick pics is not
always unintentional, and that violating consent may in fact
serve the sender sexually or otherwise.
Finally, analysis of personality characteristics allowed us to
examine group differences between men who do and who do
not send unsolicited dick pics. Consistent with our hypotheses,
men who reported having sent unsolicited dick pics
PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITIONISM
605
demonstrated higher levels of narcissism and endorsed both
ambivalent and hostile sexism to a greater degree than did men
who had not sent unsolicited genital images. Given that narcis-
sism has previously been associated with sexually deviant
behaviors such as sexual coercion (Figueredo et al., 2015),
sexual harassment (Zeigler-Hill, Besser, Morag, & Campbell,
2016), and sexual over-perception in men (Wegner & Abbey,
2016), the relationship between narcissism and sending unso-
licited images in our data is unsurprising; clearly though, there
is a need for additional research to further examine this relation-
ship. Men who sent unsolicited dick pics also demonstrated
higher levels of both ambivalent and hostile sexism, further
supporting the concept of sexist motivations for the sending of
unsolicited images. The significance of the relationship
between sexism and unsolicitedimagesendingalignswith
previous research demonstrating relationships between sexism
and variables such as sexual aggression (Bosson, Parrott, Swan,
Kuchynka, & Schramm, 2015; Masser, Viki, & Power, 2006)
and sexual harassment (Begany & Milburn, 2002).
Interestingly, no significant group differences in exhibi-
tionist tendencies between senders and non-senders were
found, despite our hypotheses. The exhibitionism questions
in the present study pertained to behaviors that were not
technology-mediated; thus, the lack of significant results
may suggest that there is little overlap between individuals
who display exhibitionist tendencies online versus offline.
The relative anonymity of the online sphere, which is
known to increase the likelihood of engagement in sexua-
lized behaviors (Cooper et al., 2004,1999; Griffiths, 2001;
Suler, 2004), along with the apparent normalization of
unsolicited genital image sending demonstrated by the pre-
valence of pop culture reference to the phenomenon (Criss,
2019; Harvey-Jenner, 2016; Ley, 2016) may promote
engagement in such behaviors amongst individuals who do
not otherwise display exhibitionist tendencies. This conjec-
ture is supported by the work of Kaylor, Jeglic, and Collins
(2016), who found that while only five percent (n= 56) of
their sample reported having engaged in exhibitionism in
person, almost four times as many individuals (n= 221)
reported having engaged in technology-mediated exhibi-
tionism. Though this work included both men and women
as participants and did not distinguish between solicited and
unsolicited image sending, the results suggest broadly that
a large proportion of individuals –more than could reason-
ably be expected to be paraphilic –are willing to engage in
technology-mediated exhibitionist behaviors, likely due to
the anonymity afforded by online contexts.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our data was collected from a self-selected convenience
sample limited to heterosexual men; thus, the results may not
be generalizable to broader populations. Future research on
dick pics should aim to include a more diverse sample, parti-
cularly with regards to the inclusion of gay and bisexual men as
well as trans, nonbinary, and intersexual individuals. Further,
the measure used to collect information regarding the dick pic
sending behaviors of participants relied on self-report; it is
therefore possible that participants misidentified or misrepre-
sented their involvement in these behaviors due to memory
deficits or social desirability. Additionally, the measure regard-
ing motivations for sending genital images was not piloted;
piloting would have allowed for additional adjustments to
ensure the validity and reliability of the measure. The design
of this measure may also have confused participants, as the
measure may have appeared to contradict itself in some cases;
participants were able to select motivations that led them to
send dick pics, and then able to select which of these same
motivations were not likely reasons for this behavior. The
wording of our questionnaire may also have posed
a limitation, as we did not specifically inquire whether men
sent unsolicited photos of their own penis or of someone else’s
penis, though we find the second context to be less likely. It is
also possible that some of our participants may have misunder-
stood the term “unsolicited”, as a few reported having sent
unsolicited dick pics but later stated that the images were
requested. Our study also failed to include questions pertaining
to sexual offending behavior beyond that captured by the
exhibitionism questionnaire. Given that the sending of unsoli-
cited genital images has been construed by some as a form of
sexual offending (e.g., Thompson, 2018; Vitis & Gilmour,
2017), future research should examine the relationship between
unsolicited image sending and other forms of sexual offending.
Despite these limitations, the results of the present study
provide a framework for understanding the phenomenon of
the dick pic. The large sample size and heterogeneity of the
sample improve the generalizability of the current findings,
and the anonymity afforded through online data collection
likely minimized social desirability concerns (Booth-
Kewley, Larson, & Miyoshi, 2007). This research therefore
provides a basis for future investigations into these and
related behaviors amongst similar populations and can pro-
vide useful information for clinicians or educators working
with individuals who perceive these actions as problematic.
Future investigators should examine the specifics of the
images that men report sending; for example, the platform
through which the images are sent (e.g., texting, snapchat),
the presence or absence of erection in the images, the
position of the penis in the photo (e.g., penis alone or
penis engaged in masturbation or intercourse), the relation-
ship of the sender to the receiver, and to how many different
recipients participants report sending such images. It is also
possible that, given the utilization of technology inherent in
the dick pic, generational differences may be a fruitful area
of inquiry. That is, younger individuals –who are more
likely to communicate using technology (e.g., Van Volkom,
Stapley, & Amaturo, 2014)–may be more likely to engage
in the technology-facilitated practice of sending of unsoli-
cited genital images. Future research should also query the
experiences of the recipients of such images to construct
a more well-rounded understanding of this underexplored
phenomenon.
OSWALD, LOPES, SKODA, HESSE, AND PEDERSEN
606
Finally, additional research is necessary to understand
why straight men report sending pictures of their genitals to
other men. Our results revealed that of the 523 heterosexual-
identified men who reported having sent unsolicited genital
images, 5% reported having sent such images to both men
and women, while another 8% of these men had sent such
images exclusively to men. The motivations for straight
men to send unsolicited genital images to other males
were not captured by the measures used in the current
study; thus, this phenomenon necessitates further investiga-
tion. It is possible that these images may have been sent to
heterosexual male friends of the sender in a humorous
manner, or that the images may have been pornographic in
nature (i.e., depicting a sexual act but also displaying the
phallus). The inclusion of measures to capture broader data
regarding the content of unsolicited genital images, as
suggested above, could resolve this ambiguity.
Conclusions
This study was, to our knowledge, the first to quantita-
tively investigate heterosexual men’s motives for sending
unsolicited genital images. Given current cultural anxieties
surrounding sexting, revenge porn, and other forms of
technology-mediated sexuality, as well as the current culture
of consent, the present research provides a much-needed
empirical examination of this previously unexplored phe-
nomenon. It was established that men primarily sent unso-
licited images as a strategy with the hopes of receiving
either similar images or sexual interactions in return.
A significant minority of men who send dick pics reported
engaging in this behavior for their own sexual or personal
satisfaction, while relatively few reported doing so for
childhood conflict, misogynistic, or controlling reasons.
By sending unsolicited genital images, most men hoped to
elicit sexual arousal in the recipient(s), though a minority
hoped to elicit negative feelings. In general, men who sent
dick pics reported higher levels of narcissism as well as
ambivalent and hostile sexism. These results provide evi-
dence to suggest that while unsolicited dick pic sending is
motivated by sexist and misogynistic ideologies in some
men, the majority do not intend to cause harm or negative
psychological outcomes. Thus, the unsolicited dick pic
phenomenon cannot be viewed solely as a sexist campaign,
nor as a positive outlet for sexuality; instead, cases must be
considered on an individual basis.
Given the disparate theoretical frameworks underpinning
this study –the feminist conceptualization of the dick pic as
a hostile cultural product and the individualistic sexting/
deviance discourse –it is perhaps unsurprising that both
perspectives were represented in our results. The present
research bridges the gap between these frameworks by
demonstrating that an overlap exists between the two con-
ceptualizations; thus, future research must work to pry apart
the specific contributions of each framework. We find it likely
that the apparent normalization of this phenomenon is the
piece that ties the two frameworks together; that is, though
most men are not consciously motivated by sexism or hosti-
lity, they are contributing to these forces (intentionally or
unintentionally) by participating in the sending of unsolicited
genital images for reasons which inhere in the individual but
are accepted, to some degree, by the contemporary milieu.
Further critical consideration of the dick pic phenomenon,
particularly with regard to recipient experiences, remains
necessary. The dick pic lies at the intersection of the zeitgeists
surrounding consent, gender, sexuality, and technology, and
further research on the subject could provide insights into
myriad contemporary topics such as online sexual harass-
ment, online dating culture, and gender relations.
References
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do
males misperceive females’friendliness? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,42, 830–838. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.42.5.830
Albury, K. (2015). Selfies, sexts, and sneaky hats: Young people’s under-
standings of gendered practices of self-presentation. International
Journal of Communication,9, 1734–1745. Retrieved from https://
ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/3132/1396
Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short
measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality,40,
440–450. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.03.002
Angelides, S. (2013). Technology, hormones, and stupidity: The affective
politics of teenage sexting. Sexualities,16, 665–689. doi:10.1177%
2F1363460713487289
Bader, S. M., Schoeneman-Morris, K. A., Scalora, M. J., & Casady, T. K.
(2008). Exhibitionism: Findings from a midwestern police contact
sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology,52, 270–279. doi:10.1177%2F0306624X07307122
Beasley, C. (2015). Libidinal heterodoxy. Men and Masculinities,18, 140–
158. doi: 10.1177/1097184X15586180
Begany, J. J., & Milburn, M. A. (2002). Psychological predictors of sexual
harassment: Authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Psy-
chology Of Men & Masculinity,3(2), 119. doi: 10.1037/1524-
9220.3.2.119
Benotsch,E.G.,Snipes,D.J.,Martin,A.M.,&Bull,S.S.(2013). Sexting,
substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. Journal of
Adolescent Health,52, 307–313. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011
Booth-Kewley, S., Larson, G. E., & Miyoshi, D. K. (2007). Social desir-
ability effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires.
Computers in Human Behavior,23, 463–477. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2004.10.020
Bosson, J. K., Parrott, D. J., Swan, S. C., Kuchynka, S. L., & Schramm, A.
T. (2015). A dangerous boomerang: Injunctive norms, hostile sexist
attitudes, and male-to-female sexual aggression. Aggressive Behavior,
41(6), 580–593. doi: 10.1002/ab.v41.6
Champion, A. R., & Pedersen, C. L. (2015). Investigating differences
between sexters and non-sexters on attitudes, subjective norms, and
risky sexual behaviours. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality,
24, 205–214. doi:10.3138/cjhs.243-A5
Cooper, A., Putnam, D. E., Planchon, L. A., & Boies, S. C. (1999). Online
sexual compulsivity: Getting tangled in the net. Sexual Addiction &
Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment and Prevention,6,79–104.
doi:10.1080/10720169908400182
Cooper, A. L., Delmonico, D. L., Griffin-Shelley, E., & Mathy, R. M.
(2004). Online sexual activity: An examination of potentially proble-
matic behaviors. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity,11, 129–143.
doi:10.1080/10720160490882642
PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITIONISM
607
Criss, D. (2019). Wonder why men send photos of their genitals? Here are
some theories. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/
health/reasons-why-men-send-explicit-photos-trnd/index.html
Delevi, R., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Personality factors as predictors of
sexting. Computers in Human Behavior,29, 2589–2594. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2013.06.003
Dobson, A. S. (2016). Postfeminist digital cultures: Femininity, social
media, and self-representation. New York, NY: Springer.
Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention
through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology:
Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace,8. doi:10.5817/
CP2014-1-9
Drouin, M., Vogel, K. N., Surbey, A., & Stills, J. R. (2013). Let’s talk about
sexting, baby: Computer-mediated sexual behaviors among young
adults. Computers in Human Behavior,29, A25–A30. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2012.12.030
Englander, E. (2012). Low risk associated with most teenage sexting:
A study of 617 18-year-olds. MA: Report, Massachusetts Aggression
Reduction Centre, Bridgewater State University. Retrieved from
http://www.marccentre.org
Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008). Sexual
coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology
Review,28,48–66. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.03.002
Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M. M., Patch, E. A., & Jones, D. N.
(2015). The unholy trinity: The Dark Triad, sexual coercion, and
Brunswik-symmetry. Evolutionary Psychology,13, 435–454. doi:10.
1177%2F147470491501300208
Fisher, W. A., White, L. A., Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1988). Erotophobia-
erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal Of Sex Research,25
(1), 123–151. doi: 10.1080/00224498809551448
Gibson, K. (2016). Sexting and the application of the Social Exchange
Theory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Saskatch-
ewan, Canada. Retrieved from https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/han
dle/10388/7414/GIBSON-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differ-
entiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,70,491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Griffiths, M. (2001). Sex on the Internet: Observations and implications for
Internet sex addiction. Journal of Sex Research,38, 333–342.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D.,
Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender differences in narcissism: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin,141, 261. doi:10.1037/
a0038231
Hamann, S., Herman, R. A., Nolan, C. L., & Wallen, K. (2004). Men and
women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli. Nature
Neuroscience,7,411–416. doi:10.1038/nn1208
Harvey-Jenner, C. (2016). 8 men explain why they send dick pics. Retrieved
from https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/sex/news/a44134/
why-do-men-send-dick-pics/
Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of
a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring
events. Journal of Research in Personality,37,34–47. doi:10.1016/
S0092-6566(02)00529-9
Hasinoff, A. A. (2015). Sexting panic: Rethinking criminalization, privacy,
and consent. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Hayes, R. M., & Dragiewicz, M. (2018). Unsolicited dick pics: Erotica,
exhibitionism or entitlement?. Women’s Studies International Forum,
71,114–120. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2018.07.001
Henningsen, D. D., Henningsen, M. L. M., & Valde, K. S. (2006). Gender
differences in perceptions of women’s sexual interest during cross-sex
interactions: An application and extension of cognitive valence theory.
Sex Roles,54,821–829. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9050-y
Hertlein,K.M.,&Ancheta,K.(2014). Clinical application of the advantages of
technology in couple and family therapy. The American Journal of Family
Therapy,42, 313–324. doi:10.1080/01926187.2013.866511
Herz,R.S.,&Cahill,E.D.(1997). Differential use of sensory information in
sexual behavior as a function of gender. Human Nature,8, 275–286.
doi:10.1007/BF02912495
Hudson, H. K. (2011). Factors affecting sexting behaviors among selected
undergraduate students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern
University Illinois, Carbondale, IL. Retrieved from https://ehs.siu.edu/
phrp/_common/documents/announcements-dissertation/Hudson,H.
pdf
Joel, S., Plaks, J. E., & MacDonald, G. (2017). Nothing ventured, nothing
gained: People anticipate more regret from missed romantic opportu-
nities than from rejection. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships,36, 305–336. doi:10.1177/0265407517729567
Jones, M. T. (2010). Mediated exhibitionism: The naked body in perfor-
mance and virtual space. Sexuality & Culture,14, 253–269.
doi:10.1007/s12119-010-9075-9
Kaylor, L., Jeglic, E. L., & Collins, C. (2016). Examining the impact of
technology on exhibitionistic behavior. Deviant Behavior,37,
1152–1162. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1169828
Kelly, L. (1987). The continuum of sexual violence. In J. Hanmer &
M. Maynard (Eds.), Women, violence and social control (pp.
46–60). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Klettke, B., Hallford, D. J., & Mellor, D. J. (2014). Sexting prevalence and
correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology
Review,34,44–53. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.10.007
Lang, R. A., Langevin, R., Checkley, K. L., & Pugh, G. (1987). Genital
exhibitionism: Courtship disorder or narcissism?. Canadian Journal
of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Compor-
tement,19, 216–232. doi:10.1037/h0080011
Ley, D. J. (2016). Why men send pics of their junk. Retrieved from https://
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201602/why-
men-send-pics-their-junk
Lykins, A. D., Meana, M., & Strauss, G. P. (2008). Sex differences in visual
attention to erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
37, 219–228. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9208-x
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B.,
Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2005). Functional projection: How
fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,88,63–78. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.88.1.63
March, E., & Wagstaff, D. L. (2017). Sending nudes: Sex, self-rated mate
value, and trait Machiavellianism predict sending unsolicited explicit
images. Frontiers in Psychology,8, article 2210. doi:10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.02210
Masser, B., Viki, G. T., & Power, C. (2006). Hostile sexism and rape
proclivity amongst men. Sex Roles,54(7–8), 565–574. doi: 10.1007/
s11199-006-9022-2
McGlynn, C., & Rackley, E. (2017). Image-based sexual abuse. Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies,37, 534–561. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqw033
Munar, A. M. (2010). Digital exhibitionism: The age of exposure. Culture
Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research,2, 401–422.
doi:10.3384/cu.2000.1525.10223401
Murphy, W. D., & Page, I. J. (1997). Exhibitionism. Sexual deviance. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Oltmanns, F. T., Emery, E. R., & Taylor, S. (2006). Abnormal psychology.
Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada.
Oswald, F., Lopes, A., & Pedersen, C. L. (2018). Motivations behind
sending genital pictures. Unpublished measure. Surrey, Canada:
Kwantlen Polytechnic University.
Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013).
Sexting as an intervention: Relationship satisfaction and motivation
considerations. The American Journal of Family Therapy,41,1–12.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2011.635134
Piemont, L. (2007). Fear of the empty self: The motivations for genital
exhibitionism. Modern Psychoanalysis,32,79–93.
Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual violence in a digital age. Basing-
stoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-58047-4
OSWALD, LOPES, SKODA, HESSE, AND PEDERSEN
608
Ringrose, J., & Lawrence, E. (2018). Remixing misandry, manspreading,
and dick pics: Networked feminist humour on Tumblr. Feminist
Media Studies,18, 686–704. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1450351
Ross, J. M., Drouin, M., & Coupe, A. (2016). Sexting coercion as
a component of intimate partner polyvictimization. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence,1–23. doi:10.1177/0886260516660300
Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in response to visual
sexual stimuli: A review. Archives of Sexual Behavior,37, 206–218.
doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9217-9
Rye, B. J., Meaney, G. J.,& Fisher, W. A. (2011). The Sexual Opinion Survey.
In T. Fisher, C. Davis, W. Yarber, & S. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of
sexuality related measures (pp. 231–236). New York, NY: Routledge.
Salter, M. (2016). Privates in the online public: Sex(ting) and reputation on
social media. New Media & Society,18, 2723–2739. doi:10.1177%
2F1461444815604133
Simpson, B. (2013). Challenging childhood, challenging children: Chil-
dren’s rights and sexting. Sexualities,16, 690–709. doi:10.1177%
2F1363460713487467
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior,7, 321–326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. London, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Thompson, L. (2018). “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: Harassment and
misogyny in the online sexual marketplace. Feminism & Psychology,
28,69–89. doi:10.1177%2F0959353517720226
Tziallas, E. (2015). Gamified eroticism: Gay male “social networking”
applications and self-pornography. Sexuality & Culture,19, 759–775.
doi:10.1007/s12119-015-9288-z
Van Volkom, M., Stapley, J. C., & Amaturo, V. (2014). Revisiting the
digital divide: Generational differences in technology use in everyday
life. North American Journal of Psychology,16, 557–574. Retrived
from https://www.greeleyschools.org/cms/lib2/CO01001723/Centri
city/Domain/2387/Revisiting%20the%20Digital%20Divide.pdf
Vitis, L., & Gilmour, F. (2017). Dick pics on blast: A woman’s resistance to
online sexual harassment using humour, art and Instagram. Crime,
Media, Culture,13, 335–355. doi:10.1177/1741659016652445
Waling,A.,&Pym,T.(2017). ‘C’mon, no one wants a dick pic’:
Exploring the cultural framings of the ‘dick pic’in contemporary
online publics. Journal of Gender Studies,28,70–85. doi:10.1080/
09589236.2017.1394821
Wegner, R., & Abbey, A. (2016). Individual differences in men’s misper-
ception of women’s sexual intent: Application and extension of the
confluence model. Personality and Individual Differences,94,16–20.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.027
Widman, L., & McNulty, J. K. (2011). Narcissism and sexuality. In
W. K. Campbell & J. D. Miller (Eds.), The handbook of narcissism
and Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Theoretical approaches,
empirical findings, and treatments (pp. 351–359). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons.
Winkelman, S. B., Smith, K. V., Brinkley, J., & Knox, D. (2014). Sexting
on the college campus. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality,17.
Retrieved from www.researchgate.net/profile/Jason_Brinkley/publica
tion/260868306_Sexting_on_the_College_Campus/links/
5509ec6a0cf20f127f90bad1/Sexting-on-the-College-Campus.pdf
Woolard, A. (2011). The frequency, attitudes, and beliefs of sexting among
college students (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eastern Illinois Uni-
versity. Retrieved from https://thekeep.eiu.edu/cgi/
Wysocki, D. K., & Childers, C. D. (2011). “Let my fingers do the talking”:
Sexting and infidelity in cyberspace. Sexuality & Culture,15,
217–239. doi:10.1007/s12119-011-9091-4
YouG o v. (2017). 53% of millennial women have received a naked photo from
aman[Data file]. Retrieved from https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.
net/cumulus_uploads/document/pqm8ufria/dick%20pics%20data.pdf
Zeigler-Hill, V., Besser, A., Morag, J., & Campbell, W. K. (2016). The dark
triad and sexual harassment proclivity. Personality and Individual
Differences,89,47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.048
PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITIONISM
609