In the scholarly article, Brubaker and Johnson (2008) hypothesize that advertisements for male sexual enhancement drugs appeal to males by creating an artificial crisis and then offering a solution. As stated by Brubaker and Johnson, the so-called crisis is “loss of power, control and the ability to dominate; the solution is a larger and more powerful penis that will give men back their sense of manhood” (131). They argue that the advertisements “reassert hegemonic ideals, i.e. the othering of, and domination over, women and phallocentrism” (131). The authors conducted a study of Internet website advertisements. They used a “modified snowball sample” (Brubaker and Johnson, 2008, 135) in which they gathered text and images from 20 advertisements and websites during an eight-month period in 2005, and then repeated the process in 2008 to evaluate the consistency in the advertisements over time (Brubaker and Johnson, 2008). With a popular search engine, they used the term “erectile enhancement” and then reviewed the websites and advertisements listed on the first page of results (Brubaker and Johnson, 2008). In this study, they used a survey method and then performed close textual analysis of the websites to identify dominant themes and patterns of the advertisements. Their findings affirmed their initial hypothesis. The advertisements consistently employed a masculine hegemonic sensibility: they emphasized the penis as the most important sex organ; they suggested being obsessed with making one’s penis larger is dissimilar to the traditional feminine trait of vanity; and they depicted females as objects that men dominate and violate (Brubaker and Johnson, 2008). The authors pointed out while some of these websites contain unsubstantiated statistics about what women want, such as “86% of women want their sexual partner to have a fuller, thicker manhood” (Brubaker and Johnson, 2008, 138), the advertisements themselves focus on the male’s sexual performance and pleasure and use violent terminology to describe the results, such as “Stick another 3 inches in next time you bang a chick” (Brubaker and Johnson, 2008, 142). Overall the article addresses the issue of how men define their masculinity by the size and stamina of their penis and believe a larger penis correlates to increased masculinity, and the advertisements for these drugs reinforces those sexual attitudes and beliefs.
The popular media article (ABC, 2005) on advertising for male sexual enhancement drugs took a different approach to the topic. They focused on the money spent on advertising, the huge profits that companies selling these drugs have made, the lack of government regulation on the ingredients used in these drugs, the use of possibly fraudulent or misleading advertisements, and the possibility of safety issues with the drugs. They did not have a hypothesis. They used what seemed to be random sampling by survey of the advertisements, with a small sample size of only three drugs and their advertisements. They did research the background of the owners of the websites advertising the male sexual enhancement drugs.
The article pointed out that many advertisements initially made very specific claims, such as a particular male enhancement drug increasing the penis size by roughly 40 percent, and then noted that later advertisements for that drug no longer make that claim, instead using more vaguely-worded promises of “firmer, fuller-feeling, better-quality erections” (ABC, 2005, para. 4). The article suggests that the change in wording occurred to avoid charges of fraudulent advertising (ABC, 2005). The article also noted that while many advertisements claim to use natural ingredients that have been used for centuries to enhance sex, pharmaceutical experts say there is no clinical evidence to support these drugs’ efficacy (ABC, 2005). There is also a detailed description given of how these drugs are not regulated by the FDA. The article described how the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act exempted these drugs from FDA requirements to provide “information on adverse drugs reactions and tests for safety and efficacy” (ABC, 2005, para. 18). The article also states that after passage of the law, many more drug companies were created and advertising for these male enhancement drugs boomed (ABC, 2005). As explained in the article, Internet advertising played a major role in the success of the drug manufacturers; by promising results such as increasing “penis size 26 percent in just 12 weeks” (ABC, 2005, para. 11), manufacturers of male sexual enhancement drugs were able to take a bottle of pills that cost $2 to manufacture and sell it for $40 (ABC, 2005).
Both articles use a very rational, objective approach to examining how manufacturers of male sexual enhancement drugs use Internet advertising to sell their products to males. They present evidence and commentary to discuss the increased availability of male sexual enhancement drugs and the advertising used to market the drugs. Both are written to appeal to their target audience, using vocabulary and sentence style appropriate to their medium. For example, the scholarly article uses more sophisticated and specific terminology, along with many long, complex sentences, while the popular media article uses a simpler vocabulary and mostly short to medium-length sentences.
The major difference in the articles comes from the purpose for which they were written. The scholarly article’s intent was to examine the advertisements from a sociological and cultural viewpoint, looking at gender issues raised by the advertisements. This article examined the specific terminology and images used in the advertisements, and how they promote the idea that men regard their penis size as the defining element of their masculinity. The scholarly article noted that the images of women in these advertisements invariably showed women in submissive roles, often admiring the man. It also analyzed the notion, prevalent among some men, that if they can increase their penis size, they will have better sex lives. None of the advertisements actually addressed why women would want or need men to have a larger penis for their own sexual gratification; the advertisements instead focused on how having a larger penis would make sex better for the man. The advertisements reinforce the idea that a man’s sexual pleasure is more important than a woman’s. In terms of human sexuality, these advertisements send a disturbing message, implying that males can satisfy women sexually entirely by having a large penis, without any need for clitoral stimulation, and that women are simply sex objects.
On the other hand, the ABC news article focused on the financial aspects of advertisements for male sexual enhancement drugs. The main purpose of the article seemed to be to provide information to consumers, to prevent them from being exploited by fraudulent or misleading claims in the advertisements. It went into detail about the politics and money behind passage of the law that exempted these drugs from FDA oversight, noting that the senator who supported the bill received money from the industry and his son had several clients in the industry. It also described how the chief officers of some manufacturers of male sexual enhancement drugs had been convicted and served prison time for fraud. The article also provided comments from experts who cast doubt on the efficacy of the drugs and also suggested that men who purchase such sexual enhancements are suckers who desperately want to believe the claims made in these advertisements. Essentially, it suggests that men who believe these advertisements and purchase the sexual enhancement drugs are deluding themselves.
Consumers would benefit from reading both articles, but for different reasons. The scholarly article offers a fascinating, albeit disturbing, look at how these advertisements attempt to convince men that they must have a big penis in order to give a woman a good orgasm. Even more disturbing is their evidence that these advertisements consistently portray women not as equal partners in sex, but as sex objects. Consumers who are concerned about gender issues would appreciate the information and analysis of the advertisements that the scholarly article provided. Consumers who are concerned about whether the advertisements are truthful or false, or who want to know a little more about the safety of these products, would benefit from reading the ABC News article. It gives them information to evaluate the accuracy of the advertisements, but strongly suggests the advertisements are deceptive and the products may not be safe or work as they claim to do. The ABC News article is more likely to convince someone who is debating whether to purchase the drugs not to do so.
The disadvantages to the articles correspond to the difference in purpose. The scholarly article is quite informative, but contains a lot of theoretical concepts about gender identity and issues, in addition to the actual data and analysis. Because the approach the authors took requires a theoretical framework for their analysis, the article is lengthy and would not be easy for an average consumer to read and understand. The disadvantage to the popular media article is its limited scope and narrow focus. Although it does a good job of explaining how advertising for male sexual enhancement drugs is misleading and the drugs themselves are not effective, it does not in any way address the issue of why men would think they need these drugs. Nor does it suggest that men who have sexual performance problems, such as actual erectile dysfunction, would be better advised to seek qualified medical assistance.
The best aspect to the scholarly approach used is that it provides a more in-depth analysis of the reasons males would purchase these sexual enhancement drugs. It used a sufficient sample size to draw reasonable conclusions, and documented its research methodology to establish its validity. It gives insight into the macho attitudes present in these advertisements and the manipulation they use to convince men they need a larger penis to be more masculine. It seeks to answer the question of why men would turn to these sexual enhancement drugs when there is no actual evidence they work, nor any definitive evidence that men need a large penis to achieve sexual satisfaction for themselves or their partners. The data collected have implications for further study of human sexuality, such as the need to study why there is still ongoing delusion among men that a large penis size is critical to masculinity and sexual satisfaction. The article gives insight not just into human sexuality, but ongoing gender stereotypes and their detrimental effects. The best aspect to the popular culture article is that it provides information that is easy to read and understand to a wide audience, possibly preventing some of them from purchasing drugs that may at best be ineffective and at worst may contain harmful substances. While the information is from a credible website, the article is a very superficial review of the sexual enhancement drugs with minimal analysis done from a “buyer beware” viewpoint.
In completing the assignment, I gained a lot of insight into an area of human sexuality I did not know much about, other than from anecdotes. Obviously, in popular culture such as television shows and movies, people joke about penis size. These articles made it clear that many men in real life obsess over their penis size and think they are not masculine enough if they do not have a large penis. It was also quite disturbing to read the comments about women used in these advertisements, which clearly portray sex as a male-dominant, violent act. From both articles, obviously the manufacturers of male sexual enhancement drugs exploit men’s insecurity about their masculinity and penis size. I personally found the scholarly article more interesting and informative, largely because it raised a lot of issues, but the average reader would probably prefer the popular media article, because it is fairly simple and does not require much thought.
References
Brubaker, S., & Johnson, J. A. (2008). 'Pack a more powerful punch' and 'lay the pipe': erectile enhancement discourse as a body project for masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies, 17(2), 131-146. doi:10.1080/09589230802008899
