Achieving Masculinity

This article was downloaded by: [187.156.37.
211]
On: 12 April 2014, At: 16:05
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Gender Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgs20
Achieving masculinity through sexual

predation: the case of hogging
a
Ariane Prohaska & Jeannine A. Gailey
Department of Criminal Justice , The University of Alabama ,

Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
b
Department of Sociology and Anthropology , Texas Christian

University , Fort Worth, TX, USA
Published online: 15 Mar 2010.
To cite this article: Ariane Prohaska & Jeannine A. Gailey (2010) Achieving masculinity
through sexual predation: the case of hogging, Journal of Gender Studies, 19:1, 13-25, DOI:
10.1080/09589230903525411
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589230903525411
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2010, 1325
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Achieving masculinity through sexual predation: the case of hogging
Ariane Prohaskaa* and Jeannine A. Gaileyb
a
Department of Criminal Justice, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA;

Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX, USA
Downloaded by [187.156.37.211] at 16:05 12 April 2014
(Received 15 March 2008; final version received 12 May 2009)

Hegemonic masculinity in the contemporary United States involves control,
domination, competition, aggression, and the devaluing of women. Hogging, a
practice whereby men seek out women they deem unattractive or fat for sexual
purposes, has been largely overlooked by scholars. Therefore, the purpose of the
present study is to explore hogging from a sociology of masculinities perspective.
Interviews and content analyses were conducted to learn about why men hog and what
they are able to achieve from this behavior. These data indicate that most men who
participate in this behavior are concerned with how hogging affects their relationships
with their male peers. Men who hog achieve status in their peer groups by gaining
sexual access to women they see as easy. Even men who do not engage in sexual
activity gain from the sexual encounters of their peers, by either participating in bets
or being entertained by the stories their peers tell them about hogging. Hogging, then, is
less about the encounters with women and more about homosociality.
Keywords: hogging; masculinity; sexuality; weight; deviance; rape; pass the pig
Although most research on gender has concentrated on women, there is a large, growing
body of literature on men and the creation and maintenance of masculinity (for example,
Brannon 1976, Connell 1987, Kaufmann 1994, Kimmel 1998, 2009, Connell and
Messerschmidt 2005). Scholars have maintained that there are multiple masculinities, with
the dominant, hegemonic masculinity being the most rewarded in contemporary society. In
the United States, manhood involves possessing strength, control and status, which are
rewarded with power and prestige.
Men adhere to the masculine ideal in different ways, such as participating in sports,
drinking heavily, or pursuing women for sexual purposes. Yet a particularly extreme way
in which men may attempt to achieve normative masculinity is through hogging, a
behavior that involves men seeking out women they perceive as fat1 or unattractive for
sport or sexual gratification. Hogging is a behavior that has been largely overlooked in
the scholarly literature (for an exception see Gailey and Prohaska 2006, 2007); however, it
has mustered some attention in the news media. An alternative news magazine in
Northeast Ohio, Scene Magazine (Fenske 2003), published an article that included
interviews with men who discussed their experiences of hogging. The men from the Scene
*Corresponding author. Email: aprohaska@ua.edu

ISSN 0958-9236 print/ISSN 1465-3869 online
q 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09589230903525411
http://www.informaworld.com
14
A. Prohaska and J.A. Gailey
Magazine article used the terms hogs and slump-busters interchangeably, the latter
term was used by baseball player Mark Grace on the Jim Rome Show (1998), and more
recently by baseball player Jose Canseco in his 2005 autobiography Juiced (Dowd 2005).
When a man is looking for a slump-buster, a hog, or road beef (as Canseco puts it), he
seeks out, according to Grace, the fattest gnarliest chick you can uncover in order to try
to break out of a slump (Dowd 2005, p. 99). This quote from Grace expresses the belief
that fat women are easy sexual targets who can help men out of a losing streak, whether it
is on the field or in the bedroom. Additionally, a 2005 episode of the television series
Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) revolved around a man who enjoyed having sex with a
large woman, yet was embarrassed to be seen in public with her (Eagles 2005).
Despite how degrading and offensive this practice may seem, empirical research is
needed to understand the reasons why men prey on women whom they view as inadequate
in some way. What is the purpose of hogging? Is sex the only goal, or is it a way of
reaffirming ones masculinity when it is threatened (for example, being refused a date or
not performing well in a job)? The goals of this paper are: (1) to explore mens experiences
of hogging using a gender framework, specifically research on the sociology of
masculinities; (2) to establish whether hogging is a way to achieve masculinity; and (3) if
so, to ascertain which aspects of masculinity are accomplished by participating in this
activity. In the following section, we discuss the previous research on masculinity,
hegemonic masculinity and sex, and hogging.
Theoretical framework
Masculinities
Masculinity involves the expected values and behaviors associated with being a biological
male (Connell 1987, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, Kimmel 2009). Masculinity is not
an innate characteristic of men, but rather a social construction that is accomplished in
everyday interaction. Kimmel (2009) notes that many varieties of masculinity have existed
throughout history and many types can exist in a society concurrently. The dominant form
of masculinity in a specific culture at a particular time is hegemonic masculinity (Connell
1987, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). It is dominant in the sense that it is
institutionalized, and is generally accepted within the culture because all men are judged
in relation to it. All other masculinities are marginalized (Connell and Messerschmidt
2005). Dominant forms of masculinity can emerge globally (e.g. transnational business),
regionally (e.g. nations, states), and locally (e.g. families, communities). In the
contemporary United States, hegemonic masculinity is rooted in patriarchal values such as
control, power, competition, aggression, the devaluation of emotional attachment, and,
especially, the oppression of women (Johnson 1997).
The key to hegemonic masculinity is power, whether over other men or women
(Kimmel 2009). In patriarchal societies, men gain power by controlling others, especially
women, although Johnson notes that patriarchy is really about the cycle of control and
fear that organizes relationships among men (Johnson 1997, p. 31), or proving manhood
by participating in normative masculine behaviors.
According to psychologist Robert Brannon (1976), the male gender role involves four
main components: (1) No Sissy Stuff (anti-femininity); (2) Be a Sturdy Oak
(inexpressiveness and independence); (3) Give em Hell (adventurousness and
aggression); and (4) Be a Big Wheel (status and achievement). However, sociologists
(Kaufmann 1994, Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, Kimmel 2009) argue that each
component is more than a role played or an identity; hegemonic masculinity is an ongoing
15
performance or a pattern of practice (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005, p. 832). The

performance of masculinity is thus a homosocial enactment (Kimmel 2009, p. 64); men
participate in activities that adhere to the hegemonic ideal so that other men will recognize
their masculinity. Proving ones manhood is an ongoing process that involves seeking
constant approval from other men. Men fear rejection by other men, and the only way to
avoid this rejection is to participate in normative masculine behaviors (Johnson 1997,
Kimmel 2009). Thus, real manhood is only achieved when real men acknowledge and
approve of other mens accomplishments.
Yet normative masculinity is almost impossible to achieve unless one is a white, upper
or middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied man (Connell 1987). Because most men cannot
reach the ideal, they must participate in other behaviors to demonstrate that they are real
men. Kaufmann (1994) suggests that violence towards other men, women and themselves
(i.e. self-destructive behaviors) are examples of hypermasculine behavior. Related to
hypermasculinity, the concept hostile masculinity (Malamuth et al. 1991) encompasses
the belief that sexual aggression toward women is the result of mens extreme adherence to
male gender expectations and the rejection of womens entry into traditionally male fields.
Hostile masculinity is made up of two components: (1) control and domination of women;
and (2) insecurity, defensiveness, and distrust of women. Men who cannot achieve the
finer things in life, such as money, status, power, or a long-term, satisfactory relationship,
may exploit women in order to express their manhood (Gailey and Prohaska 2006, 2007).
Hegemonic masculinity: sex and violence

Under patriarchy, normal sex is heterosexual and involves mens ability to control sexual
access to women (Johnson 1997). Male dominance is key, and sex serves as a general
model for male dominance and aggression in general (Johnson 1997, p. 150). Many
heterosexual men view sexuality not as something within them, but as a commodity they
must seize from women (Johnson 1997, p. 154); it is not about intimacy, but is instead
about the conquest (Kimmel 1998). One way for men to achieve status in their peer groups
is by engaging in sexual acts with numerous women. An example is Sabos (1994) work on
athletes locker-room talk about women. Dating, in these mens lives, was also a sport, or a
game in which the woman was an opponent that a man must defeat (p. 39). Winning the
game, then, resulted in a higher status in the locker room through conversations about
sexual conquests. The women they dated were objectified and put at an emotional distance.
Messner (1992) argued, similarly, that sex talk elevated mens status among athletes, and
most of the athletes he studied felt that not participating in these conversations would
destroy their chances of becoming successful professional athletes. Sabo is quick to point
out that sex talk is not limited to athletes; these behaviors are performed in other groups,
such as fraternities, the military, and gangs (1994, pp. 39 40).
The importance of a sexual conquest for the achievement of masculinity is also evident
in research on mens viewing of pornography. Jensen (2007) reported that men feel like
real men, embracing their natural sexual appetites, when viewing pornography, but
many producers in the pornography industry argued that they gave men something else:
the ability to get back at those women who, among other things, may have nagged them,
taken over their workplaces, or refused to participate in their sexual fantasies. One
pornography industry veteran told Jensen:
Id really like to show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly
believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violence we can get is the cum shot
16
in the face. Men get off behind this, because they get even with all the women they cant have.
We try to inundate the world with orgasms to the face. (Jensen 2007, pp. 69, 70)
The woman on the screen, then, becomes the victim, a conquest who feels the brunt of all
mens rage; in this fantasy world, she is a slut who always desires, even asks for, every
imaginable sexual act that many wives and girlfriends would refuse to participate in. The
men who view pornography, it is argued, cannot control women in the real world, but in
the fantasy world of pornography, they can always get what they want. Hogging, in a
sense, can be compared to pornography; if a large woman is perceived as deserving of
what happens to her because she chooses to be large (like the slut who chooses to be
in pornographic films), it becomes easier for men to justify their behavior. Hogging, like
pornography, may be a form of sexual aggression and thus, a way for men to express their
manhood. Those who participate in hogging are looking for alternative ways to live up to
normative masculine standards and possibly to get back at women.
The ability to wear down womens resistance to sex plays an important role in sexual
conquest. Men who subscribe to hegemonic masculinity use alcohol as a way to reduce
womens inhibitions and gain access to sex (Martin and Hummer 1989, Kimmel 1998).
Yet the combination of alcohol and sex begs the question of whether the sex is consensual.
Research on rape has indicated that men provide alcohol and use it as a weapon against
sexual reluctance (Martin and Hummer 1989). Because hogging is an activity that often
occurs in bars or at parties that serve alcohol, it is likely that this form of sexual predation
has similarities to rape and other violent sexual acts pursued by men to prove their
manhood.
Previous research on hogging
Gailey and Prohaska (2006) explored mens use of neutralization techniques (cf. Sykes
and Matza 1957) to reduce the stigma associated with hogging. Their data indicated that
men choose large women as targets because they believe they are easier (i.e. more
willing to have sex) than women whom they consider physically attractive. If the goal is to
have as many conquests as possible, men may seek out women they believe will be less
likely to resist their advances, or men may try to make the women unable to resist their
advances. It is necessary to determine if hogging provides a way for men to affirm their
masculinity by achieving numerous sexual conquests in order to gain status in their peer
groups. Gailey and Prohaskas research focused on two main issues: first, to explore the
behaviors, attitudes, and neutralization techniques of men who engaged in hogging; and
second, to determine if men who were involved sexually with women whom they
considered large or unattractive were stigmatized or deemed deviant by their peers for
their behavior. Their data indicated that the men they interviewed were stigmatized if they
could not neutralize their behavior by claiming they were hogging. However, if they
claimed they were hogging, their friends rewarded the behavior because it was about
having as many sexual encounters as possible; denigrating women who are perceived as
fat provides men with a common group of people to belittle. Degrading and humiliating
women who are large or unattractive serves to reinforce male superiority.
Goodes (2008) research with fat admirers (FAs), men who are attracted to fat
women, indicated that dating fat women or being sexually involved with fat women
attracted almost as much stigma and scorn as being fat does. Therefore, the men he
interviewed were often covert in their preference for fat women and many would not be
seen in public places or admit their preferences to their friends or family. Hogging, or at
least telling their friends that they were hogging, served as a way to avoid stigma. In other
17
words, if men could claim that they were hogging and not truly attracted to fat women,
then their friends did not make fun of them. The current study expands on the previous
research by exploring if hogging is a technique that men use to gain status with their peers
and, therefore, affirm masculinity.
Method
We employed two different methods to examine the relationship between masculinity and
hogging in this exploratory study: content analysis and semi-structured interviews. First,
we performed a content analysis on the Scene Magazine (2003) article and relevant
accounts from collegestories.com, an Internet website where college students write about
their college experiences. On this website, one can perform searches on topics of interest
including sexual behaviors, partying, and so forth. Our search for the term hogging
resulted in several hundred hits. However, only a handful of the search results referred to
the type of hogging that we were interested in, which involved mens sexual encounters
with women they viewed as large or unattractive.
Next, we interviewed the author of the Scene Magazine article, Sarah Fenske, in order
to understand her experiences with interviewing men on this topic. She was able to provide
us with further information about the socio-economic characteristics of the men she talked
with and her recruitment techniques. Fenskes comments were especially helpful during
the recruitment of participants and for the construction of questions for the interviews.
After performing the content analyses and conversing with Fenske, we conducted
semi-structured interviews with 13 college men, aged 18 42. We sampled men from a
large, urban, Midwestern university in the United States. The sample was chosen mainly
for convenience, but also because Fenske informed us that most of the men whom she
interviewed had attended college. Additionally, because the only information on hogging
that we were able to find from Internet searches was from collegestories.com, we felt that
this population was appropriate for our exploratory study. To recruit interviewees, we
placed flyers across campus and sent emails to undergraduate men enrolled in classes
asking them to participate in an interview about mens dating behaviors. Interested men
were screened for the interview by asking them if they were single and willing to discuss
heterosexual dating and sexual behaviors.2 We also informed them that they would be
entered in a lottery for a $50 prize as a thank-you for their participation in the study.
We constructed the interview guide after gathering information from the content
analyses, our interview with Fenske, and our review of the literature on masculinity. The
interviews began with basic questions such as college major, expected date of graduation,
and general dating behaviors, in order to develop rapport with the participants. We hoped
that this first part of the interview would enable interviewees to feel comfortable enough to
discuss their own and their friends sexual practices. We asked permission to tape-record
the interviews and noted the facial expressions and body language of the interviewees. The
interviews were transcribed verbatim.
Analysis of the interviews, as well as the Scene Magazine article and the
collegestories.com accounts, were performed using QSR-NVivo (see Richards 1999).
Statements were coded based on Brannons (1976) four components of masculinity.
To review, Brannon conceptualized masculinity as involving four requirements: (1) antifemininity; (2) status and achievement; (3) inexpressiveness and independence; and (4)
adventurousness and aggression. We argue that these four components encompass the
hegemonic masculinity ideal, but we do acknowledge that interrelationships between the
concepts exist. We explain how these situations overlap throughout the analysis.
18
Results
Before turning to our analysis of masculinity, it is useful to provide some basic
background data. Out of the 13 men we interviewed, nine had heard of hogging. Of these
men, eight were white and one was African American. Two of the men admitted to
participating in the sexual act of hogging (one white and one African American), while the
other seven discussed what they heard about hogging from their friends, from being
present when others participated in the act, or from the media. Not all men referred to the
practice as hogging; when we asked one interviewee if he had heard of a practice where
men preyed on large women, he exclaimed: Its dogs night baby and were all gonna
score! However, the principle behind the practice was the same. In addition, men who had
friends who participated in this behavior admitted that they were involved in the betting,
which was commonly part of the game that led to hogging.
Turning to our analysis, we found that the men we interviewed who were familiar with
the behavior almost unanimously mentioned it as a way to gain status within their male
peer group (mentioned 40 times throughout all interviews), whether through winning the
bet, entertaining others in the group, or by receiving sexual gratification. Hogging as a way
to express independence from women was mentioned twice, and aggressiveness and
adventurousness was mentioned once.
In the content analysis, we found examples of men asserting their masculinity
according to all of Brannons (1976) components except for anti-femininity, but once
again gaining status in the group was the most commonly mentioned form of masculinity
(34 times). Table 1 lists the components of masculinity, the count from each source, and
the frequency for each element of masculinity.
These data revealed that the most common component of masculinity was status and
achievement. All of the men who discussed hogging noted that men were participating in
hogging to gain status in their peer group. This was achieved in two ways: (1) by winning a
bet, or merely participating in a competition with a group of friends to see who could pick
up the fattest or most unattractive woman (a source of entertainment for the whole group);
or (2) by scoring, or receiving sexual gratification from one of these women. It is
important to note that the sexual act was not usually an end in itself; the encounter was
something that was later discussed with the hoggers group of friends. The friends then
derived entertainment from the stories and were also able to conclude if the participant in
the sexual act won the bet. More often than not, men discussed hogging as a combination
of both of these goals. Hogging, then, is a social act involving many different people
performing different roles within the male peer group.
Competition among friends
Men who had heard of or participated in hogging indicated that men made bets during a
night out to see who could pick up the most unattractive or large woman. Thus, even
Table 1. Counts of components of masculinity.
Status and achievement

Inexpressiveness and independence
Adventurousness and aggression
Total
Interviews
Content analysis
Total
40
2
1
43
34
27
21
82
74
29
28
125
19
before the women became physically involved, men were entertaining each other by
setting up the competition. Men whose friends actually participated in hogging often
mentioned that they thought it was disgusting and that they had standards, but they
reportedly watched and were entertained by their friends bets. An interviewee stated:
So one night two of my buddies made a bet and it was either how many girls they could get
with total in one night that were either nasty or fat or which one could do the biggest one, they
had to pick . . . and one kid had, I swear to god this girl weighed like 250 pounds and, um, he
took her home and he won the bet.
Hogging does not have to be about sex, but can be entertaining to the group of men for
other reasons. One man mentioned how a situation on the dance floor facilitated laughter in
the group:
. . . yeah like its pretty funny, me and my buddies will go out and they dont actually try to
pick up the girls but theyll have a guy go and ya know like dance with, ya know like the
ugliest girl on the dance floor and then theyll go back and theyll give him five and that sort
of thing . . .
Additionally, just talking about dancing with an ugly woman apparently amused the
group. The same interviewee noted: youre just sitting at a bar and stuff and like ya know,
lets go hogging and it would be like yeah dude thats funny bullshit. That type of
thing. Another respondent had similar thoughts: Yeah ya know when your friends are
there so you make a bet to try to go talk to the ugliest girl and knowing that its just going
to be for a laugh for you and your friends . . . . Thus, discussing hogging, along with
participating in the act itself, resulted in achieving status within the peer group.
At times bragging rights were not the only winnings associated with hogging. Two men
mentioned money and one man mentioned beer as rewards given to those who picked up
the fattest or most unattractive woman. Even so, the status gained in the group, along with
entertaining other group members, were the most important outcomes of hogging.
Sexual encounters
Many of the men agreed that the desired outcome of hogging was sex. After the
amusement of the bet, the purpose of hogging was, according to interviewees sex, a blow
job or hot kinky sex, or to see who could score that night. A common belief was that
large women were easy targets because they did not meet the conventional standards of
physical attractiveness. One respondent noted, its common knowledge, I think, that most
guys if you asked them, theyd say that maybe the less attractive or the heavier women
were easier to do. Similarly, another interviewee stated:
. . . but [if] they want a quick, you know, quick sex fix, [they] might go up towards your, you
know, heavier set or your uh, most people might consider your more ugly women to satisfy
their sexual needs instead of going after someone that would be more attractive to you because
they know they can get a one-night-stand out of this girl instead of, you know, trying to chase
someone you know might already have a half-dozen suitors . . .
Statements such as these reflect Schurs (1984) conception of the beauty myth.
According to Schur, women who adhere to traditional gender ideals are normal while
others are not. Schur argues that for women becoming an attractive object is a role
obligation (1984, p. 66). If a woman is deemed unattractive or fat, then, she is seen as
deviant. Accordingly, deviant women are viewed as deserving of negative treatment from
others. In fact, Gailey and Prohaska (2006) found that denial of the victim, or the notion
that there was no victim in the encounter because she deserved the treatment, was a
common theme reported by men who participated in hogging. The men believed that these
20
women either welcomed the attention or deserved it because they did not conform to
gender-based appearance norms. Under the assumption that it might be easier to receive
sexual gratification from women who do not fit societys ideal of beauty or weight, men
may participate in hogging.
In most cases, the sexual encounters that occurred as a result of hogging did not remain
a secret. When asked if the encounter was discussed with the group, one respondent stated,
oh yeah, oh yeah you have to compare notes, you have to see who did what, and what did
who, and how often it was done. Another respondent indicated that friends were actually
in the room during the sexual act:
we uh [laughing], this sounds kind of bad, we uh, have you ever heard of a rodeo? Usually on a
night when a bet like that happens we do a rodeo. And we get pictures of it, usually the girl
gets pretty pissed. But its funny, we think its funny.
Rodeos are not unique to this fraternity in the Midwestern United States. Flood (2008)
writes about a similar event in Australia. Floods interviewees reported getting a hotel
room and drawing names. The man whose name was not drawn had to bring back the
heaviest woman he could find. The other men waited and hid. While having sex he tied her
to the bed on her hands and knees. His friends came out of hiding and turned on the lights.
He jumped on her back and tried to restrain her as she attempted to free herself. Floods
interviewees reported other various instances of abuse. For example, they reportedly hit
golf balls between the legs of a drunk and passed-out woman. Because men either
discussed hogging with their friends or, in some cases, allowed their peers to watch the act
as it happened, we can conclude that hogging is a homosocial activity, whereby all male
participants have something to gain.
These descriptions of the rodeo demonstrate that male participation, directly or
vicariously, is a key component to hogging. At times, witnessing a friend leave with a
large or unattractive woman is not enough; comparing notes or watching the sexual
encounter take place is necessary to determine who wins the prize and thus, who gains
status in the group. Once again, the whole process, from the bet, to the sexual encounter, to
the discussion of the event contributed to group bonding. In the case of the rodeo,
hogging, once again, caused laughter and contributed to the entertainment of the
group. Interestingly, the man who reported watching the rodeo, frequently discussed how
he had standards that he would not lower just to have sex or win a bet. However, he still
participated in the process and was amused by the actions of his friends.
The description of the rodeo echoes research on gang rape (Sanday 1992, OSullivan
1998). The rodeo is similar to Sandays description of the pulling train, a sexual
encounter involving men (usually fraternity members or athletes) lining up as if they were
train cars in order to have sex with an intoxicated women (Sanday 1992). During a gang
rape, men celebrate their masculinity by sharing the victim of their assault (OSullivan
1998). Men who are present and do not participate are at risk of ridicule by their peers,
because real men will not say no to sex. Although the rodeo was not described to us as
non-consensual sex, when alcohol is purposely used to cause intoxication of the women, a
rodeo is essentially an organized gang rape.
Inexpressiveness and independence

Hogging as a means of showing little emotion or attachment towards women was
discovered only once in the interviews, but was mentioned frequently among hoggers in
the material used for the content analysis (see Table 1). This component of masculinity
21
was evident when men tried to maintain emotional distance from the women they
proclaimed to be hogs. One man interviewed by Scene Magazine discussed a friend who,
after having sex with overweight women, would literally boot em out with his boot
(p. 15). Fenske (2003) also wrote about a different mans views on hogging: Its a hookup
. . . Never a girlfriend. Never wife material. If its a fat bitch, I dont want to see her
afterward . . . . Hogging involves a detachment from, or an objectification of, women.
Women are seen as objects from which some need or gratification is gained. Another
account from Scene Magazine reflects this mentality:
Scott3 tells a story of a friend who slept with a hog. Scott called the next day to taunt him.
You didnt cuddle with her in the morning, did you?
He repeats his friends answer with glee: No, I stepped over her fat ass and left. (Fenske
2003, p. 16)
Once again, emotional distance was an important element. However, the distance may be
an exaggeration or another way to get a laugh out of the friend to whom this hogger was
telling the story. This brings up another possibility: did the conditions under which the
men who were interviewed in the Scene article produce a homosocial situation in which
they were trying to gain acceptance? As mentioned earlier, these men were interviewed in
bars, mostly with other men present. These conditions alone may have induced situations
where masculinity was achieved and affirmed. We discuss this possibility in more detail
below.
Men who were turned down by women they deemed unattractive often made excuses
to mask their insecurities about being rejected. In a sense, they were proclaiming their
emotional distance or lack of care for women whom they earlier were trying to pick up. For
instance, Fenske (2003) wrote: Mark sheds no tears for the one who got away. I think she
might have been strung out on crack anyway (p. 16). Inexpressiveness and independence
was also evident when men told their friends that they were hogging to hide their attraction
to large women. This is also an aspect of status; these men do not want to be made fun of
by their peers because they are attracted to women who do not conform to normative
standards of beauty. Fenske (2003) noted:
Its hard to attribute all hogging to braggadocio and the fine art of BS. Indeed, even some guys
whove hogged insist its no more of a way to justify drunken actions the morning after, take
a big girl home, and the next day, you say you went hogging . . . its not like its the plan. Its
the backup plan. (p. 17)
In some instances, men may be interested in women who do not meet the beauty ideal
and use hogging as an excuse to avoid ridicule from their friends. Research on fat admirers
(Goode and Preissler 1990, Goode 2008) indicated that most FAs were not overweight
themselves, and some of the men could not function sexually unless they were with a large
woman. However, although some FAs were open about their attraction to fat women
(overt FAs), others were closeted FAs, who went to FA parties in order to find a sexual
partner. Closeted FAs would not take a fat woman out in public and would often argue that
fat women were easier than women who met conventional beauty standards. Again, it is
difficult to separate out the hoggers from the closeted FAs.
Adventurousness and aggression

The content analysis data revealed 22 examples of adventurousness and aggression (see
Table 1). First, these narratives involved men discussing how they forced themselves on
women after drinking alcohol. The most obvious example of aggression towards women
22
was the rodeo described earlier, which does not sound unlike gang rape. In another story
on collegestories.com, one man explained his sexual encounter with a large woman: One
night after I broke up with my girlfriend I was doing some serious drinking, and the
Amazon (as all my frat brothers called her) just happened to stop by the house. In these
instances, alcohol is a means to an end and an excuse for their actions the next day.
Second, the language used by the men was overtly aggressive when they discussed
their sexual conquests. One Scene magazine interviewee stated: I just talk to them like
theyre complete disgusting pigs (p. 16). When discussing one of the women he had a
sexual encounter with, another man recalled: She was a porker, and I violated her in every
way (p. 16). These statements also echo ideas of emotional distance, violence, and
objectification. Gimlin (2008) also found that men continuously used language to distance
themselves from the women they had sexual encounters with. She interviewed women
who are members of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and
reported that many of the women had been sexually active and involved with men
romantically, but their partners often criticized their bodies and showed them little respect.
Conclusion
The goal of this article was to explore how men use hogging as a strategy to achieve
masculinity. The results of both our interviews and content analysis show that hogging is a
means towards this end. Our analysis revealed that the main reason men claim that they
hog was to achieve status among their peer groups by either participating in or winning a
competition, or engaging in sexual behavior. In most cases, hogging was a means by which
men provide some sort of entertainment for their peers, thereby gaining status in their peer
groups. Men also accomplished masculinity by proclaiming their emotional distance from
their female victims. Their comments indicated that they felt that these women deserved
mistreatment and showed little remorse for their actions. Additionally, even the men who
did not participate in hogging per se were usually part of the process of participating in
bets or being entertained by their friends who were hogging. The spectators encouraged
the hoggers, which in turn reinforced their behavior. Our results showed that hogging was
related to other components of masculinity, but status and achievement and
inexpressiveness and independence stood out as the most common expressions of
hegemonic masculinity displayed through hogging. Hogging, then, is a means by which
men prove to other men in social settings that they are, in fact, real men.
In addition, our study adds to the research on hegemonic masculinity not only by
describing a behavior that has been largely ignored by scholars (for an exception see
Gailey and Prohaska 2006, 2007), but also by showing that men are willing to compromise
certain normative beliefs in order to assert that they are real men. In Cansecos words, they
will take one for the team (Dowd 2005, p. 99) either through directly approaching
women, having sexual experiences, or by supporting their friends involvement with fat
women. Most of the men we interviewed agreed that women who were fat were
undesirable to them; however, almost all of them had participated in the process of
hogging by either encouraging their friends to pursue a woman who did not fit
conventional beauty norms or by pursuing the women themselves. Thus, it appears that for
these men, the social pressures of being a real man are more important than ones own or
societys standards, given that hoggers reportedly are not usually attracted to women
they deem fat or unattractive. Our data indicate that men participate in hogging in the same
way that men participate in other homosocial activities (i.e. sports, fraternities and so on).
The locker-room talk, or male camaraderie, that occurs after hogging is key; although
23
hogging is not primarily about the women, women are essential in the process of proving
manhood. Men who participate in hogging gain status among their peers by exploiting and
humiliating women, i.e. group-sanctioned misogyny. In some cases, men will go to
extreme means in order to prove their manhood, such as using alcohol to reduce womens
resistance to sex. In these instances, hogging is essentially rape. In the case of the rodeo,
the men involved are consciously planning an assault of an intoxicated woman. Hogging is
a social act involving various people performing different roles within the peer group.
There are some limitations to our study. First, because we used a convenience sample
of men from a US Midwestern university, our results are not generalizable to the larger
population. The sample is mainly white, and researchers have indicated that different
racial and ethnic groups have different norms for attractiveness, even though all racial and
ethnic groups are influenced by the dominant culture (e.g. Thompson 1992). For example,
women who may be labeled fat by whites are not as stigmatized within the Black and
Latina communities. As a result, future research should examine if hogging has racial
and/or ethnic variations. Further research should use a larger, more diverse sample of men,
preferably admitted hoggers, to improve the generalizability of the results.4
Second, the men whom we interviewed may have been doing gender (West and
Zimmerman 1987) themselves. One possible example of this is the collegestories.com
website. Many of these men may have been exaggerating, bragging, or trying to bolster
their images by posting their sexual exploits. However, we believe that because of the
anonymity of the website, the men would not be likely to gain status with their peers. More
likely, however, is the possibility of the men doing gender in interviews. Because both
interviewers were women, the participants may not have shared all of the information they
knew about hogging because they did not want to offend us (equally they may have been
playing up for the interviewers). Gailey and Prohaska (2006) reported that one interviewee
actually contacted the first author following the interview to ask her on a date. When she
declined, he became hostile and stated that she and Prohaska were lucky they were in good
shape or men would not be talking to them about hogging (p. 47). Having male interviewers
in future research might help alleviate this dilemma. However, male interviewers may also
be problematic because men may brag or exaggerate their experiences to achieve
masculinity; in essence, the interview session could then become a homosocial interaction.
Third, our data, and the complexity of the concept of masculinity itself, make it
difficult to separate out those who were hogging for the purpose of competition or
entertaining friends from those who were seeking to achieve sexual pleasure. The men
interviewed in Scene Magazine believed that hogging was used as an excuse the morning
after a man hooked up with a fat woman. Because another important component of
hegemonic masculinity is acceptance of conventional beauty norms, men may lie about
their reasons for engaging in sexual behaviors with fat women and say that they went
hogging, even if they were attracted to the woman. Additionally, some men may only
participate in the sexual encounters because they believe it is an easy means to obtain sex,
and it does not make a difference to them if anybody knows about it. Because we only had
two participants who admitted participating in the sexual encounters, future researchers
must develop methods for separating out those who hog solely for entertainment, those
who hog to have sex regardless of who knows about it, and those who say that they hog to
avoid ridicule from their peers.
Fourth, entering the interviewees in a raffle for $50 as a thank-you for participation
may bias the results. However, the men we interviewed indicated that they did not agree to
the interviews because of the raffle, but instead because they were excited that someone
was interested in interviewing men about relationships. Also, we did not use the term
24
hogging in the interviews. We asked the men if they had ever heard of a practice where
men seek women they deem unattractive or large for sport or because they are desperate.
Despite the limitations mentioned, the present study contributes to the research on
masculinity and sexuality in several ways. First, it describes a behavior that has been
largely overlooked by scholars and, to an extent, the popular media. Second, our research
adds to the existing body of research on mens experiences with sex and its relationship to
gaining status in ones peer group. Finally, this study demonstrates how the social
pressures of being a man can be more important than ones personal preferences and
morality. Hogging is a homosocial act, the main goal being the entertainment of the peer
group by means of humiliating a woman. If the objectification of women has become so
normative that it was not even considered in the process of hogging, then understanding
hogging in terms of hegemonic masculinity and sexuality could lead to a better
understanding of why men rape. Indeed, the act of rape has been related to masculine
ideology quite often in past research (for a review, see Murnen et al. 2002), and in our
study, the account of the rodeo described by one interviewee paralleled research on gang
rape (OSullivan 1998). Hogging is a behavior that occurs at parties or bars and, according
to definition, almost always involves drinking, but we do not know how often hogging is
about dancing, kissing, or getting a phone number versus how often it is about an
organized sexual assault. The fine line between rape and hogging should be probed further
in future research. It is also necessary to understand the viewpoints of women who believe
they have been victims of hogging. Yet this could be complicated; women may not be
aware that they were victimized or may be embarrassed to admit it if they were, and further
the women involved may not know that they were ridiculed because it often happens after
the fact and is only discussed in the presence of other men. Although we do not yet know
how pervasive the phenomenon of hogging is, we do know that it is a behavior that reflects
the culturally accepted treatment of women as second-class citizens, especially women
who do not meet conventional beauty standards.
Notes
1. We do not use the term fat to be derogatory; it is the term used by proponents of the fat
acceptance movement who are working to take away the negative connotations associated with
the word fat and end discrimination against people of size.
2. To our knowledge, hogging is a heterosexual behavior.
3. All names in the Scene article were changed to ensure the confidentiality of those interviewed.
4. In fact, we did attempt to contact the men from Fenskes interviews, but after the negative
reaction to the Scene article, the men declined to talk to anyone else.
Notes on contributors
Ariane Prohaska is currently working as an Assistant Professor of Sociology in the Department of
Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama. Her research and teaching interests include sociology
of gender, work and family, social inequality and research methods.
Jeannine A. Gailey is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Texas Christian University. Her research
and teaching interests include sociology of the body, gender, deviance and organizational wrongdoing.
References
Brannon, R., 1976. The male sex role and what its done for us lately. In: R. Brannon and D. David,
eds. The forty-nine percent majority. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1 45.
Connell, R.W., 1987. Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25
Connell, R.W. and Messerschmidt, J., 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender
and society, 19, 829 859.
Dowd, M., 2005. Wheres the road beef? The New York Times, 20 February 99.
Eagles, B., director, 2005. Big middle. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Television program. CBS
Productions.
Fenske, S., 2003. Big game hunters: theyre men who chase chubbies for sport and pleasure. They
call it hogging. Scene Magazine, 1 7 October, pp. 15 18.
Flood, M., 2008. Men, sex, and homosociality: how bonds between men shape their sexual relations
with women. Men and masculinities, 10 (3), 339 359.
Gailey, J.A. and Prohaska, A., 2006. Knocking off a fat girl: an exploration of hogging, male
sexuality and neutralizations. Deviant behavior, 27, 31 49.
Gailey, J.A. and Prohaska, A., 2007. Bad boys in bars: hogging and humiliation. In: M.D. McShane
and F.P. Williams, III, eds. Youth violence and delinquency interventions: monsters and myths.
Vol. 1, Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., 81 91.
Gimlin, D., 2008. NAAFA: attempting to neutralize the stigma of the hugely obese body. In: E.
Goode and D.A. Vail, eds. Extreme deviance. Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge Press, 72 79.
Goode, E., 2008. The fat admirer. In: E. Goode and D.A. Vail, eds. Extreme deviance. Los Angeles,
CA: Pine Forge Press, 80 90.
Goode, E. and Preissler, J., 1990. The fat admirer. In: C.D. Bryant, ed. Deviant behavior: readings in
the sociology of norm violations. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Company, 325 347.
Jensen, R., 2007. Getting off: pornography and the end of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: South End
Press.
Johnson, A.G., 1997. The gender knot: unraveling our patriarchal legacy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Kaufmann, M., 1994. Men, feminism, and mens contradictory experiences of power. In: H. Brod
and M. Kaufman, eds. Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
142 164.
Kimmel, M.S., 1998. Clarence, William, Iron Mike, Tailhook, Senator Packwood, The Spur Posse,
Magic . . . and us. In: M.E. Odem and J. Clay-Warner, eds. Confronting rape and sexual assault.
Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 263 276.
Kimmel, M.S., 2009. Masculinity as homophobia: fear, shame, and silence in the construction of
gender identity. In: A.L. Ferber and K. Holcomb, T. Wentling, eds. Sex, gender, and sexuality:
the new basics. New York: Oxford University Press, 58 70.
Malamuth, N.M., et al., 1991. Characteristics of aggressors against women: testing a model using
national college students. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 59, 670681.
Martin, P.Y. and Hummer, R., 1989. Fraternities and rape on campus. Gender and society, 3,
457 473.
Messner, M.A., 1992. Power at play: sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Murnen, S.K., Wright, C., and Kaluzny, G., 2002. If boys will be boys, then girls will be victims? A
meta-analytic review of research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex roles,
46, 359 375.
OSullivan, C., 1998. Ladykillers: similarities and divergences of masculinity in gang rape and wife
battery. In: L. Bowker, ed. Masculinities and violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 82 110.
Richards, L., 1999. Using NVivo in qualitative research (2/e). Bundoora, Australia: Qualitative
Solutions and Research Pty Ltd.
Sabo, D., 1994. The myth of the sexual athlete. In: M.A. Messner and D. Sabo, eds. Sex, violence,
and power in sports. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press, 36 41.
Sanday, P.R., 1992. Fraternity gang rape. New York: New York University Press.
Schur, E.M., 1984. Labeling women deviant: gender, stigma, and social control. New York: Random
House.
Sykes, G.M. and Matza, D., 1957. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. American
sociological review, 22, 667 670.
Thompson, B.W., 1992. A way outa no way: eating problems among African-American, Latina, and
White women. Gender and society, 6 (4), 546 561.
West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and society, 1 (2), 125151.

Achieving Masculinity

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Achieving Masculinity

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [187.156.37.

Journal of Gender Studies