Introduction
In various sporting venues, the construction of masculinity has followed the imagery of athleticism like a cultural ally for centuries (Guttmann, 1978; Kimmel, 1996; Messner, 1992; Mosse, 1996). By mimicking the physically demanding practices performed by older men and idols, young men have been said to internalize normative masculine values through sport. In addition, devoting time to strengthening the body, building muscles, and projecting an attitude of domination has historically been related to violence, warfare, and the building of nations, thus implying an interest in cultivating what Mosse (1996) describes as ‘the masculine stereotype .’ The cultural history of contemporary gym and fitness culture is no exception to this kind of cultural narrative (Budd, 1997; Denham, 2008). Klein (1993), for example, who conducted one of the first bodybuilding studies in the early 1990s, describes bodybuilding as a predominantly masculine preoccupation. He also describes homophobia , hyper-masculinity, and the use of performance- and image-enhancing drugs (PIEDs) as institutionalized phenomena in this physical culture (see also Locks & Richardson, 2012; McGrath & Chananie-Hill, 2009).
The relationship between PIED use and gender is complex. The usual position, in the literature, has been that the main trigger for using PIEDs is men’s desire to gain muscle mass and construct a masculine identity (Andreasson & Johansson, 2014; McCreary & Sasse, 2000; Parkinson & Evans, 2006; Sas-Nowosielski, 2006). Looking at previous research on gender and doping, one can see that PIED use has also been understood as an outcome of trying to establish a competitive edge within a sport, as risk-taking, as an integral feature of hegemonic masculinity, and, thus, as an expression of some kind of societal hyper-conformity in relation to constructing masculinity (Andreasson, 2013; Monaghan, 2012; Thualagant , 2012). At the same time, however, PIED use has also been analyzed in terms of deviance and marginalization . It has been connected to mixed abuse , crime, violence, and the margins of society (DuRant, Escobedo, & Heath, 1995; Lentillon-Kaestner & Ohl, 2011).
Using both interview material and online communications, in this chapter we analyze the self-portrayals and gender constructions of male fitness dopers. The aim is to present a dissection and analysis of how fitness doping can be understood in relation to the notion and doing of masculinity. An additional underlying aim is to challenge the notion of masculinity that has traditionally been attached to how fitness doping is understood. Narratives from female users are obviously also of great importance if we wish to challenge popular notions of gender and fitness doping, and this line of inquiry will be developed in Chapter 9.
The chapter is structured as follows. Initially, we present some key theoretical concepts used in the analysis. Next, we present the results, beginning with a section containing some narratives of fitness dopers who can be understood as rather traditional in relation to gender norms and politics. This section thus reveals a historical continuity in the presentation and construction of a muscular masculinity, showing how ‘the masculine stereotype ’ (Mosse, 1996) is reproduced in contemporary fitness culture and through drug use practices. This is followed by two sections in which we use our interview material to investigate different gender configurations. The next section contains online excerpts, and we discuss how the doped hyper-masculine body is negotiated in relation to other masculine positions, for example, that of the male breadwinner and fatherhood . Finally, in the concluding section, we provide a brief and more theoretical summary of the chapter’s main contribution to the discussion on doping and masculinity.
Masculinities and the Gender Politics of Fitness Doping
If we are to understand fitness doping in relation to gender, we must dissect the phenomenon in relation to hegemonic masculinity (Connell , 1987, 1995). The concept of hegemonic masculinity was introduced by Connell to describe the hierarchical relations between different masculinities, meaning that there are different ways of enacting manhood and learning how to become a man and that some ways of ‘doing’ masculinity are dominant while others are marginalized or subordinated. In 1995, Connell defined hegemonic masculinity as a ‘configuration of gender practice that embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of legitimacy of patriarchy ’ (p. 77; see also Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Hence, this concept indicates possible changes in and transformations of gender. Different cultures and periods in history have constructed gender differently, and there is no static pattern of masculinity that can be found everywhere (Connell , 1987).
Hegemony is tightly connected to patriarchy ; it is understood as a strategy used to legitimize a particular gender order , as well as a specific constellation of cultural ideals, institutional powers, and politics (Andreasson & Johansson, 2013). The hegemonic position is always contestable, however, and should be viewed as a dynamic concept that suggests possible transformations of gender relations and power structures. Equally important, however, is that we always carefully consider how power hierarchies and power relations are constituted and defined in different contexts and cultures. In contemporary Western societies, not least in a Swedish context, hegemonic masculinity means, for example, being involved, communicative, gender equal, and well-trained, but not too huge or too muscular. As we can see, there is a dynamic interplay between the dominant ideals of masculinity found in society at large and the more specific and subcultural ideals nurtured in certain sociocultural contexts. Bodybuilding culture and fitness doping masculinities may, for example, foster a marginal masculinity involving anti-social activities. Another way of looking at this could be to use the concept of hyper-masculinity, which can be described as a strong exaggeration of certain stereotypical qualities with male connotations, such the emphasis on muscular strength, aggression, sexual virility, and the subordination of women (DeReef, 2006; Mosher & Sirkin, 1984). At the same time, within the subculture, these identities can in fact be combined with a desire to fit into the dominant masculinity (McDowell, Rootham, & Hardgrove, 2014). Furthermore, as suggested by Dahl-Michelsen and Nyheim Solbrække (2014), marginalized masculinities are not only those that do not meet the hegemonic standards, but also those who do not operate in accordance with or make sense of their identities through hegemonic gender norms (see also Anderson , 2009; Cheng, 1999).
In Inclusive Masculinities, Anderson (2009) develops a different and rather challenging view of hegemonic masculinity. Anderson suggests that through different social and structural processes—for example, the decline of homophobia —there has been a widening of the range of masculine identities that can be performed and embodied. Although Anderson is aware that many contexts still define masculinity in opposition to femininity and homosexuality, he is quite hopeful when describing a scenario in which masculinity has gradually become more inclusive and accepting. Consequently, inclusive masculinity theory describes the emergence of an archetype of masculinity that undermines the principles of orthodox (read: hegemonic) masculine values, yet one that is also esteemed among male peers (Anderson, 2009; Christensen & Jensen, 2014). Studying gym and fitness culture, however, it is quite obvious that hegemonic masculinity, and the power hierarchies and relations deriving from this structural condition, plays a central role in constituting the identities, relations and subjectivities in this culture. Although we find the theory of inclusive masculinity inspiring, and hopeful, we use these ideas in close connection with feminist theories and different ideas concerning how gender is structured and shaped in contemporary fitness culture.
Analytically, we focus on the dynamic and complex interplay between hyper-masculinity and marginalization , on the one hand, and hegemonic masculinity, on the other . We analyze how the drug use practice is understood and negotiated in relation to different notions of masculinity and how idealized masculinities, when re-contextualized, are seen as marginal or potentially inclusive, and vice versa.
Becoming a Man and the Risk of Losing It All
Well I guess there were some mean kids in my class who went on about me being a bit scrawny, or not very good, but I’ve never felt like I was totally bullied. (…) I think, what got me started was really, well more an inner ambition or feeling. I thought, I train hard dammit, but I’m never gonna be very good or successful in football, handball, or tennis, or whatever. But here, with the weights, I felt that this is a thing that I could do. I could be the master of my own destiny, so to speak. Back then you didn’t know if you had a talent for it, but you kept on training. (Joseph)
Without doping I feel more worn out, torn, and ill. With doping, I feel refreshed and rested. Anyway, there are always gonna be people who think they got it all figured out, right? They usually say things like, ‘yeah but it’s dangerous’ and ‘you’ll be tempted to use it all the time.’ And maybe there are these weak individuals who can’t complete a course of treatment and don’t know their limits and when to stay clean. But me, when I do treatment courses, I always follow a pattern and a structure. I can always take a break, when I’ve been on for a certain number of weeks and see that I’ve had enough for now. If I go over this limit, it is risky, and I might destroy myself. (Robert)
The key concepts in Robert’s story are rationality and dominance. His desire to become stronger and develop a muscular body ‘that blows everyone away and shocks ’em’ made him carefully consider what would be needed to achieve his goals. He entered into the world of steroids and acquired the necessary knowledge to manage and optimize the different courses of treatment in a ‘safe’ and controlled manner. He distances himself from other users and the non-initiated, presenting himself as rational and in control. Consequently, he is constructing something of a paradigmatic masculine narrative of a successful male career and rationality (Tasker, 1993). He presents a story (a paradigmatic narrative) about a rationalized lifestyle through which he has managed to gradually transform his body from that of a skinny young boy into that of a masculine, competitive, and grown-up man (Hammarén & Johansson, 2014; Messner, 1992; Pronger, 1990).
This can be contrasted with, for example, the experiences of another informant called William. Just like Robert, William started using PIEDs to measure up in comparison with other young men. He started using PIEDs in his twenties when he decided to compete in bodybuilding. At that time, he was quite thin, and he came to realize that he had to engage in drug use practices if he was to assert himself in relation to other bodybuilders on a bodybuilding stage. William’s story is somewhat different with regard to the consequences of his drug use practices. For instance, at one point one of the authors (Jesper) sat down with William in the locker room after a joint training session/observation. William was on his way to the showers, when he suddenly stopped in front of Jesper and asked: ‘hey, have you seen these.’ He pointed at two small scars on each side of his chest, adjacent to his nipples. ‘They come from an operation for bitch tits, you know’ (gynecomastia ). After showering, William brought up the topic again, explaining that at first, he thought the drugs were necessary if he wanted to get any ‘real results.’ He had never thought much about the possible side effects and risk of this practice. And certainly, he never wanted to develop what he described as ‘women’s breasts.’ Consequently, the initial motives for his drug use resulted in feelings of shame, low self-esteem, and being less of a man—quite the opposite of what he had hoped to achieve (Klein, 1993; Sparkes, Batey, & Owen, 2012). Naturally, the concept of ‘bitch tits’ and the discussion William pursued could also be situated within a misogynistic discourse and a cultural landscape of oppressive, orthodox masculinity (Anderson , 2009; Saltman, 1998).
I have this painful memory: my girlfriend is crying and hammering on my chest saying ‘I want my old Lukas back.’ She saw how I had changed. I was not violent toward her, but she couldn’t really reach me, or affect me. So, it has probably been difficult for her. /…/ I went behind her back there, so she took it as a huge betrayal. I can understand that. (Lukas)
Turning his focus to training and building up a solid body, Lukas allowed his girlfriend to become less important. She had seen him grow and had been worried for some time about him starting to use PIEDs to accelerate his physical transformation. Lukas was aware that his girlfriend was worried and tried to conceal his involvement. When she found out, she felt horribly betrayed. This narrative also fits rather neatly into the existing literature on some of the carefully investigated negative effects of steroids and drug use, suggesting that PIED use may cause relationship problems and potentially violent behavior (Bach, 2005; Denham, 2008; DuRant et al., 1995). Although Lukas claims that his experiences with doping never made him violent, he obviously recognizes that the practice changed him and not only in desirable bodily directions (Monaghan, 2001).
And then she cheats on me, with my buddy, I mean I was with her for several years. And really, I did anything for her. But then everything just turned black and kind of exploded in my head. So I really beat my friend up bad, and even her, unfortunately. (Adrian)
Now, looking at the situation at a distance, Adrian can see that his girlfriend’s unfaithfulness was partly related to him having become something of an unpleasant, controlling person. There is some degree of reflexivity in Adrian’s narrative, as there are the other narratives presented above. Still, it is apparent that this kind of domineering masculinity, constructed with the help of PIEDs, feels a constant urge to defend and assert itself—sometimes even with fists, as described above—and to rationalize its own behavior. Consequently, these ways of performing masculinity do not seem to bring about much of a change in the gender politics associated with fitness doping. The fact that some men are willing to use illegal means to achieve the right masculine bodily appearance has been shown in several studies on the prevalence of doping (Andreasson & Johansson, 2017; Christiansen, 2009, 2018; Thualagant , 2012). Furthermore, inherent in the narratives are also the recurring side effects . Here, the desire to continuously develop and become more of a man is countered by the potential risks of consequences that are in direct opposition to those intended, consequences such as loss of control over one’s own actions and body in the context of relationships (cf. Denham, 2008). In this sense, there is a delicate balance between the embodiment of normative gender configurations and the inherent threat of ‘losing it all’ in the pursuit of manhood through drug use practices.
Negotiating Fitness Doping and the Bodybuilding Body
I’m a regular guy who likes to compete in bodybuilding. I think I like doing it and want to continue, but it’s not my whole identity, even though I’m immersed in it. But I’ve always been afraid that people will think that I’m violent or something. ‘Cause you know that’s what the papers say; people think you’re totally whacked out, or look down on others. That you only judge people based on how their body looks. Nah, that’s not me. This is something I like to do, and other people can do what they like to do. So I’ve always been a little afraid that people tend to maybe judge bodybuilders that way. (Lars)
Right now, I’m in pretty decent shape. I am 1.9 meters tall and weigh around 135 kilos, so I guess it’s pretty obvious that I’ve been using. But I can sit down and have a conversation, and show that I’m pretty normal anyway, you know. You sit down and eat a hamburger and pizza and stuff like that. You’re not extreme or fanatical when it comes to diet. You can have a beer and still talk about alcohol problems in general, you can talk about the situation in Afghanistan, about gender issues, and things like that. (Ted)
Aiming to counter the perceived popular wisdom of other people’s (imagined) thoughts about PIED users, Ted tries to present himself not only as a dedicated gym-goer, but also as an intellectual young man. He finds it challenging to control how others perceive him, and when he meets new people, he feels the need to talk about his university studies and show that he is much more than a solid body (cf. Bourdieu, 1984). In some ways, this intellectual, respectable, and reflexive self-portrayal becomes a strategy to counter the stereotypical perception of the bodybuilder as having ‘big muscles, no brain,’ as Ted puts it (see also Skeggs, 1997).
Like now after my last competition, my coach told me I should probably gain some weight, you know, bulk up during the off-season. But I feel that if I’m going to weigh like 125 kilos, I’m going to be really obese. People won’t see any difference between me, a bodybuilder, and your average overweight truck driver, and I don’t like that. And it’s the same before a competition, like on the load-up day. I start at midnight: I get up and eat two burgers with fries and everything. And then I feel like, what the hell am I doing, sitting here wolfing down hamburgers! Because it’s a little weird—here I’ve been eating so healthily for months and suddenly I’m supposed to totally pig out, just to stick to the plan. (Nicholas)
It was probably the esthetics and the more symmetrical bodybuilders that inspired me. You know, in beautiful poses and where symmetry and muscle merge into one. It’s graceful. /…/ I’m more for the symmetry aspects, the charisma. Like Bob Paris—he was very symmetrical back in the day. But I guess it was also his physical hardness, which is crucial. Plus there was a bit…not just manufactured in the chemical way, but also an incredible discipline. I mean of course it’s there, the drugs—otherwise it would never have come so far. You know, like some people think, ‘yeah, yeah but you’re just on the steroids.’ Well, ok, but it’s still a lifestyle. (Andrew)
One way of approaching both Andrew’s and Nicholas’s narratives would be to read them as a normative masculine construction in which the narrator envisions a bodybuilding icon and then based on this icon motivates himself to construct a similar muscular body. These narratives could thus be read as expressions of a man’s determination to follow a strictly defined routine to reach the ultimate goal, which is an ideal that coincides with hegemonic masculinity (Connell , 1987, 1995). At the same time, there is also a reflexivity in the excerpts, in which masculinity is constructed in a more sensual and aesthetic manner to represent beauty, charisma, and grace. At stake, here is not only what Andrew wants to create for himself, but also what he finds attractive and impressive.
The fascination with Bob Paris’s physicality and the gazing can be read as a manifestation of how the heterosexual gender power order has come to be called into question. It could be understood as an example of what Nixon (1996) describes as a process of cultural transformation in which the bodies of men have come to be sensualized (cf. Rohlinger, 2002). Following this logic, the intense visual monitoring of one’s own and other male bodies, the muscles, the shape, and the symmetry, could be understood to some extent as an expression of curiosity about ‘the Other ’ (see also Chapter 5). It could be seen as resulting from increased awareness of the fact that heterosexual men can act in ways once associated with homosexuality, with this now posing less of a threat to their public identity as heterosexuals (Anderson , 2002; 2009). Furthermore, this way of gazing and (symbolically) sensualizing bodies has traditionally been ‘reserved for’ the bodies of women, and hence, this way of looking at the body could be understood as representing a convergence of male and female physicality (Markula, 2001; Sassatelli , 2010).
Inclusive Masculinities and the Symbolism of Homoerotic Practices
You can stand next to the best-looking girl in the world. She could stand there naked even, and you wouldn’t see. You don’t care either. Like when I’m there it’s to be painted, I mean getting your own body tanned or helping someone to put their color on. So it’s a different world somehow. (…) If you look at something, it’s more like, ‘Damn, she’s in good shape!’ (laughs) It’s more like that. (Ian)
Ian defines himself as a heterosexual and is currently engaged to a body fitness competitor. During the bodybuilding and fitness competition from which this narrative derives, however, the object of his desire and the gender of muscles seem to be more fluid and situational in his mind. For example, he describes a situation backstage when he stood in front of a completely naked female fitness competitor engaged in applying bronzers (brown cream) to her inner thighs. His reaction to this ‘scenery’ was, as he described it, focused on her muscle development. His admiration was not sexual, but rather concentrated on evaluating her level of fitness and symmetry, thus relegating gender (sex) to the background. Naturally, the situation should be understood contextually and is to some extent limited to the bodybuilding scene, given that Ian is engaged to a female fitness competitor. Nevertheless, applying oil and tanning paint close to another person’s intimate body parts backstage of the bodybuilding scene, regardless of sex or sexual preferences, could be seen as an act in which the doped, lean, and supple body becomes genderless. It is flesh, beauty, and accomplishment all at once, but not necessarily connected to a specific sex or gender.
But there’s this in-betweenness, too, when you talk about it or think about it. It’s something not male, but not female either. Or maybe it’s gay, actually. Of course, you could see it as being quasi-gay. (Alexander)
I think it’s a nice feeling. I get so fucking lit. I get turned on when I see people like Joey, when he works out. I really get turned on, well maybe not sexually, but get turned on, on a psychological level. I see him. It is when I see that demon, that’s when I’m turned on. (Les)
In Les’s narrative, above, the source of his admiration and excitement—the ‘turn-on’—is the complete devotion his friends manifest when they work out. But this is also a story about how one man looks at another man in a sensual manner, finding him attractive and beautiful. Although the turn-on is explicitly said to be non-sexual, this way of approaching another man’s body could certainly be said to challenge the kind of orthodox masculinity that otherwise typically surrounds gay athleticism and supports hegemonic constructions (Anderson , 2002; Pronger, 1990; Wolf Wendel, Toma, & Morphew, 2001). Both Alexander and Les are in some respect asking themselves whether, given their interest in other men’s bodies, they are gay. They do not seem to feel obligated to align their social identity with heterosexuality, nor do they seem to think it is important to avoid being thought of as homosexual men. In this sense, the narratives clearly question the compulsory heterosexuality and homophobia that have served as an ordering principle in many Western cultures, particularly in sports (Anderson , 2009; Klein, 1993; Plummer, 1999). Therefore, on a symbolic level, there is a highly inclusive and also subversive potential in the perspective (read: masculinity) put forward here, in which muscle-building becomes a kind of a motor for changed perspectives in the realm of sexual politics and calling traditional categories of sexual orientation into question (Coad , 2008).
Online Fitness Doping, Career, and Family Life
I have experienced really good effects. I’ve become extremely focused—more of a man. At work, yeah, when I talk, people shut up and show respect. Since my goal in life is to dope myself as much as possible, to achieve as much as possible, I have always seen my job as a parenthetical detail—something you just have to do until you arrive at your real job, the gym. So I’ve never really invested in pursuing a career. But still, I speak more in front of people. I have become more sincere and upright. I give and take more (…) not to mention the insane sex drive you get on testo—makes women think you’re from Planet Porno . (HeMan)
Think about this: Wouldn’t it be fun to conduct this experiment. Joe works as an officer and his brother works at Lindex [Swedish women’s lingerie chain], selling women’s underwear. You sneak some estrogen into Joe’s coffee and give his brother testo instead. You do this for a couple of months. Talk about different results! What do you think would happen? Yeah, I think I know. In this way we would play out the extremes against each other, to see what really happens, within a particular profession. Testo could be EXTREMELY beneficial.
Ha, ha, yeah, and it would be fun to see the outcome. The total ruin! From officer to army bitch! Ha, ha. I guess the other military boys wouldn’t have to pay for porn mags any more. And the brother would probably be reported for sexual harassment at Lindex, found by the surveillance monitors jerking off, while watching the women trying on lingerie in the changing rooms. (TheProfessor)
I actually think it’s hard to get anywhere in your career, if we’re talking about more qualified jobs. If I were an employer I would probably hesitate before employing a guy who was too big and showed obvious side effects of steroids. Imagine that nice office, and a guy who just wears GASP clothing, because regular shirts don’t fit. Hmmm. After all, my experience from different workplaces is that if you look like you’re doped, people will say a lot of shitty things behind your back. (TheEmployer)
The thing is that I didn’t seek out family life. I thought that I would be with my girlfriend for life, that we would get our education and live the life of a child-free couple. Then came the news that she was pregnant, and she wanted to keep it, and my whole world collapsed. I played along for a year. After two years I began to question my life situation on a daily basis. Then I left my family after 2.5 years. Now, I want to start a new life. The plan is to move, get a degree, focus on my training and start a course of steroids. Basically, I want to do what I want, before I start a family (I was 22 when I became a father). Am I selfish leaving my child? Yes, but what about mothers who give birth to a child against the father’s will and think it’s going to work? (DaddyNo)
The above posting attracted a great deal of interest. DaddyNo did not, however, get as many comments about custody issues as he had initially hoped. Instead, several members condemned DaddysNo’s line of reasoning. To be clear, discussions on Flashback are generally encouraging when it comes to PIED use, but this is obviously not the case when such use is situated like it is in DaddyNo’s story. Instead, DaddyNo was strongly advised not to use drugs. Several community members become downright irritated, calling him ‘immature’ and ‘self-centered’—‘an idiot with no character.’ He is instructed to rethink his priorities in life and to take responsibility for his actions. One community member summarizes the advice contained in the thread by saying: ‘Be a man and take care of your child. I know what it means to grow up without a father and I would never expose my own child to that.’ Clearly, there are different notions of masculinity being juggled in this discussion of PIEDs and PIED use. The masculine body, the dominant man, the employee, the breadwinner , and the responsible, mature father, in particular, are all integrated into the negotiation of manhood and steroids. The masculinities constructed in the postings are thus understood slightly differently, depending on the situation and how (potential) PIED use is contextualized by the community members.
Conclusions
In this chapter, we have shown how different ideals and notions of masculinity and fitness doping are pitted against each other, and how a marginalized masculinity and identity in the subcultural context are sometimes regarded as constituting a dominant, hegemonic ideal, both in the context of online communication and away from keyboard. Some narratives clearly show how pride in one’s physical transformation through PIED use, attainment of an idealized masculinity and symbolically loaded language expressing high expectations can rapidly turn into behavior that is perceived as shameful, when the circumstances are laid out in a problematic way. To this end, the notion of masculinity attached to the understanding of PIED use, as it is expressed, should be understood as an uncertain construction. What makes this even more complex today is the developing fitness trend, which points toward normalization of the hard-core muscle culture cultivated in the fitness and bodybuilding context, leading to shifting attitudes toward drugs, hyper-bodies, and hyper-masculinity in society at large. To a certain extent, we are now seeing how marginalized hyper-masculinity is becoming normalized and incorporated into hegemonic conceptions in mainstream culture; we are simultaneously seeing how a hyper-masculine body is being challenged by other highly valued masculine ideals, such as inclusive and potentially homoerotic masculinity as well as nurturing fatherhood . Thus, what we find here is the possibility to use fitness doping as prism for understanding a variety of positions taken in relation to gender and masculinity.
At least, three distinct and differentiated interpretations or positions seem to emerge through the prism of fitness doping (cf. Braidotti , 1994). The first position, which has been thoroughly described and analyzed in the existing literature, could be described as a complicit position in relation to hegemonic masculinity. For example, a common feature of many of the narratives concerning approaches to fitness doping is the underlying idea that the idealized male body can be achieved through continuous effort and with the help of PIEDs. Such a masculinity, constructed in the realm of performance, can clearly be related to a normative masculine stereotype, shaped by traditionalism. Although expressed differently, the overall perspective on masculinity and fitness doping put forward through this position rests heavily on a binary understanding of gendered bodies, doping, and competences, in which the female body is viewed as weak and the male body as strong and competent. Hence, drug use practices are constructed almost solely as a male phenomenon and as heightening masculinity. Consequently, this position situates the bodies of men as inevitably superior to women’s bodies within gym culture. In the subcultural context, this position should largely be understood as dominant. However, it also seems as though there is a desire, in some narratives, to expand and exaggerate this position in the direction of certain stereotypical masculine-coded qualities, such as aggression and sexual virility, that constitute a marginalized hyper-masculinity.
The second position that emerges could be described as a negotiating position. On the one hand, this position shows a clear tendency toward complicit masculinities. On the other , it also points in the direction of the transformation of gender configurations and the sexual politics of fitness doping. In many of the narratives that can be situated within this position, the trajectories to drug use seem to originate in quite hegemonic conceptions, such as being motivated by homosocial relationships, etc. At the same time, when we read the narratives, it is clear that such an interpretation is incapable of capturing the entire presentations of the self that are offered and that the narratives have more nuances. These intertwined tendencies are evident when we look at the ways in which some fitness dopers try to ‘rewrite’ and respond to actual or imagined incidents where their lifestyle choices are called into question. They can be seen in the different ways in which the muscular male body and the body beautiful are explored. They are also manifested in the ways in which use of PIEDs is integrated with the concept of health, intellectualism, involved fatherhood , and more, extending the notion of masculinity and fitness doping in alternative directions.
Finally, we have a more inclusive and potentially subversive position in which fitness doping is renegotiated in relation to the body and heteronormativity (Anderson, 2009). This position emerges when we observe how fitness dopers, regardless of their sexual preferences, can be close to other men and their bodies in a more sensualized, aestheticizing manner. In connection with drug use practices, the focus is so precisely put on the characteristics and shape of the body that, paradoxically, the body itself is detached from sex/gender to some extent. Physicality then becomes more important than sexual orientation, thus enabling men to express emotions and values traditionally associated solely with femininity and/or homosexuality. Consequently, this way of approaching the male body may actually contribute to increased acceptance of, for example, gay identities or other subordinate positions. This approach and position therefore amount to a contestation of hegemonic gender values, in which masculinity and fitness doping have come to be detached from a solidly heterosexual understanding and transformed into inclusiveness and perhaps even homoerotic pleasure, at least on a symbolic level.
Among other things, this chapter reveals the need for future research on fitness doping in relation to gender and sexuality, as well as employability and fatherhood . In addition to continuing our exploration of how fitness doping might be understood and viewed through the prism of masculinity, and the three above-discussed positions, there is also a great need to discuss the experiences and narratives of female PIED users. For this reason, we will look at female users in the next chapter.