Versatility in anal sex in gay pornography

ABSTRACT

The exploratory project described in this article provides additional information about the prevalence of different types of versatility in anal sex in gay pornography. Versatility refers to the same performer both topping and bottoming (or being both the insertive and receptive partner in anal sex), and this can occur within a video or between videos, as well as in videos with two performers or more than two performers. While versatility has not been a central focus of previous research, incorporating it into future research may expand our understanding of the well-researched connection between performers’ masculinity and sexual position. I conducted a content analysis of 441 videos released by four mainstream studios between 1 June 2022 and 30 June 2023. I present findings regarding the prevalence of versatility within and between the videos, as well as differences between the studios. Two major implications are that versatility is prevalent enough to justify more attention from researchers and that the prevalence of versatility appears dependent on which studios are included in a project’s sample. I also discuss limitations and related suggestions for future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Gay pornography
• anal sex
• versatility
• videos
• studios
• performers

Introduction

The purpose of the exploratory project described in this article was to ascertain the prevalence of different types of versatility in anal sex in gay pornography. Versatility refers to the same performer both topping (i.e. being the insertive partner in anal sex) and bottoming (i.e. being the receptive partner in anal sex). Research on gay pornography has largely neglected versatility, focusing on topping and bottoming instead. Incorporating versatility into future research may expand our understanding of the well-researched connection between a performer’s masculinity and position as a top or a bottom (e.g. Mercer 2017).

The extent to which studying versatility can expand our understanding depends in part on its prevalence. If versatility is rare, then it will most likely have either no impact or a limited impact, and this impact is likely to increase as the prevalence increases.

There is limited evidence regarding the prevalence of versatility in gay pornographic videos. While Newton et al. (2022) found that versatility is rare, Brennan (2018) indicated that versatility may be more prevalent because many performers are classified as versatile in the performer profiles presented on studio websites.

In addition, I had two experiences during the beginning of 2023 that led me to believe versatility may be more prevalent than indicated by Newton et al.’s (2022) findings. First, I had a subscription to the gay pornography studio Cocky Boys, and I noticed both the number of videos in which at least one performer both topped and bottomed, and the number of performers who topped in at least one video and bottomed in at least one other video. Second, I noticed posts in gay pornography news websites that described Cocky Boys videos in which each performer both topped and bottomed (e.g. Carrington 2023a, 2023b; Zach 2023d, 2023e), as well as additional posts that described performers who topped and bottomed in at least one video released by another studio and/or who topped in at least one video released by another studio and bottomed in at least one other video released by either the same studio or a different studio (e.g. Carrington 2023c, 2023e; Men of Porn 2023; Zach 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023f).

To obtain more evidence regarding the prevalence of versatility and thereby determine whether incorporating versatility into future research is likely to contribute to the literature regarding the connection between a performer’s masculinity and positionality (i.e. topping or bottoming), I conducted a content analysis of recent, mainstream, studio-released gay pornographic videos. The results indicate that versatility is prevalent enough to justify more attention from researchers, although versatility is more prevalent in videos released by certain studios.

Literature review

Versatility has rarely been a central variable or a topic of extended discussion in research on gay pornography. For example, Newton et al. (2022) conducted the only study I could locate that presented data about the prevalence of versatility in gay pornographic videos. Their sample consisted of 202 of the most popular videos with two performers who engaged in anal sex that were available on two of the most popular tube sites (i.e. Pornhub and XVideos) in December 2017. They found that only 10.2% of the videos presented the performers both topping and bottoming for each other. The scarcity of versatility may explain why researchers have not focused on it.

This is only one study, however, and it only provides information about the prevalence of versatility within videos with two performers (i.e. when each performer tops and bottoms for the other performer). The prevalence of versatility may increase if videos with more than two performers are included, as well as if researchers look for performers who top in at least one video and bottom in at least one other video. I refer to this type of versatility as versatility between videos.

Furthermore, an additional source indicates that versatility may be more prevalent. Brennan (2018) analyzed the profiles of performers on studio websites. For four of the five studios in the sample, almost half of the performers (i.e. 46–48.5%) were classified as versatile in their profiles. If a large proportion of performers are versatile, it seems likely that versatility will be present within and between a similar proportion of videos.

Because the evidence about the prevalence of versatility is limited, incomplete, and/or indirect, it seems worthwhile to gather additional evidence regarding how often versatility appears within and between gay pornographic videos. Gathering this evidence may be particularly worthwhile because versatility has the potential to contribute to our understanding of a topic that has been a focus of research on gay pornography, namely the relationship between masculinity and whether a performer tops or bottoms.

Mercer (2017) argued that, while the prevailing view in earlier research was that less masculine performers bottom and more masculine performers top, this binary model or logic does not accurately reflect gay pornography produced in the twenty-first century. Masculinity is a complicated concept, with numerous aspects, markers, and measures, as well as multiple levels or types of masculinity coexisting within a society (e.g. Connell 2005; Connell and Messerschmidt 2005). Commonly used markers of masculinity include: physical size, with larger people viewed as more masculine; athleticism and strength, with stronger and more athletic people viewed as more masculine; aggression and assertiveness, with more aggressive and assertive people viewed as more masculine; power and authority, with people who have more power and authority viewed as more masculine; and intimacy and affection, with less intimate and affectionate people viewed as more masculine (e.g. Connell 2005; Kimmel and Messner 2012). In the next two paragraphs, I briefly describe examples of recent research that used measures of at least one of these markers to support and/or challenge the binary model that Mercer (2017) described. While this review is not exhaustive, it demonstrates the dominant or overall themes in the literature.

Research that supports the binary model includes both Newton et al. (2022) and Brennan (2018). Newton et al. (2022) included measures of aggression, and they found that tops were more likely than bottoms to initiate acts of verbal and physical aggression (e.g. threatening, making fun of, hitting, or spitting on their partners), although these acts rarely occurred. (Newton et al. intended to compare versatile performers as well, but they decided against doing so because of the low prevalence of versatility within the videos in their sample.) Brennan’s (2018) analysis of performers’ profiles included a measure of size, specifically penis size. In general, the performers identified as tops had larger penises than the performers identified as bottoms. Mercer (2017) included measures of both size and strength in a discussion of ‘intergenerational’ pornography. In this genre, older ‘daddies’ usually topped younger ‘twinks’, and the daddies tended to be taller and more muscular than the twinks. Dashiell (2023) focused on a measure of power or assertiveness, specifically which performer was the ‘leader’ of conversations during anal sex. The tops appeared to be the leaders, as they tended to initiate and to be the focus of these conversations. Finally, multiple studies combined measures of size, strength, aggression, and/or power to argue that, at least in videos with performers who have different racial identities, Asian men tended to bottom because they are generally perceived to have smaller amounts of these traits and/or Black men tended to top because they are generally perceived to have larger amounts of these traits (Nguyen 2014; Mercer 2017; Cao 2023).

Newton et al. (2022) and Mercer (2017) are also among the studies that present evidence that challenges the binary model. Newton et al. (2022) included measures of intimacy and affection, and they found tops were more likely than bottoms to touch their partner affectionately and to communicate concern or care for their partner. Mercer (2017) referred to other measures when describing earlier research on ‘power bottoms’, or bottoms who are aggressive and assertive in various ways during anal sex. Lee (2014) described similarly aggressive and assertive bottoms, as well as bottoms who could be described as having high levels of athleticism, and I presented similar findings in an earlier article (Tollini 2017). These studies also addressed measures of size and/or strength. More specifically, Lee (2014) found most tops for one studio were not overly muscular and did not have large penises, and I (Tollini 2017) found the tops and bottoms for another studio had similar bodies and penises.

Versatility provides an opportunity to further explore the extent to which the binary model accurately describes gay pornographic videos. For example, versatility within a video with two performers (i.e. when each performer both tops and bottoms) may either support or challenge the binary model, depending on the relative masculinity of the performers. If the performers are not equally masculine (based on whichever measures or markers of masculinity are used), then the more masculine performer both tops and bottoms for the less masculine performer, instead of only topping the less masculine performer. This constitutes a challenge to the binary model. If the performers are equally masculine, then there is arguably support for the binary model. Based on the binary model, more masculine performers are expected to top and less masculine performers are expected to bottom. As a result, equally masculine performers could be expected to both top and bottom (or to be versatile within a video).

Videos with more than two performers offer both similar and different scenarios, which have similar and different implications for the binary model. In a video with more than two performers, a performer may top and bottom for the same performer(s). This scenario is similar to the videos with two performers I described earlier. Like those videos, a performer tops and bottoms for the same performer, and the performers may or may not be equally masculine.

A video with more than two performers may instead present a performer who tops one performer and bottoms for another performer. This different scenario has more than one implication. If the performer tops a less masculine performer and/or bottoms for a more masculine performer, then the video provides evidence that supports the binary model. Alternatively, a video provides evidence that challenges the binary model if it presents a performer topping a more masculine performer and/or bottoming for a less masculine performer.

The previous scenarios focus on versatility within a video. Versatility also occurs between videos, specifically when a performer tops in at least one video and bottoms in at least one other video. This is similar to ‘versatile-identifying MSM [men who have sex with men] who may choose to alternate sex positions across occasions of sexual activity, rather than within a single event-level occasion of sexual activity’ (Newton et al. 2022, 2446).

Versatility between videos has similar implications to versatility within a video with more than two performers in which a performer tops one performer and bottoms for another performer. Like that scenario, performers who top in some videos and bottom in other videos support the binary model when they top less masculine performers and bottom for more masculine performers, and they challenge the binary model when they top more masculine performers and bottom for less masculine performers.

Posts on gay pornography news websites indicate performers who appear in multiple videos may be likely to follow the binary model. For example, one post mentioned that a versatile performer ‘is once again the bottom for yet another big-dicked twink’ (Zach 2023g), and another post described a different versatile performer acting like ‘a total bottom slave to a [performer with a] big dick’ (Carrington 2023f). At the very least, these posts indicate that versatile performers are likely to bottom for a performer with a larger penis.

While incorporating versatility into research on gay pornography has the potential to expand our understanding of the binary model in the ways already described, this potential is limited by versatility’s prevalence, with the potential increasing as the prevalence increases. As a result, incorporating versatility may only be worthwhile if it occurs frequently enough to provide sufficient data to support meaningful conclusions. The available evidence regarding versatility’s prevalence is limited, however, which indicates that there is a need to gather more evidence.

The current study

The goal of the research project described in this article was to increase the available evidence regarding the prevalence of versatility within and between videos with either two performers or at least three performers that were recently released by mainstream gay pornography studios. Both of the sources I located that addressed the prevalence of versatility focused on the same type of pornography. Brennan (2018) did not analyze videos, but the analyses focused on data from performers’ profiles that were posted on studios’ websites. While Newton et al. (2022) gathered videos from two tube sites, almost every video in their sample was released by a studio. More specifically, they classified 94.1% of the videos as ‘professional’, ‘based on indicators such as the presence of a studio’s logo watermarked in the video, an introductory title sequence, or the name of a studio in the video title’ (2022, 2440). By also focusing on studio pornography, the current study expands our understanding of versatility within this type of gay pornography.

I also selected studio-released videos for practical reasons. Versatility within a video is relatively easy to measure because a video (or a description of or trailer for a video) either does or does not present at least one performer both topping and bottoming. Versatility between videos is harder to measure, however, because it is based on whether a performer tops in at least one video and bottoms in at least one other video. As a result, the measurement of versatility between videos requires performers to be identified and tracked between videos. It can be difficult to complete these tasks if performers change their appearance, are similar in appearance to other performers, and/or are difficult to identify given camera angles, lighting, and so on. Technical aspects such as camera angles and lighting can also make it difficult to determine which performer is topping and/or bottoming, which makes it difficult to measure versatility within a video and between videos.

I assumed it would be easier to identify performers, track performers, and determine which performer(s) topped and bottomed if I focused on videos released by a studio. After all, studios usually have websites that present every video the studio released. In addition, these websites typically identify the performers who appeared in each video and provide descriptions and trailers that indicate which performer(s) topped and/or bottomed. Furthermore, studio-released videos are more likely to have higher production values, compared to amateur videos. As a result, the camera angles and lighting of studio-released videos (and the trailers for those videos) should make it easier to determine which performer(s) topped and/or bottomed. All of this information facilitates the measurement of versatility within a video and between videos. Furthermore, studio websites tend to provide the date each video was released, which ensures the sample only contains recently released videos.

There are other types of gay pornographic videos, including videos that performers directly provide to subscribers on platforms like Only Fans. In addition, videos can be selected using other criteria, including popularity. Focusing on studio-released videos and emphasizing criteria that facilitate data collection seemed appropriate for the current study, however, because it is exploratory. The current project was not designed to provide a ‘census’ of versatility in gay pornography. Instead, it was designed to obtain sufficient evidence to contribute to our understanding of the prevalence of versatility and the potential for versatility to contribute to the discussion of the binary model (i.e. the contention that more masculine performers top and less masculine performers bottom). In other words, the current study was designed to obtain more information about versatility’s prevalence, including whether it may occur frequently enough to warrant inclusion in future research, instead of to provide a percentage of versatility that can be generalized to all pornographic videos. As a result, decisions about data collection and sampling focused on the ability to measure versatility, instead of on obtaining a representative sample.

Methods and data

Studio selection

To be selected, a studio had to be addressed by posts on gay pornography news websites and to release videos with higher production values (e.g. lighting and editing). I included these criteria because I assumed studios that met them would be more likely to have websites with the information or features needed to ensure the video was recently released and to measure versatility within a video and between videos (i.e. the release date of each video, the names of the performers in each video, a description of each video, and a trailer for each video). In addition, each selected studio needed to have a different owner, to address the possibility that ownership impacts content, including versatility. I did not include additional criteria (e.g. the studio’s popularity, the number of awards the studio has won, or the number of years the studio has been in operation) because of the exploratory nature of the current project and the related emphasis on being able to measure versatility within a video and between videos.

Based on these criteria, I selected the following four studios: Cocky Boys, Falcon Studios, Men, and Next Door Studios. Each studio was covered by posts on gay pornography news websites (e.g. Carrington 2023b, 2023c; Men of Porn 2023; Zack 2023d), had higher production values, and had a different owner. More specifically, Jake Jaxson was the co-founder and CEO of Cocky Boys (Carrington 2023d), Falcon Studios was owned by AEBN (Johnson 2010; Street 2014), Next Door Studios was owned by the Alpha Studio Group (Smithberg 2023), and Men was owned by Mind Geek, which rebranded as Aylo in August 2023 (Warren 2023). Most importantly, all four studios had websites that provided the release date, a list of performers, and a trailer for each video. In addition, each website provided a shortened trailer, which did not have any audio, for each video when the cursor was placed over a thumbnail image provided for the video. The websites usually provided a description of each video, but there was no description provided for one Men video and some Next Door Studios videos. Cocky Boys and Men limited the number of trailers that could be viewed in a day, but the shortened trailers and/or descriptions usually provided the necessary information.

While Cocky Boys met the criteria, I strongly considered it for inclusion because I became interested in studying versatility while viewing Cocky Boys videos. I will also mention that, while not one of the criteria, Falcon Studios and Men are two of the studios that Brennan (2018) found classified almost half of their performers as versatile in the performer profiles provided on the studio’s website. As a result, the current project can provide additional evidence regarding the versatility in two of the studios that provided profiles that Brennan (2018) analyzed.

Video selection

To be selected, a video had to be released between 1 June 2022 and 30 June 2023. In addition to focusing on recently released videos, this timeframe included two full ‘Pride’ months (i.e. June 2022 and June 2023). I decided to include two full Pride months in the timeframe because studios often have promotions during Pride (e.g. Smithberg 2022; Greer 2023), and those promotions could include videos with versatility to draw consumers.

Some of the videos presented on a studio’s website were excluded from the sample. The most common type were essentially promotional videos for another studio, which usually had the same owner. The websites for every studio except Cocky Boys included information for each video that appeared to categorize it as part of a ‘substudio’ or a section of the studio. For example, each video on the Falcon Studios website was classified as either ‘Falcon Studios’, ‘Hot House’, ‘Naked Sword’, or ‘Raging Stallion’. Some of these categories had their own websites, and some of those websites presented videos that were not presented on the website of the studio I selected. To continue using Falcon Studios as an example, there were websites for Hot House, Naked Sword, and Raging Stallion. In addition, the websites for Naked Sword and Raging Stallion had videos that were not presented on the Falcon Studios website, while every video presented on the Hot House website also appeared on the Falcon Studios website. Furthermore, Neuwave (2018) described how subscribers to either Falcon Studios or Hot House can access every video presented on both websites. Given this information, it appears that Naked Sword and Raging Stallions are separate studios and that some videos released by Naked Sword and Raging Stallion were presented on the Falcon Studios website to promote interest in these additional studios. In contrast, Hot House appears to be a substudio or part of Falcon Studios.

Following the same procedure, videos classified as ‘Drill My Hole’, ‘Gods of Men’, ‘Men’, ‘Str8 to Gay’, or ‘Top to Bottom’ on the Men website were included in the sample, while videos classified as ‘Bromo’, ‘Twink Pop’, or ‘Why Not Bi’ on the Men website were excluded. As for Next Door Studios, videos classified as ‘Next Door Buddies’, ‘Next Door Films’, ‘Next Door Homemade’, ‘Next Door Originals’, ‘Next Door Raw’, or ‘Next Door Twink’ were included, while videos classified as ‘Adult Time’, ‘Disruptive Films’, ‘Next Door Taboo’, ‘Rod’s Room’, or ‘Stag Collective’ were excluded. In August 2023, Next Door Studios was more fully merged with other studios owned by Alpha Studio Group with the creation of ‘ASGmax’ (Smithberg 2023), but this occurred after data collection. In addition, the only change in the videos presented on the Next Door Studios website appeared to be the inclusion of every video released by Next Door Taboo.

Other excluded videos either provided compilations (i.e. selections of similar actions from multiple previously released videos), combined multiple previously released videos into a single video, presented behind the scenes footage, were re-releases of previously released videos, included a performer who was a transman or transgender man, or did not have a complete list of the performers who engaged in anal sex provided on the website.

Sample

The sample contained 441 videos, with 108 (24.5%) released by Cocky Boys, 72 (16.3%) released by Falcon Studios, 143 (32.4%) released by Men, and 118 (26.8%) released by Next Door Studios. 319 performers appeared in the 441 videos, with 60 (18.8%) of these appearing in the videos released by Cocky Boys, 70 (21.9%) appearing in the videos released by Falcon Studios, 96 (30.1%) appearing in the videos released by Men, and 93 (29.2%) appearing in the videos released by Next Door Studios.

Data collection

I collected the data for this project during June 2023, with data collection ending on 30 June 2023. Data collection focused on identifying each performer who engaged in anal sex in each video and then determining whether each performer topped and/or bottomed and identifying whom each performer topped and/or bottomed for. This information was used to construct variables that measured traits of the videos or performers.

I was able to obtain this information from the description, short trailer, and/or trailer of every video except for 12 Next Door Studios videos. The description, short trailer, and trailer for 11 of these videos did not clearly indicate whether each of the two performers topped and/or bottomed. The remaining video had three performers, and sections of the trailer did not clearly indicate which performer was topping or bottoming. Fortunately, an extended trailer (or an incomplete version) of each video was posted on the Pornhub channel for Next Door Studios (https://www.pornhub.com/channels/next-door-studios). I watched those extended trailers to obtain the necessary information for the 12 videos.

Video variables

The information collected for each video was used to construct two variables that measured a different trait of the video. The first variable addressed the number of performers who engaged in anal sex in a video. A video was categorized as having two performers if only two performers engaged in anal sex, and a video was categorized as having at least three performers if at least three performers engaged in anal sex, with each performer topping and/or bottoming for at least one other performer.

I did not differentiate videos with three performers from videos with more than three performers, in part because only eight videos had more than three performers who engaged in anal sex. More specifically, only one Cocky Boys video had more than three performers, as did three Falcon Studios videos, one Men video, and three Next Door Studios videos.

The second variable measured whether versatility occurred within a video. A video with two performers was categorized as presenting versatility within it if both performers topped and bottomed (or if each performer topped and bottomed for the other performer). A video with at least three performers was coded as presenting versatility within it if at least one performer topped and bottomed, whether with the same performer(s) and/or different performers.

Performer variables

The information collected for each video was also used to construct a set of variables that measured different traits of the performers. Most of these variables were essentially counts of the videos in which a performer topped, bottomed, or both. For the videos with two performers released by each studio, there were a count of the number of videos in which each performer topped, a count of the number of videos in which each performer bottomed, and a count of the number of videos in which each performer topped and bottomed. For the videos with at least three performers released by each studio, there were counts of the number of videos in which each performer topped, bottomed, topped and bottomed for different performers (or did not top and bottom for any of the same performers), and topped and bottomed for at least one of the same performers, regardless of whether the performer also topped or bottomed for any other performers in the video.

I used the counts for each studio to determine whether a performer was versatile within at least one video released by the studio and versatile between videos released by the studio. If a performer topped and bottomed in at least one video with two performers and/or at least one video with at least three performers, that performer was categorized as being versatile within a video, regardless of whether the performer topped and bottomed for the same performer or different performers. If a performer topped in at least one video with two performers and bottomed in at least one other video with two performers, only topped in at least one video with at least three performers and only bottomed in at least one other video with at least three performers, or had a combination of videos with two performers and videos with at least three performers in which the performer topped (or only topped) in at least one video and bottomed (or only bottomed) in at least one other video, that performer was categorized as being versatile between videos.

Performers who were versatile within videos with at least three performers were further differentiated as topping and bottoming with either the same performer(s) or different performers. If a performer topped and bottomed with different performers (e.g. topped for one performer and bottomed for another performer) in at least one video, that performer was categorized as topping and bottoming with different performers. If a performer topped and bottomed for at least one of the same performers in at least one video, that performer was categorized as topping and bottoming with the same performer.

Findings

Videos

Table 1 addresses the videos with two performers, and Table 2 addresses for the videos with at least three performers. Both tables present frequencies and percentages for each studio, as well as for all studios combined.

Table 1. Versatility within videos with two performers.

Studio	No	Yes
Cocky Boys (n = 105)	87 (82.9%)	18 (17.1%)
Falcon Studios (n = 63)	47 (74.6%)	16 (25.4%)
Men (n = 134)	130 (97.0%)	4 (3.0%)
Next Door Studios (n = 90)	59 (65.6%)	31 (34.4%)
Total (n = 392)	323 (82.4%)	69 (17.6%)

Table 2. Versatility within videos with at least three performers.

Studio	No	Yes
Cocky Boys (n = 3)	2 (66.7%)	1 (33.3%)
Falcon Studios (n = 9)	3 (33.3%)	6 (66.7%)
Men (n = 9)	3 (33.3%)	6 (66.7%)
Next Door Studios (n = 28)	8 (28.6%)	20 (71.4%)
Total (n = 49)	16 (32.7%)	33 (67.3%)

As presented in Table 1, 17.6% of the videos with two performers presented versatility within the video (or presented both performers topping and bottoming). The percentage is about the same for Cocky Boys videos, while about a third of Next Door Studios videos and about a quarter of Falcon Studios videos presented versatility within the video. In contrast, versatility was presented within only 3% of Men videos. The differences between the studios are significant (χ² = 40.00, df = 3, p < 0.001).

Table 2 indicates that about two-thirds of the videos with at least three performers presented versatility within the video (or presented at least one performer who topped and bottomed). The percentages are similar for every studio except Cocky Boys, for which versatility was presented within only a third of the videos. This studio difference is not significant (Yate’s corrected χ² = 0.67, df = 3, p = 0.880), which may be explained by only 49 (11.1%) of the 441 videos having at least three performers. Furthermore, there are only three Cocky Boys videos, nine Falcon Studios videos, and nine Men videos with at least three performers. As a result, caution is recommended when interpreting the data presented in Table 2.

Because of this issue and a desire to summarize the prevalence of versatility within every video in the sample, Table 3 combines data for the videos with two performers and at least three performers. Table 3 echoes Table 1, although the percentages of videos that presented versatility within the video are higher for the sample and for each studio. The increase is largest for Next Door Studios and smallest for Cocky Boys. Another similarity to Table 1 is the studio differences indicated by Table 3 are significant (χ² = 51.83, df = 3, p < 0.001).

Table 3. Versatility within all videos.

Studio	No	Yes
Cocky Boys (n = 108)	89 (82.4%)	19 (17.6%)
Falcon Studios (n = 72)	50 (69.4%)	22 (30.6%)
Men (n = 143)	133 (93.0%)	10 (7.0%)
Next Door Studios (n = 118)	67 (56.8%)	51 (43.2%)
Total (n = 441)	339 (76.9%)	102 (23.1%)

Performers

Table 4 presents the frequencies and percentages of performers who were versatile within and/or between videos for each studio, as well as for the entire sample. Almost 60% of the performers in the sample were not versatile in any way. About a quarter were versatile within a video (or topped and bottomed in at least one video), fewer than 10% were versatile between videos (or topped in at least one video and bottomed in at least one other video), and almost 10% were versatile both within and between videos.

Table 4. Versatile performers.

Studio	No	Yes, within videos	Yes, between videos	Yes, within and between videos
Cocky Boys (n = 60)	33 (55.0%)	13 (21.7%)	4 (6.7%)	10 (16.7%)
Falcon Studios (n = 70)	41 (58.6%)	21 (30.0%)	2 (2.9%)	6 (8.6%)
Men (n = 96)	70 (72.9%)	8 (8.3%)	13 (13.5%)	5 (5.2%)
Next Door Studios (n = 93)	43 (46.2%)	37 (39.8%)	5 (5.4%)	8 (8.6%)
Total (n = 319)	187 (58.6%)	79 (24.9%)	24 (7.6%)	29 (9.1%)

As for studio differences, Men had the largest percentage of non-versatile performers, while Next Door Studios had the smallest percentage. Furthermore, Next Door Studios is the only studio for which fewer than half of the performers were not versatile. While other differences arguably exist, I do not describe them because of the small frequencies and percentages presented in many of the cells in Table 4.

Despite these small numbers, the studio differences are significant (Yate’s corrected χ² = 33.67, df = 9, p < 0.001). Because of the impact small frequencies can have on inferential analyses, I conducted another inferential analysis based on a modified version of Table 4, in which I combined every category except ‘No’ (or not versatile) into a second category. The additional analysis is also significant (χ² = 14.29, df = 3, p = 0.002).

Table 5 addresses whether performers were versatile within a video with at least three performers (or if they topped and bottomed in at least one video with at least three performers), and indicates that 15.4% of the performers in the sample were. Falcon Studios had a similar percentage, while Next Door Studios had the highest percentage (i.e. 33.3%) and Cocky Boys had the lowest (i.e. 1.7%, which was based on one performer). These differences are significant (χ² = 36.63, df = 3, p < 0.001).

Table 5. Performers who were versatile within videos with at least three performers.

Studio	No	Yes
Cocky Boys (n = 60)	59 (98.3%)	1 (1.7%)
Falcon Studios (n = 70)	60 (85.7%)	10 (14.3%)
Men (n = 96)	89 (92.7%)	7 (7.3%)
Next Door Studios (n = 93)	62 (66.7%)	31 (33.3%)
Total (n = 319)	270 (84.6%)	49 (15.4%)

Of the 49 performers who were versatile within at least one video with at least three performers, 41 were versatile within just one video, and the remaining eight performers (i.e. one Falcon performer, one Men performer, and six Next Door Studios performers) were versatile within two videos.

Table 6 addresses whether the 49 performers who were versatile within one or two videos with at least three performers topped and bottomed for the same performer(s) and/or different performers. About a third of the 49 performers topped and bottomed for different performers. (This includes the Falcon performer who was versatile within two videos, as well as one of the Next Door Studios performers who was versatile within two videos.) About half topped and bottomed for the same performer(s). (This includes another Next Door Studios performer who was versatile within two videos.) Five performers – four from Next Door Studios and one from Men – topped and bottomed for different performers in one video and topped and bottomed for the same performer(s) in the other video.

Table 6. Performers who topped and bottomed for the same or different performers in videos with at least three performers.

Studio	Same performer(s)	Different performers	Different and same performers
Cocky Boys (n = 1)	0 (0.0%)	1 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Falcon Studios (n = 10)	4 (40.0%)	6 (60.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Men (n = 7)	1 (14.3%)	5 (71.4%)	1 (14.3%)
Next Door Studios (n = 31)	20 (64.5%)	7 (22.3%)	4 (12.9%)
Total (n = 49)	25 (51.0%)	19 (38.8%)	5 (10.2%)

An additional studio difference was that a higher percentage of performers topped and bottomed with different performers for every studio except Next Door Studios, for which the highest percentage of performers topped and bottomed for the same performer(s). The studio differences are not significant (Yate’s corrected χ² = 7.69, df = 6, p = 0.262), which is unsurprising because Table 6 presents data for only 49 performers.

Discussion and conclusions

The exploratory research project described in this article was intended to provide additional evidence regarding the prevalence of different types of versatility in gay pornography, specifically in videos with either two performers or at least three performers that were recently released by mainstream gay pornography studios.

Almost one-quarter of the videos in the sample presented at least one performer who topped and bottomed, which I refer to as versatility within a video. A similar percentage of videos with two performers presented this type of versatility. These percentages are larger than the percentage provided by Newton et al. (2022), who found that about 10% of the 202 videos with two performers they analyzed presented versatility within the video. While they obtained these videos from two tube sites, about 94% of the videos were originally released by a studio. As a result, both this project and Newton et al. (2022) focused on studio-released pornographic videos. The percentages for this project, however, still indicate that a minority of videos presented this type of versatility.

While versatility within a video was relatively rare for the entire sample and for videos with two performers, it occurred in about two-thirds of the videos with at least three performers. This may simply be due to there being a greater chance that at least one performer will top and bottom when there are more performers. In addition, the percentage of versatility within a video for the entire sample is arguably low in part because only 11.1% of the videos in the sample had at least three performers. If the sample had a larger proportion of videos with at least three performers, then the prevalence of versatility within a video would be higher for the entire sample.

The prevalence of versatility within a video also seems contingent on the studio that released the video. More than 40% of Next Door Studios videos presented versatility within the video, followed by about a third of Falcon Studios videos, about 18% of Cock Boys videos, and fewer than 10% of Men videos. The percentages were similar when only the videos with two performers were considered. As for the videos with at least three performers, almost three-quarters of Next Door Studios videos presented versatility within the video, followed by two-thirds of Falcon Studios and Men videos, and then by one-third of Cocky Boys videos. Only the differences for the videos with at least three performers are not significant, which may be partially due to the sample containing only 49 videos with at least three performers.

To summarize, versatility within a video was presented most often in videos released by Next Door Studios and least often in videos released by Men. I find it ironic that Cocky Boys did not have the highest percentage because noticing versatility within Cocky Boys videos was one of the inspirations for this project.

As for performers, 34% of the 319 performers were versatile within at least one video, including videos with two performers and more than two performers. In addition, about 17% of the performers were versatile between videos, meaning they topped in at least one video and bottomed in at least one other video. Furthermore, 41.4% of the performers were versatile within and/or between videos. (9.1% of performers were versatile both within at least one video and between videos.)

In addition, 53.8% of Next Door Studios performers were versatile within and/or between videos, as were 45.0% of Cocky Boys performers, 41.4% of Falcon Studios performers, and 27.1% of Men performers. Like the previous studio-related findings, these findings indicate that versatility is most prevalent for Next Door Studios and least prevalent for Men.

The performer-related findings are similar to Brennan’s (2018) finding that, for four of the five studios included in the sample, almost half of the performers were classified as versatile in the profiles presented on the studio’s website. Two of these studios were Falcon Studios and Men. Brennan (2018) found that 46% of Falcon Studios performers were classified as versatile, which is similar to the percentage of Falcon Studios performers who were versatile within and/or between videos in the sample for this project (i.e. 41.4%). In contrast, Brennan found that 48% of Men performers were classified as versatile, which is higher than the percentage of Men performers who were versatile within and/or between the videos in this project’s sample (i.e. 27.1%).

In considering both the video-related and performer-related findings, there appear to be enough examples of versatility within a video and enough videos that can be used to construct examples of versatility between videos to provide substantial evidence regarding the binary model (i.e. more masculine performers top and less masculine performers bottom). In other words, versatility appears to be prevalent enough to contribute to our understanding of the connection between a performer’s masculinity and sexual position (i.e. topping or bottoming).

For versatility within a video with two performers, the relevant evidence would be based on whether the performers are equally masculine, based on whatever measures or markers of masculinity are used (e.g. size, strength, and aggressiveness). The information about the performers’ masculinity can be used to determine whether versatility within a video is more likely to occur when performers are equally masculine, which arguably supports the binary model. In contrast, having a performer top and bottom for another performer who is more or less masculine at least partially challenges the binary model.

For versatility between videos with two performers, the evidence would be based on whether performers top less masculine performers and bottom for more masculine performers. The extent to which they do is the extent to which the videos support the binary model.

An additional source of evidence is based on the 49 performers who were versatile in at least one video with at least three performers. A total of 49% of these performers topped and bottomed for different performers. In other words, they did not top the same performer(s) for whom they bottomed. In addition, 61.2% of the 49 performers topped and bottomed for the same performer or performers (10.2% of the 49 performers topped and bottomed for different performers in one video and for the same performer[s] in another video). There are differences between the studios, including Next Door Studios having the highest percentage of performers who topped and bottomed for the same performer(s). These differences are not significant, however, which may be connected to there only being 49 performers who topped and bottomed in either one or two videos with at least three performers.

A video in which a performer tops and bottoms for the same performer(s) can provide similar evidence to the videos with two performers in which there is versatility within the video. Similarly, a video with at least three performers in which at least one performer tops and bottoms for different performers can provide the same type of evidence as the videos with two performers that indicate the existence of versatility between videos.

This article contributes to the literature by articulating how versatility can potentially support and challenge the binary model, as well as by providing evidence that versality occurs frequently enough to realize that potential. The article also expands our understanding of versatility by providing additional evidence regarding the prevalence of different types of versatility. Based on my review of the literature, this article appears to be the first to address the prevalence of versatility within videos with at least three performers and the prevalence of versatility between videos with either two performers or at least performers, while Newton et al. (2022) appear to be the first to address the prevalence of versatility within videos with two performers.

Because this article focused on obtaining more evidence about the prevalence of versatility and on establishing versatility’s potential to contribute to our understanding of the binary model, it does not present any evidence for and/or against the binary model. This may be seen as a limitation, and future research can obtain and present this evidence.

Given the higher prevalence of versatility within videos with at least three performers, researchers may want to design sampling procedures that target videos with at least three performers. Selecting videos with at least three performers should also provide more videos in which at least one performer tops and bottoms for either the same performer(s) or different performers, which are types of versatility that were less prevalent in the sample for this project.

Researchers should also be aware that the prevalence of versatility is likely to be studio-dependent, as demonstrated by the studio-related findings. Simply put, versatility may be more or less prevalent based on which studios are selected, which has implications for sampling decisions and generalizability.

Researchers may want to focus on studios that are more likely to have videos that present versatility, such as Next Door Studios, and they could review gay pornography news websites to identify additional studios. Alternatively, samples could be obtained from different studios to determine the prevalence of versatility within and between the videos produced by each studio. For example, researchers could focus on studios with the same owner (e.g. all MindGeek or Aylo studios) or studios with different production values (e.g. ‘gonzo’ or ‘homemade’ studios like Sketchy Sex or Guys in Sweatpants).

Studios have additional traits that researchers may want to consider when selecting a sample. One trait is how long a studio has been in operation. By the end of 2023, Falcon Studios had operated for more than 50 years (Smithberg 2021a), Next Door Studios had operated for almost 20 years (Neuwave 2019), Cocky Boys had operated for more than 15 years (GayVN 2017), and Men had operated for more than 10 years (Smithberg 2021b). Some of this project’s findings support an argument that versatility was more prevalent in studios that were in operation for a longer period of time, while other findings counter this argument. This mixed support indicates that a studio’s ‘age’ may warrant consideration as a criterion for selecting studios.

Two other studio traits may be worth consideration because of their connection to masculinity. The first trait is whether videos tend to have narratives or storylines. Nearly all of the Men videos in the sample had a narrative, as did the majority of the Falcon Studios videos and the Next Door Studios videos. In contrast, almost none of the Cocky Boys videos had a narrative. The findings do not indicate there is a relationship between versatility and narratives. The presence of a narrative may still be a useful sampling criterion, however, because a narrative could include elements that relate to markers of masculinity, including one performer being depicted as having power and authority over another performer.

The second trait is the typical or general type of performer for each studio. While the only trait of the performers I systematically recorded was whether they topped and/or bottomed, scanning through the studios’ websites left the impression that Falcon Studios and Men had a higher percentage of performers with a ‘bodybuilder’ physique, compared to Cocky Boys and Next Door Studios. As a result, Falcon Studios and Men may have a larger percentage of performers who would be classified as more masculine, based on size and/or strength. While there does not appear to be a connection between this potential difference in the performers for each studio and the prevalence of versatility in each studio, a studio’s typical performer may still be a useful criterion for future research that focuses on masculinity.

It could also be beneficial for future research to select videos that were not released by a studio, including videos that performers post on tube sites or platforms like Only Fans. Any research that focuses on other types of videos should contribute to our understanding of versatility’s prevalence because all of the research that has addressed prevalence (i.e. this project; Brennan 2018; Newton et al. 2022) focused on studio-released pornography. It is likely that at least some of the videos on tube sites were originally released by studios, as demonstrated by Newton et al.’s (2022) sample. Future studies that sample from tube sites could specifically exclude any studio-released videos that were uploaded to the tube site, whether by the studio or by someone violating copyright laws. The studio-related differences also indicate that the findings of this project should not be generalized to other studios. This is another limitation of the project, and two related limitations are the findings are based on videos being released by only four studios and within a 13-month time frame. While these are limitations, they are not ‘fatal flaws’. After all, this project was not intended to fully describe or document the prevalence of versatility in gay pornographic videos. In addition, the studio-related differences raise questions about how to assemble a representative sample or what would be required to have generalizable information about the prevalence of versatility. These questions include how many studios I would have needed to select and what additional criteria I would have needed to use to select those studios to have a representative sample of studio-released pornographic videos.

Even so, the fact that this project obtained data for only certain types of versatility is a limitation, especially for researchers interested in a nuanced description of the versatility presented in gay pornographic videos. Additional types of versatility to consider include performers who could be identified as versatile tops or versatile bottoms (i.e. performers who mostly top or mostly bottom). In addition, there could be greater differentiation of the types of versatility that occur in videos with at least three performers. For example, posts on gay pornography news websites described videos with three performers in which each performer topped and bottomed for the other two performers as either ‘the ultimate versatile flip-fuck’ (Zach 2022), ‘a true flip-fuck threesome’ (Greer 2022), or ‘a true display of versatility’ (Carrington 2021). One of these posts further indicated that this type of versatility is rare because ‘[m]ore often than not in gay porn three-ways, there’s always one [performer] who is top only or bottom only’ (Zach 2022).

An additional limitation is similarly connected to analyses I did not conduct. While I presented some differences between the studios, I did not address whether performers appeared in videos released by different studios. For the sample, 61 performers appeared in at least one video released by multiple studios, with 51 more specifically appearing in videos released by two studios, seven appearing in videos released by three studios, and three appearing in videos released by all four studios. Of the 61 performers, 25 (41.0%) were categorized as versatile (within at least one video, between videos, or both) for at least one studio but were not categorized as versatile for every studio that released at least one video in which they appeared. As a result, the selection of one studio instead of another may impact whether a performer is classified as versatile, which may further impact the amount and type of evidence provided by the resulting project. For this reason, it may be beneficial for future research to focus on (or at least account for) whether performers appear in videos released by multiple studios.

The final limitation I mention is connected to my use of the descriptions of and trailers for the videos, instead of the videos themselves. While the trailers and descriptions appeared to accurately present the positions each performer took, I cannot be certain they actually did. As a result, my final suggestion for future researchers is to locate and view the videos.

Acknowledgments

I want to publicly thank the reviewers for their constructive comments regarding the focus and impact of the current study. Thanks to their comments, I was able to emphasize the aspects of versatility that are arguably the most central to the current study, as well as to better communicate the impact of these aspects for the research on gay pornography.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.