Advertisement

“Definitely Not for Women”: An Online Community’s Reflections on Women’s Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Recreational Sports

  • Marianne Raakilde JespersenEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 52)

Abstract

On the face of it, doping seems to be the most objectionable version of athletic enhancement. When considering the use of performance enhancing drugs in recreational sports there is a tendency to focus on young men’s use of androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS). However, other segments of the population might use drugs to enhance their performance when exercising too. For instance women. This chapter presents an insight into women’s use of performance enhancing drugs, as it is represented at the Danish internet community, www.bodyhouse.nu. Although the material is limited, the presented closereading of posts from this community gives an insight into which drugs are being used, how and why. The material reveals that women do show interest in and do use these drugs, however mostly other drugs than AAS. Women’s drug use seem in particular to ignite discussions on human biology and nature, and eventhough this is a community, where performance enhancing drug use is legitimate, the posts reveal boundaries that are regarded as non-transgressable. An idea of respect for human nature and the body grounds these limits, which especially concern irreversible side effects, in particular those relating to biological sex and gender: infertility and androgenic, virilising effects in women.

Keywords

Human Nature Androgenic Anabolic Steroid Female Member Male Member Enhancement Technology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anti Doping Danmark. 2004. Doping. Forfængelighed eller præstationsangst – en debatbog om doping og livsstil. Brøndby: Anti Doping Danmark.Google Scholar
  2. Anti Doping Danmark. 2009. Håndbog for fitnesscentre. Brøndby: Anti Doping Danmark.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, A.R. 2005. Mænd og muskler. København: Tiderne Skifter.Google Scholar
  4. Braidotti, R. 1994. Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Breivik, G., D.V. Hanstad, and S. Loland. 2009. Attitudes towards the use of performance-enhancing substances and body modification techniques. A comparison between elite athletes and the general population. Sport in Society 12(6): 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brooks, P. 1993. Body work. Objects of desire in modern narrative. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D.E. 1991. Human universals. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Carlsen, L.T. 2002. Lene Jennis mor: Jeg har altid mistænkt pillerne Den farlige slankepille. Tænk+test 28: 10–19.Google Scholar
  9. Christiansen, A.V. 2009. Doping in fitness and strength training environments – Politics, motives and masculinity. In Elite sport, doping and public health, ed. V. Møller, M. McNamee, and P. Dimeo, 99–118. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  10. Conrad, P. 2007. The medicalization of society. On the transformation of human conditions into treatable disorders. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Coomber, R. 2007. Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Drug Issues 37(4): 749–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans-Brown, M., and J. McVeigh. 2009. Anabolic steroid use in the general population of the United Kingdom. In Elite sport, doping and public health, ed. V. Møller, M. McNamee, and P. Dimeo, 75–97. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  13. Foucault, M. 1973. Naissance de la clinique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. 1975. Surveiller et punir: Naissance de la prison. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. 1976. Historie de la Sexualité I: La volonté de savoir. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
  16. Franke, W., and B. Berendok. 1997. Hormonal doping and androgenisation of athletes; a secret program of the German Democratic Republic government. Clinical Chemistry 43(7): 1262–1279.Google Scholar
  17. Furedi, F. 2011. The dissolutions of the anti-drugs claims making from the grammar of morality. In Conference: Anti-doping – Rational Policy or Moral Panic, 18–19 August, 2011. Aarhus: Aarhus University, International Network of Humanistic Doping Research.Google Scholar
  18. Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and selfidentity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Gillham, B. 2005. Research interviewing – The range of techniques. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hartgens, F., and H. Kuipers. 2004. Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids in athletes. Sports Medicine 34(8): 513–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoberman, J. 2005. Testosterone dreams. Rejuvenation, aphrodisia, doping. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jay, M. 2011. High society. Mind altering drugs in history and culture. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  24. Kohn, M. 2001. Dope girls. The birth of the British drug underground. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
  25. Kulturministeriet. 1999. Doping i Danmark. En hvidbog. København: Kulturministeriet.Google Scholar
  26. Linke, A. 1996. Sprachkultur und Bürgertum. Zur Mentalitätsgeschichte des 19-Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart/Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
  27. Magdalinski, T. 2009. Sport, technology and the body. The nature of performance. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Mogensen, K. 2004. Unge mænds brug af doping. København: Center for Ungdomsforskning.Google Scholar
  29. Møldrup, C., and R.R. Hansen. 2006. Public acceptance of drug use for non-disease conditions. Current Medical Research and Opinion 22(4): 775–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nielsen, M. 2002. Mistanke mod slankepille. Tænk+test 26: 4–6.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen, M.W., E.H. Hansen, and N.K. Rasmussen. 2002. Meidicinforbrug og social position i den danske befolkning. Lægemiddelforskning 2002. København: Danmarks Farmaceutiske Højskole.Google Scholar
  32. Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  33. Porta, M. 2008. A dictionary of epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Savulescu, J., B. Foddy, and M. Clayton. 2004. Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 38: 666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shilling, C. 2005. The body in culture, technology & society. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Shilling, C. 2006. The body and social theory. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Shilling, C. 2008. Changing bodies. Habit, crisis and creativity. Los Angeles/London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Singhammer, J., and B. Ibsen. 2010. Motionsdoping i Danmark. En kvantitativ undersøgelse om brug af og holdning til muskelopbyggende stoffer. Odense: Syddansk Universitet.Google Scholar
  39. Thiblin, I., and A. Petersson. 2004. Pharmacoepidemiology of anabolic androgenic steroids: A review. Fundamental and Clinical Pharmacology 19: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verroken, M. 2003. Drug use and abuse in sport. In Drugs in sport, ed. D.R. Mottram. London/ New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Wilkinson, D., and M. Thelwall. 2011. Researching personal information on the public web: Methods and ethics. Social Science Computer Review 29(4): 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sport Science Section, Department of Public HealthAarhus UniversityAarhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations