Abstract
Objective:
To examine how masculinity is negotiated through language by foregrounding the role of pragmatic strategies in shaping male sexual expression and psychosexual well-being. The study argues that linguistic practices do not merely reflect but actively construct norms of male sexuality, often reinforcing silence, stigma, and restricted emotional articulation.
Methods:
Drawing on media discourse as its primary data source, including films, web series, and social media interactions, the study employs a qualitative pragmatic analysis to investigate how meaning is conveyed through indirectness, implicature, euphemism, and silence in representations of male sexual identity.
Results:
The analysis reveals that media narratives frequently encode hegemonic masculinity through assertive, dominant speech acts while marginalizing expressions of vulnerability through hedging, avoidance, or strategic silence. Euphemistic and metaphorical language emerges as a key device in negotiating culturally sensitive aspects of male sexuality, reflecting broader socio-cultural constraints. At the same time, contemporary digital platforms demonstrate a gradual shift, where alternative masculinities are articulated through more open yet still pragmatically mediated forms of expression. These linguistic patterns have significant implications for psychosexual well-being, as they influence self-perception, interpersonal communication, and help-seeking behavior among men.
Conclusion:
By integrating insights from pragmatics, masculinity studies, and psychosexual health, the article highlights the critical need to address communicative barriers in discussions of male sexuality. It concludes that transforming linguistic practices in media discourse can play a pivotal role in reducing stigma and fostering healthier, more inclusive models of masculinity and sexual well-being.
Keywords
Introduction
Masculinity is widely understood not as a fixed biological essence but as a socially constructed and discursively produced phenomenon, shaped through historically contingent cultural practices and communicative acts. As Connell theorizes, masculinities exist in plural forms, structured within relations of power, with “hegemonic masculinity” functioning as a normative ideal that legitimizes male dominance and regulates acceptable male behavior.
1
This view is further strengthened by Butler, who conceptualizes gender as performative, constituted through repeated acts, including linguistic performances.
2
From this perspective, language becomes a crucial site where masculinity is enacted, negotiated, and reproduced, rendering male identity inseparable from the discursive practices through which it is articulated. Within the domain of sexuality, however, masculine expression is often constrained by entrenched socio-cultural taboos and stigmas, particularly in culturally conservative contexts such as India. Discussions of male sexual health, dysfunction, and vulnerability remain marginalized, frequently mediated through silence, euphemism, or indirect reference. Foucault argues that sexuality is regulated through discourse, wherein systems of power determine not only what is spoken but also what must remain unspoken.
3
In many societies, dominant constructions of masculinity valorize sexual potency, control, and emotional restraint, thereby discouraging open communication about sexual anxieties or health concerns. Scholars in psychosexual health have similarly noted that stigma and inadequate communication significantly impede help-seeking behaviors among men.4,5 To interrogate these communicative dynamics, the present study draws on pragmatics, which examines how meaning is constructed in context beyond literal linguistic forms. Grice demonstrates that speakers routinely convey implicit meanings through conversational implicature, relying on shared contextual assumptions.
6
Likewise, Austin and Searle emphasize that language performs actions, while Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory highlights how speakers strategically mitigate face-threatening acts.7–9 These theoretical tools are particularly relevant in analyzing male sexual discourse, where sensitive topics are often negotiated through indirectness, hedging, metaphor, and silence as face-saving strategies. Central to this inquiry is the concept of psychosexual well-being, which refers to the integrated state of emotional, psychological, and sexual health. It extends beyond the absence of dysfunction to include positive sexual self-concept, relational satisfaction, and effective communication. Early formulations by Freud foregrounded the psychological dimensions of sexuality,
10
while later clinical research by Masters and Johnson and Kaplan emphasized the interplay of physiological and psychological factors in sexual functioning.4,5 More recent frameworks adopt a biopsychosocial model, recognizing that sexual health is shaped by the interaction of biological processes, psychological states, and socio-cultural influences.
11
Within this framework, communication emerges as a critical determinant of psychosexual well-being, as the inability to articulate concerns or desires may exacerbate distress and hinder access to care. Despite substantial scholarship in both masculinity studies and sexual health, a notable research gap persists at the intersection of pragmatic language use and male psychosexual well-being. In response, this study seeks to address this lacuna through the following objectives:
Examine how masculinity is linguistically negotiated in media discourse. Analyze how pragmatic strategies, including indirectness, silence, and metaphor, shape representations of male sexual expression. Explore the implications of these discursive practices for psychosexual well-being.
By integrating insights from pragmatics, masculinity studies, and psychosexual health, the article aims to demonstrate that language is not merely reflective but constitutive of male sexual subjectivity, and that transforming communicative practices is essential for creating healthier and more inclusive understandings of masculinity.
Theoretical Framework
The present study adopts an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that integrates insights from pragmatics, masculinity studies, and psychosexual health to examine how language mediates the construction and negotiation of male sexual subjectivity. By bringing these domains into dialogue, the study foregrounds the role of discourse not only as a representational medium but as a constitutive force shaping both masculinity and psychosexual well-being. Pragmatics provides a crucial analytical lens for understanding how meaning is constructed beyond the literal level of language, particularly in contexts involving sensitive or stigmatized topics such as sexuality. Central to this framework is speech act theory, which posits that utterances perform actions. In the context of masculinity, men “do things” with words, asserting authority, negotiating intimacy, or concealing vulnerability through performative linguistic acts.7,8 For instance, expressions of dominance or control may function as assertive speech acts, while evasive or minimal responses may serve to mask discomfort or insecurity. Complementing this is politeness theory, which explains how speakers manage “face” in interaction.9,12 Discussions of sexuality are inherently face-threatening, particularly within normative masculine frameworks that discourage vulnerability. Consequently, men often employ strategies such as hedging, indirectness, and euphemism to mitigate potential threats to their masculine identity. These strategies are especially salient in contexts where open sexual discourse may challenge culturally sanctioned norms of masculinity. Further, Grice’s concept of implicature is instrumental in analyzing how meaning is conveyed implicitly. In sexual discourse, speakers frequently rely on shared cultural knowledge and contextual cues to communicate sensitive information indirectly. 6 Such reliance on implicature allows individuals to maintain plausible deniability while still conveying meaning, thereby reflecting the tension between expression and restraint in male sexual communication. The study draws on foundational concepts in masculinity studies to contextualize linguistic practices within broader socio-cultural power structures. Connell’s notion of hegemonic masculinity is central here, referring to the culturally dominant ideal of manhood characterized by authority, heterosexuality, emotional restraint, and sexual competence. This hegemonic form marginalizes alternative masculinities and regulates acceptable modes of male expression, including language use. 1 Building on this, contemporary scholarship distinguishes between toxic masculinity, a configuration marked by aggression, emotional suppression, and dominance and alternative or inclusive masculinities, which allow for emotional openness and egalitarian relationships.12,13 These competing models of masculinity are often negotiated through discourse, where language becomes a site of both reinforcement and resistance. Additionally, the concept of masculinity as performance, influenced by Butler, underscores that masculine identity is not pre-given but enacted through repeated social and linguistic practices. 2 In this sense, men continuously perform masculinity through their communicative choices, what they articulate, how they frame it, and what they strategically omit. Media discourse, in particular, plays a significant role in circulating and normalizing these performances, thereby shaping collective understandings of male sexuality.3,14 The third component of the framework situates linguistic practices within the domain of psychosexual health, emphasizing the interdependence of biological, psychological, and social factors. The biopsychosocial model, widely endorsed in health sciences, provides a holistic understanding of sexual health, recognizing that physiological functioning, emotional well-being, and socio-cultural context are deeply interconnected. 14 This model aligns with the definition proposed by WHO, which conceptualizes sexual health as a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality.11,15 Communication plays a pivotal role in this domain. Clinical research has long demonstrated that the articulation of sexual concerns is essential for diagnosis, treatment, and relational satisfaction.4,5 However, when communication is constrained by stigma or normative expectations of masculinity, individuals may experience difficulty in expressing vulnerability, leading to delayed help-seeking and exacerbated distress. Scholars have also highlighted the impact of stigma and repression on mental health outcomes. As Foucault suggests, the regulation of sexuality through discourse produces forms of silence that are not merely absences of speech but structured effects of power. Such silences can contribute to internalized shame, anxiety, and diminished well-being.3,16 In the context of male sexuality, these dynamics are particularly pronounced, as cultural scripts often equate masculinity with invulnerability and sexual competence. Together, these perspectives underscore the central argument of this study: that language is a critical mediating force in the negotiation of masculinity and the experience of psychosexual health. Scholarly engagement with masculinity, language, and psychosexual health has expanded significantly across disciplines; however, the intersection of pragmatics, media discourse, and male psychosexual well-being remains underexplored. The following review synthesizes key strands of research relevant to the present study. A substantial body of work has established that masculinity is discursively constructed and maintained through language and cultural narratives. Connell conceptualizes hegemonic masculinity as a culturally dominant ideal that is reproduced through everyday practices, including discourse.1,17 Building on this, linguistic studies such as those by Russell demonstrate how hegemonic masculinity is encoded and circulated through discourse, reinforcing ideologies of dominance and normativity. 18 Such research highlights that language is not merely descriptive but constitutive of masculine identities, shaping how men understand and perform their roles within society. Parallel to this, discourse-analytic research has examined how media constructs and regulate male sexuality. For instance, du Plessis analyses sexual advice texts and shows that media representations often reproduce phallocentric and biologically deterministic narratives of male sexuality, reinforcing narrow and normative sexual scripts. Importantly, the study argues that the media serves as a key site where “standards of ‘normal’ sex are defined,” thereby influencing both individual perceptions and broader socio-cultural expectations. 19 This aligns with broader claims that media discourse plays a crucial role in shaping sexual knowledge and identity formation. Recent scholars have further emphasized the relationship between masculinity and health discourse, particularly in relation to communication practices. Some seminal works demonstrate how masculinities are negotiated across diverse communicative contexts, including digital media, advertising, and clinical interactions. 20 These studies collectively reveal that men’s health behaviors, including sexual health, are deeply embedded in discursive constructions of masculinity, often privileging stoicism and self-reliance over openness and care-seeking. Empirical research in psychosexual health further indicates that traditional masculine norms significantly influence sexual communication and well-being. For example, Norton and others show that adherence to conventional masculine ideologies such as toughness and anti-femininity is associated with reduced sexual communication and lower sexual self-efficacy. This suggests that masculine norms not only shape discourse but also have tangible implications for psychosexual outcomes, particularly in intimate relationships. 18 Similarly, studies on sexual health communication highlight that men are often positioned as reluctant communicators, which can hinder effective engagement with healthcare systems. More recent studies have introduced the concept of precarious masculinity, emphasizing that masculinity is a fragile and constantly negotiated identity. Haltom, in an analysis of men’s health magazines, demonstrates how media discourse constructs masculinity as something that must be continually defended, particularly through representations of sexual competence and control. 19 This precariousness often leads to exaggerated performances of masculinity and the suppression of vulnerability, which in turn shapes how men communicate about sexual health. Such findings reinforce the argument that linguistic practices are central to maintaining and negotiating masculine identity. Finally, research within health communication studies underscores the role of stigma and discursive constraints in shaping male engagement with sexual health services. A study on healthcare professionals’ discourse reveals that masculinity is often constructed as being in tension with help-seeking behavior, with men framed as reluctant patients within clinical contexts. 20 This lack of a coherent discourse around male sexual health further complicates communication and reinforces existing stigmas. These findings resonate with broader theoretical perspectives that link silence and indirectness in discourse to structures of power and social regulation.
Data Selection Criteria
The selection of films for this study is guided by a purposive sampling strategy aligned with the objectives of examining linguistic constructions of masculinity within media discourse. The chosen texts, Kabir Singh, Vicky Donor, Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan, and Tamashawere selected based on the following criteria: (a) their explicit engagement with themes of male sexuality, emotional expression, and identity; (b) their representation of diverse masculinities, including hegemonic, alternative, and non-heteronormative forms; (c) their cultural relevance and wide reception within the Indian socio-cultural context; and (d) the presence of rich dialogic interactions that enable pragmatic analysis of speech acts, implicature, politeness strategies, and silence. This selection ensures both analytical depth and comparative scope, allowing for a nuanced exploration of how masculinity is discursively negotiated across varied narrative frameworks. The present study adopts an interdisciplinary theoretical framework that integrates pragmatics, masculinity studies, and psychosexual health, with a specific focus on media discourse as the primary site of analysis. Films and digital media not only reflect but actively shape cultural understandings of masculinity and male sexuality. In the Indian context, popular Hindi cinema provides a rich corpus for examining how masculinity is constructed, negotiated, and contested through language and representation. The selected films offer diverse portrayals of male identity, sexuality, and emotional expression, making them suitable for applying the proposed theoretical lenses. Pragmatics provides a robust framework for analyzing how meaning is constructed implicitly within cinematic dialogues and narratives. The language performs actions; thus, film dialogues can be examined as speech acts that construct masculinity. 7 For instance, in Kabir Singh, the protagonist’s assertive and often aggressive utterances function as performative acts of dominance, reinforcing hegemonic masculinity through linguistic control. As Grice argues, speakers rely on shared cultural knowledge to communicate indirectly. In this, discussions of sperm donation are frequently mediated through humor, metaphor, and euphemism, reflecting cultural discomfort around male sexuality. 21 Such indirectness allows sensitive topics to be addressed while maintaining social acceptability. Additionally, politeness theory is particularly useful in analyzing how characters manage “face” in conversations about sexuality. 9 In Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan, for example, linguistic strategies such as hedging, avoidance, and coded language are employed by characters to negotiate socially stigmatized identities. For example, when a character hesitantly states, “who … hum dost se zyada hain,” the use of hesitation markers and indirectness reflects the negotiation of a stigmatized identity. The pragmatic use of ellipsis and hedging reveals the tension between disclosure and social constraint. These pragmatic strategies reveal how masculinity is maintained or challenged through communicative choices. Masculinity studies provide the socio-cultural foundation for interpreting the linguistic patterns identified in media discourse. Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinity is central to understanding dominant representations of men in cinema. In Kabir Singh, masculinity is constructed through aggression, sexual entitlement, and emotional repression, exemplifying hegemonic norms that privilege dominance and control. At the same time, contemporary cinema also presents alternative masculinities that challenge these norms. The selected films offer representations of men who negotiate sexuality in more open and vulnerable ways, thereby destabilizing traditional masculine ideals. This aligns with the notion of inclusive masculinity, which emphasizes emotional expressiveness and egalitarian relationships. 1 The idea of masculinity as performance, influenced by Butler, is particularly relevant in the cinematic context. Characters perform masculinity through repeated linguistic and behavioral acts, which are then normalized through narrative structures. In Tamasha, for instance, the protagonist’s struggle with identity reflects the tension between socially imposed masculine roles and authentic self-expression, highlighting the performative nature of masculinity. 22 In a key moment of self-reflection, Ved’s fragmented utterance “Main … main kaun hoon?”, demonstrates self-repair and hesitation, signaling identity conflict. Such disfluencies function as pragmatic indicators of psychological and emotional instability. The third dimension of the framework situates these discursive constructions within the domain of psychosexual health, emphasizing the interplay between communication, identity, and well-being. The biopsychosocial model provides a holistic lens, recognizing that sexual health is shaped by biological, psychological, and socio-cultural factors. This perspective is reinforced by the World Health Organization, which defines sexual health as a state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being. Media representations play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of sexual health and acceptable modes of communication. 23 In Vicky Donor, the normalization of sperm donation contributes to reducing stigma, while also highlighting the role of humor and indirect language in facilitating discourse. A representative dialogue such as “Doctor saab, yeh kaam thoda hatke hai na?” illustrates the use of euphemism and implicature in referring to sperm donation. The indirect phrasing mitigates discomfort while relying on shared cultural assumptions to convey meaning. Conversely, Kabir Singh reflects how toxic masculine norms can suppress emotional communication, potentially leading to psychological distress. Clinical research underscores the importance of communication in sexual health outcomes. However, as Foucault argues, discourse also produces silence through mechanisms of power and regulation. In cinematic narratives, this is evident in the use of pauses, ellipses, and non-verbal cues to signify discomfort or repression, particularly in discussions of male vulnerability and sexual dysfunction. 24 By applying these theoretical perspectives to media discourse, the study demonstrates that films function as discursive spaces where masculinity and male sexuality are both constructed and contested through language. Pragmatics enables the analysis of micro-level linguistic strategies; masculinity studies provide the socio-cultural context; and psychosexual health highlights the implications for well-being. Together, these frameworks reveal that cinematic language not only reflects societal norms but also shapes how men understand, perform, and communicate their sexual identities.
Analysis
The analysis adopts a systematic qualitative pragmatic framework, focusing on identifiable linguistic features across the selected texts. These include: (a) speech act categories (assertive, directives, expressive); (b) pragmatic markers such as hedges, pauses, and self-repair; (c) implicature and indirectness as theorized by Grice; and (d) politeness strategies and facework as conceptualized by Brown and Levinson. Each film is examined through these parameters to ensure consistency in analysis and to move beyond descriptive assertions toward demonstrable linguistic evidence. This section analyses selected films to examine how masculinity is linguistically negotiated through pragmatic strategies and how these representations intersect with psychosexual well-being. For instance, in a scene where Kabir asserts control over Preeti, he states: “You’re mine.” This utterance functions as a directive and possessive speech act, reinforcing dominance and entitlement. The absence of mitigation or hedging intensifies its face-threatening force, exemplifying hegemonic masculinity through linguistic control. In Kabir Singh, masculinity is constructed through assertive and directive speech acts that reinforce dominance and control. Drawing on Austin and John Searle, the protagonist’s utterances frequently function as performative acts that establish authority over others, particularly in intimate relationships.2,3 Commands, interruptions, and declarative statements serve to assert power, reflecting what is identified as hegemonic masculinity. 1 From a pragmatic perspective, these speech acts are not merely communicative but constitutive of identity, enacting a form of masculinity predicated on control and emotional suppression. As Foucault suggests, such discursive practices are embedded within broader power structures that regulate expressions of sexuality and emotion. The result is a linguistic pattern that marginalizes emotional articulation, with implications for psychosexual distress and relational dysfunction. 3 In contrast, Vicky Donor employs euphemism, humor, and implicature to negotiate culturally sensitive themes such as sperm donation and male fertility. According to Grice, implicature allows speakers to convey meanings indirectly, relying on shared cultural assumptions. In the film, discussions of reproductive health are frequently framed through comedic dialogue and metaphorical expressions, which function as face-saving strategies. 24 This pragmatic mediation reflects the socio-cultural discomfort surrounding open discussions of male sexuality in the Indian context. However, the use of humor also serves a destigmatizing function, enabling audiences to engage with taboo subjects in a socially acceptable manner. From the perspective of psychosexual health, such representations can contribute to increased awareness and normalization of male reproductive issues, aligning with the biopsychosocial model of health. At the same time, the reliance on indirectness underscores the persistent constraints on explicit sexual discourse. Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan offers a fresh portrayal of masculinity through its representation of same-sex desire and the negotiation of non-heteronormative identities. 9 Silence, in particular, emerges as a significant pragmatic resource. Silence is not merely the absence of speech but a product of discursive regulation. 25 In the film, moments of hesitation, ellipsis, and non-verbal communication reflect the tension between self-expression and social conformity. These linguistic strategies reveal the challenges of articulating marginalized sexual identities within a heteronormative framework. At the same time, the film also depicts moments of discursive resistance, where characters challenge normative expectations through more explicit and assertive forms of expression. This shift aligns with emerging models of inclusive masculinity, which allow for emotional openness and diversity in sexual identity. Such representations have positive implications for psychosexual well-being, as they expand the range of acceptable masculine expressions. In Tamasha, masculinity is explored through the lens of identity conflict and performativity, particularly in relation to emotional expression and selfhood. Masculinity in Tamasha is understood as a performance shaped by societal expectations. The protagonist’s struggle to articulate his desires and emotions reflects the tension between socially prescribed roles and authentic self-expression. This is further evident in the contrast between his public and private speech patterns, illustrating how context influences linguistic performance. From a psychosexual perspective, the inability to communicate emotional and relational needs effectively can lead to psychological distress, as noted in clinical studies on sexual and emotional health. The film thus highlights the importance of authentic communication in achieving psychosexual well-being, reinforcing the link between language, identity, and mental health. Across these films, a consistent pattern emerges: masculinity is negotiated through a range of pragmatic strategies that both reflect and reinforce socio-cultural norms. Assertive speech acts and dominance characterize hegemonic masculinity (Kabir Singh), while euphemism and humor mediate taboo subjects (Vicky Donor). Politeness and silence regulate marginalized identities (Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan), and hesitation and self-repair signal identity conflict (Tamasha). These findings demonstrate that language plays a central role in shaping psychosexual well-being, influencing how men perceive themselves, communicate with others, and engage with issues of sexual health. By foregrounding the pragmatic dimensions of media discourse, the study underscores the need to critically examine how linguistic practices contribute to both the perpetuation and transformation of masculine norms. A closer examination of Kabir Singh reveals a consistent pattern of linguistic dominance that reinforces hegemonic masculinity at multiple levels of interaction. The protagonist’s discourse is characterized by a high frequency of directive and assertive speech acts, often delivered without mitigation. The absence of politeness strategies, such as hedging or softening devices, intensifies the face-threatening nature of these interactions. Moreover, interruptions and overlapping speech further contribute to the construction of authority, as they restrict the interlocutor’s communicative agency. From a Gricean perspective, the frequent violation of conversational maxims, particularly those of relevance and manner, serves to foreground emotional intensity over cooperative communication. Silence, when present, operates not as reflection but as withdrawal, signaling emotional repression rather than vulnerability. This detailed analysis demonstrates that masculinity in the film is not merely represented but actively performed through patterned linguistic behavior, thereby substantiating the argument that discourse functions as a primary site for the enactment of gendered identity. To systematize the analysis, Table 1 summarizes key pragmatic features identified across the selected films, along with their functional distribution and relative frequency.
Pragmatic Features and Discursive Functions in Bollywood Films.
Discussion in Biopsychosocial Context
The findings may be interpreted through a biopsychosocial framework, highlighting the interdependence of biological, psychological, and social dimensions of health. Linguistic constraints significantly shape the articulation of male sexuality and, consequently, psychosexual well-being. At the biological level, sexual health concerns are often indirectly expressed due to stigma. In Vicky Donor, reproductive issues are mediated through humor and euphemism, which, while enabling discussion, may limit clinical clarity. Effective communication remains essential for diagnosis and treatment. 26 Psychologically, dominant masculine norms restrict emotional expression. In Kabir Singh, assertive speech and suppressed vulnerability reflect internalized ideals that may contribute to anxiety and repression, consistent with psychosexual theory. Hesitation and silence in Tamasha further indicate identity conflict and communicative difficulty. Socially, hegemonic norms regulate acceptable expression. In Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan, non-heteronormative identities are negotiated through indirect discourse, reflecting pressures of conformity and the prevalence of binary oppositions. Media discourses thus reinforce communicative patterns such as euphemism and silence as socially conditioned practices. 27
Health Outcomes and Awareness Gaps
The interaction of these biological, psychological, and social factors highlights a critical gap in awareness and communication surrounding male psychosexual health. Linguistic constraints limit the articulation of sexual concerns, while cultural stigmas discourage open dialogue, resulting in reduced health-seeking behavior and increased vulnerability to psychological distress. Although the selected media texts attempt to normalize discussions of sexuality, the persistence of indirectness indicates that significant barriers remain. Thus, the study demonstrates that improving psychosexual well-being requires not only medical intervention but also a transformation of communicative practices and cultural narratives. Addressing these gaps necessitates a more integrated approach that recognizes language as a central component of health discourse.
Methodological Limitations
While the study offers valuable insights into the linguistic construction of masculinity, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The analysis is based on a relatively small and purposively selected corpus of films. Further, the study focuses primarily on scripted media discourse, which may not fully capture the complexity of everyday conversational practices. Future research may address these limitations by incorporating larger datasets, multimodal analysis, and empirical audience studies.
Implications
The findings of this study have significant implications across clinical, educational, and social domains, particularly in addressing the communicative barriers that shape male psychosexual health. The analysis underscores the need for linguistically sensitive counseling and therapeutic practices that account for the indirect and often constrained ways in which men articulate sexual concerns. Clinicians must be trained to recognize pragmatic cues such as hesitation, euphemism, and silence as meaningful indicators of underlying distress. As research in psychosexual therapy suggests, effective treatment depends not only on clinical expertise but also on the ability to facilitate open and non-judgmental communication. This is particularly important in contexts where direct articulation of sexual issues is stigmatized. Developing communication strategies that reduce face-threatening situations can encourage patients to express concerns more freely, thereby improving health outcomes. At the educational level, the study highlights the importance of integrating sexual health literacy with communicative competence. Educational curricula should move beyond purely biological models of sex education to include discussions on language, discourse, and cultural norms. Teaching individuals how to articulate sexual concerns, negotiate consent, and engage in open dialogue can significantly enhance psychosexual well-being. Incorporating critical media literacy is also essential, as media representations play a formative role in shaping perceptions of masculinity and sexuality. By encouraging critical engagement with media discourse, educational initiatives can challenge stereotypical representations and promote more inclusive and healthy models of masculinity. At the societal level, the findings call for a discursive shift in how masculinity and male sexuality are represented and discussed. Breaking the stigma surrounding male sexual health requires transforming the linguistic and cultural frameworks that regulate expression. Films such as Vicky Donor and Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan demonstrate the potential of media to reshape public discourse by normalizing conversations around sexuality and challenging hegemonic norms. However, sustained efforts are needed to move beyond euphemistic or comedic representations toward more direct and nuanced portrayals of male vulnerability and health. Ultimately, fostering healthier masculinities involves creating spaces both discursive and institutional where men can articulate their experiences without fear of stigma or judgment.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that language is not merely a passive medium of expression but a constitutive force in shaping masculinity and male psychosexual well-being. Through an analysis of media discourse in films such as Kabir Singh, Vicky Donor, Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan, and Tamasha, it is revealed how pragmatic strategies such as speech acts, implicature, politeness, and silence actively construct and regulate male sexual identities. A comparative reading of the four films reveals distinct yet intersecting pragmatic patterns in the construction of masculinity. Kabir Singh foregrounds hegemonic masculinity through direct, unmitigated speech acts characterized by dominance and control, whereas Vicky Donor employs humor and implicature to negotiate sexual taboos, reflecting a transitional masculinity that balances stigma with normalization. In contrast, Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan relies heavily on politeness strategies, hedging, and silence to articulate non-heteronormative identities within a restrictive socio-cultural framework. Tamasha, meanwhile, represents masculinity as internally fractured, with hesitation, self-repair, and fragmented discourse signaling psychological conflict and resistance to normative roles. While all four films utilize indirectness to varying degrees, the function of this indirectness differs significantly, serving dominance (Kabir Singh), mitigation (Vicky Donor), concealment (Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan), and introspection (Tamasha). The findings reveal that psychosexual well-being is closely tied to communicative practices across multiple dimensions. Biologically, indirect or constrained language inhibits the articulation of sexual health concerns, affecting timely diagnosis and treatment. Psychologically, patterns of repression and avoidance foster anxiety, guilt, and identity conflict. Furthermore, socially, hegemonic masculine norms privilege dominance and emotional restraint, marginalizing vulnerability and openness. Thus, language emerges as a critical interface through which psychosexual health is both experienced and mediated. A key implication is that improving male psychosexual well-being requires transforming communicative norms. Addressing sexual health cannot remain limited to biomedical or psychological interventions; it must also involve reshaping the discursive frameworks through which men understand and express their sexual identities. Promoting open, inclusive communication can reduce stigma, encourage help-seeking, and foster healthier relationships. Overall, this study advances an interdisciplinary perspective by integrating pragmatics, masculinity studies, and psychosexual health within a biopsychosocial, discourse-oriented framework.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Informed Consent
Not applicable.