Advertisement

Sexting pp 81-98 | Cite as

Slut-Shaming 2.0

  • Kathleen Van Royen
  • Karolien Poels
  • Heidi Vandebosch
  • Michel Walrave
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Cyberpsychology book series (PASCY)

Abstract

The practice of slut-shaming became rampant with the advent of social networking sites (SNS). This chapter will discuss how these platforms pose additional risks for female adolescents to be slut-shamed. It will be argued that SNS have expanded the impact and scope of slut-shaming through, for example, the easy replication and persistence of publicly visible content on SNS. Furthermore, this chapter will examine the prevalence and characteristics of slut-shaming (derived from perceptions of the victim’s point of view) particularly on SNS, based on a survey study amongst 476 adolescent females (12–18 years). To conclude, efforts will be discussed to prevent this form of harassment. Several actors such as parents, schools, mass media and social media providers, should take more responsibility as well as convey equal gender norms starting from a young age.

Keywords

Adolescents Social networking sites Slut-shaming Prevalence Characteristics 

References

  1. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). “Good girls” gender, social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(2), 100–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J., Steeves, V., Burkell, J., & Regan, P. (2013). Negotiating with gender stereotypes on social networking sites: From “bicycle face” to Facebook. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 37(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, S., Sumter, S., Peter, J., & Valkenburg, P. (2012). Identifying teens at risk: Developmental pathways of online and offline sexual risk behavior. Pediatrics, 130(6), e1489–e1496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumgartner, S., Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2010). Unwanted online sexual solicitation and risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen, G. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. boyd, d. (2008). Why youth (h) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In Youth, identity, and digital media (Vol. 6, pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Caron, C. (2008). Sexy girls as the « Other »: The discursive processes of stigmatizing girls. Presented at the Canadian Communication Association Conference, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  11. Carstensen, T. (2009). Gender trouble in web 2.0. Gender relations in social network sites, wikis and weblogs. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 1(1), 106–127.Google Scholar
  12. Clayton, K. D., & Trafimow, D. (2007). A test of three hypotheses concerning attributions toward female promiscuity. The Social Science Journal, 44(4), 677–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 13–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents: Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sexting? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), article 9.Google Scholar
  15. Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2010). Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying, gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication tools. New Media & Society, 12(1), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, C., & Kearl, H. (2011). Crossing the line: Sexual harassment at school (p. 444). Washington, DC: American Association of University Women (AAUW).Google Scholar
  17. Hosseinmardi, H., Rafiq, R. I., Li, S., Yang, Z., Han, R., Mishra, S., & Lv, Q. (2014). A comparison of common users across Instagram and Ask.fm to better understand cyberbullying. Presented at the 2014 IEEE international conference on Big Data and Cloud Computing (BdCloud), pp. 355–362, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  18. Kapidzic, S., & Herring, S. C. (2011). Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: Have patterns changed? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kreager, D. A., & Staff, J. (2009). The sexual double standard and adolescent peer acceptance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(2), 143–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and sexting how and why minor teens are sending sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images via text messaging. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. (Pew Internet & American Life Project).Google Scholar
  21. Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Retrieved May 3, 2016, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/
  22. Lippman, J. R., & Campbell, S. W. (2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8(4), 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Littleton, H. (2011). Rape myths and beyond: A commentary on Edwards and colleagues (2011). Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 792–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Livingstone, S., & Görzig, A. (2014). When adolescents receive sexual messages on the internet: Explaining experiences of risk and harm. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahalik, J. R., Morray, E. B., Coonerty-Femiano, A., Ludlow, L. H., Slattery, S. M., & Smiler, A. (2005). Development of the conformity to feminine norms inventory. Sex Roles, 52(7–8), 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manago, A. M., Graham, M. B., Greenfield, P. M., & Salimkhan, G. (2008). Self-presentation and gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marks, M. J., & Fraley, R. C. (2005). The sexual double standard: Fact or fiction? Sex Roles, 52(3–4), 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2011). The drama! Teen conflict, gossip, and bullying in networked publics, SSRN scholarly paper no. ID 1926349. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  29. Mitchell, K., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2001). Risk factors for and impact of online sexual solicitation of youth. JAMA, 285, 3011–3014. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.23.3011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mitchell, K. J., Ybarra, M. L., Jones, L. M., & Espelage, D. (2014). What features make online harassment incidents upsetting to youth? Journal of School Violence, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.990462.
  31. Moore, S., & Rosenthal, D. (2006). Sexuality in adolescence: Current trends. Hove, East Sussex: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Papp, L. J., Hagerman, C., Gnoleba, M. A., Erchull, M. J., Liss, M., Miles-McLean, H., & Robertson, C. M. (2015). Exploring perceptions of Slut-shaming on Facebook: Evidence for a reverse sexual double standard. Gender Issues, 32(1), 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Poole, E. K. (2014). Hey girls, did you know? Slut-shaming on the internet needs to stop, SSRN scholarly paper no. ID 2483433. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  34. Rafaeli, S., & Sudweeks, F. (1997). Networked interactivity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2(4). Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00201.x/full
  35. Ringrose, J. (2011). Are you sexy, flirty, or a slut? Exploring “sexualization”and how teen girls perform/negotiate digital sexual identity on social networking sites. In R. Gill & C. Scharff (Eds.), New feminities: Postfeminism, neoliberalism and subjectivity (pp. 99–116). Houndmills/Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Ringrose, J., & Barajas, K. (2011). Gendered risks and opportunities? Exploring teen girls’ digitised sexual identities in postfeminist media contexts. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(2), 121–138.Google Scholar
  37. Ringrose, J., Gill, R., Livingstone, S., & Harvey, L. (2012). A qualitative study of children, young people and “sexting.” A report prepared for the NSPCC.Google Scholar
  38. Ringrose, J., Harvey, L., Gill, R., & Livingstone, S. (2013). Teen girls, sexual double standards and “sexting”: Gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory, 14(3), 305–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2010). Normative cruelties and gender deviants: The performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys in school. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robinson, K. (2005). Reinforcing hegemonic masculinities through sexual harassment: Issues of identity, power and popularity in secondary schools. Gender and Education, 17(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rudman, L. A., Fetterolf, J. C., & Sanchez, D. T. (2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 250–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Salter, M., Crofts, T., & Lee, M. (2013). Beyond criminalisation and Responsibilisation: Sexting, gender and young people, SSRN scholarly paper no. ID 2271378. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  43. Skoog, T., & Bayram Özdemir, S. (2016). Physical appearance and sexual activity mediate the link between early puberty and sexual harassment victimization in male adolescents. Sex Roles, 75(7–8), 339–348.Google Scholar
  44. Sticca, F., & Perren, S. (2012). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(5), 739–750.Google Scholar
  45. Tanenbaum, L. (2015). I am not a slut. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Walrave, M., & Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimisation and perpetration. Children & Society, 25(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiss, K. G. (2010). Too ashamed to report: Deconstructing the shame of sexual victimization. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 286–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ybarra, M. L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P. J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6, Supplement 1), S42–S50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121(2), e350–e357.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathleen Van Royen
    • 1
  • Karolien Poels
    • 1
  • Heidi Vandebosch
    • 1
  • Michel Walrave
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication Studies, MIOSUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations