Displaying Sexuality on Facebook: How do people define, use and judge sexuality in the virtual, social networking site known as Facebook?
ALICIA BARRETT
ARSINE AVEDISSIAN
BRIANNE HOLDEN
JESSICA GIMBEL
ELIZABETH MARISCAL
MARIAM JAHANGIRI
NHU NGUYEN
University of California, Irvine
Introduction
The term ‘sexuality’ is difficult to define. According to our lecture notes, sexuality “includes sexual desire, identity, and community,” while Webster’s dictionary defines it as “the quality or state of being sexual.” This term has often been viewed as specific to the physical world however, with expanding technology and the development of social networking sites, sexuality is an aspect of identity that can be seen not only in the physical world, but in virtual worlds such as Facebook. Through Facebook features including photos, comments and videos, the ideas of sexuality are clearly present more in the virtual world today than ever before. This particular social networking site has become a center for personal expression in many ways which can be seen through photos that the user uploads, interests, activities and posts they make on their profile. The art of flirting takes on new meanings by ‘liking’ someone’s status or ‘poking’ them. The declaration of one’s status as ‘single’ or ‘in a relationship’ gives people the chance to know whether or not someone is available without asking them directly. It also gives users the opportunity to see into their ‘friends’ sexual preferences and love lives. Images of two people together give speculations to one’s relationship status while profile pictures of scantily clad females tend to give off an impression of promiscuity. Too much exposure of one’s relationship status or even one’s image can affect their sexuality through the judgments of others which can result in that person becoming more disclosed, or even more open and explicit about their sexuality. Facebook has become a stepping-stone for new forms of sexual expression by displaying ones interests, posting pictures, commenting on others ‘walls,’ etc. Our research focuses on how people define, use and judge sexuality in the virtual, and social networking site known as Facebook.
Facebook was founded by Harvard student Mark Elliot Zuckerberg in 2004 and originally established as a social networking site specifically for college students. It rapidly expanded and has become one of the most popular social networking sites used today. Facebook is used by people of all ages, from all over the world, and is used for all sorts of purposes (social, business, etc). According to statistics found on Facebook.com from 2010, there are over 400 million active users, the average person has 130 friends, and people spend more than 500 billion minutes each month on the website. Other recent data taken in 2010 shows that more than 3 billion pictures are uploaded on Facebook every month while more than 35 million users update their status every day (Hepburn, 2010). On average, each user clicks the ‘like’ button on nine separate occasions every month and the average user spends more than 55 minutes each day on Facebook (Hepburn, 2010). Users can post hundreds of pictures and separate them in different albums as well as tag their friends who are featured in their photos. People can comment on each other’s ‘walls,’ photos and status updates. Other features such as ‘likes’, ‘pokes’, and virtual ‘gifts’ allow for a more playful way of interacting with others. It seems that all the features made available to users can be used to form a sense of self over the internet and maintain connections with people. With all the features Facebook has to offer, the topic of sexuality is opened for discussion.
Methods and Participants
Our survey consisted of 11 yes and no and open ended questions. The survey was given to 28 Facebook users. Of these 28 users 14 were female and 14 were male, between the ages of 20-23. All of them were either current students or recent college graduates. Of the 28 interviews that were completed four had been done over the phone, ten were completed through email, eight were done in person and six were done through Facebook chat.
The 28 participants in this survey were asked to base their answers on the visibility of the different characteristics one’s Facebook has to offer. This includes profile pictures, tagged pictures, how many friends you have, wall posts and comments on pictures as well as the new fad of people “liking” certain types of groups.
We also showed some of our interviewees profile pictures (main default picture) of a few random Facebook members. The interviewees were asked to explain how they felt about the image, and what ideas came to their mind when they thought about the sexuality of the person. One set of photos we showed our interviewees were of a male and female, both exposing roughly the same amount of skin. We showed random profile pictures to our interviewees to see if the questionnaires answers were parallel to their response to the photos.
Survey:
The following are the 11 questions that were used in our survey:
1) How do you define sexuality?
2) Do you think your sexuality is correctly represented on Facebook?
3) Do you edit your pictures to look more appealing?
4) What do you think about when you edit your photos?
5) How do you maintain your appearance on Facebook when others can post comments, pictures and videos about you?
6) How do you judge ones sexuality based on their profile?
7) To what extent is exposing your sexuality inappropriate?
8) From the view of others, what perceptions or judgments does your profile impose on your sexuality?
9) Is your sexual preference stated on Facebook and is it correct?
10) How do you use Facebook as a tool to either flirt or form relationships?
11) Does your Facebook profile demonstrate your relationship status whether you are single or in a relationship.
Results
There are many ways to define sexuality, especially within different cultures, societies, and even amongst the various media and social domains of the internet. Through social networking sites such as Facebook, users have the opportunity to express, define, and examine sexuality as an aspect of identity by establishing their profiles to express themselves. Members also have the opportunity to observe and analyze other Facebook user’s profiles as well. Our research aims to discover how people define sexuality in the realm of Facebook. Our participants did not give a singular or clear definition of what sexuality is in this particular social networking site however, every interviewee included gender, sexual preference and sexual behavior and openness in their definitions.
One of the findings that we came across was how Facebook users came to define sexuality in general and how they defined their sexuality on Facebook. Of our 28 participants, 12 people felt that a person’s sexuality is a way of expression, a method of presenting oneself, regardless if it is sexual or not sexual it is still a part of a person’s sexuality. A female age 20 stated that “sexuality has to do with self acknowledgement and the realization of the way others look and treat a person.” For this participant, sexuality is an internal realization and externally, a mode of self expression. This definition of sexuality is a way of expressing one’s identity in terms of personality and confidence and not so much related to the ways of being sexual.
In addition to this definition of sexuality, there were 13 participants who defined sexuality as one’s way of identifying their sexual attraction or feelings to either males, females, or both. One female interviewee, age 22 claimed “the biological and emotional need to be physically intimate with another human being, most often manifested in male to female relations” as a definition of sexuality. For this definition of sexuality, the feeling is geared towards the internal feelings of a person towards another human being as opposed to their external as in the other definition. There were 3 participants who felt that sexuality could be both the ways of expression of an individual and also the sexual attraction one has towards another person. They felt that this is relates back to a person’s identity and therefore, it’s all a part of a person’s sexuality. All things considered, from our results, sexuality could be generalized in a way such that it defines a person’s identity and it could also be a way of representing an individual in their community.
We asked our participants whether or not they believed their sexuality was correctly represented on Facebook. Out of the 28 participants, 13 responded that they felt that their sexuality is not correctly portrayed on Facebook. This number roughly makes up fifty percent of the participants and is particularly interesting given that Facebook is a user generated social networking site where every user establish themselves as they wish. Users choose which pictures to post, what information to put on their profiles, the friends they add, etc. Nonetheless they claim their personal profile do not represent what is correctly their sexuality and identity. One possible problem is that Facebook users have control over their profiles and they tend to alter their pictures to appear more attractive. For example, to appear more tanned, one female participant age 22 will “alter exposure and contrast”. If they do not edit their pictures, then they will most likely choose pictures that intensify their physical attractiveness or at least makes them look good. A female participant age 21 stated that she will choose pictures that “doesn’t make her look ugly” to post on her Facebook. This, to a certain aspect, alters the reality and what appears on Facebook as real may not be a true reality.
Another aspect of Facebook is the feature of un-tagging a picture posted by a Facebook friend. If a Facebook user feels uncomfortable with a photo they were tagged in, they have the option of un-tagging the picture from their profile. One participant age 20 stated that “if the tagged pictures or comments are bad, then I’ll un-tag, but if it’s a funny ‘bad’ picture then I’ll leave it”. This is one way the user can be assured that all their profile contents are shaped to the way they like it to be. This can also be done with all posts on Facebook whether it is a picture post, a comment post, or anything else. With this level of control over their Facebook profiles, some Facebook users feel compelled to hide some aspects of their profiles such as their sexual preferences, their relationship statuses. Some also add false information as a means of portraying their virtual selves exactly as they want to be seen (rather than actually seen), or sometimes even as a joke. For example two participants, who are sisters, who altered their “Relationship Status” on Facebook to “Married” to each other even though in reality, they are clearly not. This changes the way their sexuality and identity are portrayed on Facebook because although they are “Interested in Men” in their sexual preference, they are “married” to each other. This status manipulation and sexual identity changing is moderately common on Facebook. 37% of the participants interviewed said yes to either hiding their sexual preference or to put false information as a joke. The results we have can show that some Facebook profiles do not provide an accurate representation of a person and therefore, it may be a challenge to judge one’s identity and sexuality on Facebook due to all the restrictions and uses of personal power.
Our research indicates that although identity and sexuality on Facebook can be controversial, many Facebook users do judge another’s sexuality based on their Facebook profile. Out of the 28 surveyed, there were 18 people who responded that they do judge others on Facebook by their pictures, sexual status and relationship status. As with some who do judge other’s profiles, there were also 10 participants who stated that they don’t judge other people by their Facebook profile. This is a surprising finding given our American societal norms which generally lead us to judge others whether they are right or wrong.
With regards to judgments made on Facebook, we also made a point in our research to present to our participants some pictures taken from Facebook to gather their reactions. We presented two pictures; one of a female with undergarments exposed and another of a male with only minimal coverage to his private areas to a female participant age 23 to get her reaction. The response was “Ew that’s inappropriate” and followed it up with “I feel that guys are allowed to looked stupid and ridiculous while girls are held to higher standards.” However, when she was surveyed she claimed that she did not care how nude or exposed people were in their photos.
Discussion
The Goal of Our Research
The goal of our research is to illuminate the ways in which the social networking website, Facebook and its members use and define sexuality. As discussed in class, Facebook has become a significant platform where complex social interactions take place. Utilization, interaction, and collaboration of individuals, families, and communities on Facebook however, vary among many. As shown by our participants, considering Facebook as a legitimate means of communication and representation is debatable. Nevertheless, our research shows Facebook has become one of today’s most illustrious sites for both informal and highly organized encounters. Variations in its utilization do not limit its ability to construct and reinforce cultural concepts. In these various social encounters, meanings of sexuality are being formed, portrayed, and discussed.
System Limitations
Sexuality on Facebook consists of textual, biographical and photographical information provided by the actual user. It provides its users a place to post photos, statuses, their sex, what sex they are interested in, what relationships one is looking for, and current relationship status. These sections are not only markers of sexuality but also act as boundaries that sexuality must be defined in. For example, sex on Facebook is a fixed as male or female. However, as we have learned throughout the course, for numerous people, the definition of one’s sex is not fixed but rather a fluid culturally relative subjective experience that an individual comes to terms with. In addition, the mechanics of Facebook do not allow for certain relationship statuses and gender affiliations.
Observation of such markers of sexuality provided by Facebook reflects binary sexual ideologies. Besides ones sex on Facebook being fixed and limited as either male or female, another example is found in the relationship status option. Those that are in intimate relationships with more than one partner are forced to identify themselves as being in a monogamous relationship, or select in an ‘open’ relationship; a choice that carries much stigma in today’s society. The relationship choices made available to polyandrous couples fragments and marginalizes the value and balance between partners of the relationship. People in monogamous relationships, however, have the option to label themselves as ‘in a relationship’ and also identify his or her partner.
Because Facebook was created by a male student from an elite college institution in the United States, it is not surprising to see that a variety of labels for alternative relationships, sex and gender practices are disregarded. Facebook translates dominant U.S. (western-style) hetero-normative ideologies into a social networking site that incorporates users on a global scale. Evelyn Blackwood helps us understand why this is harmful by asserting, “Hegemonic or dominant gender ideologies define what is permissible, even thinkable; they serve as the standard against which actions are measured, producing codes, regulations, and laws to perpetuate a particular ideology” (Blackwood 1999: 412). Facebook is a social dimension where dominant United States norms regulate aspects of sexual, relationship and gender identity.
Gender
The way our society understands the concepts of masculinity and femininity is the most prevalent example of western views of gender roles on Facebook. Through participant observation, we discovered performances of gender that take place in the actual world are being articulated through Facebook. In the previous pictures presented in the methods section of this paper, we see an extreme yet common depiction of gender on Facebook. Although the young lady’s facial expression is comical, almost mocking the camera (we had to block out her face for privacy), she is in a vulnerable stance, attempting to hide behind a tree. Her face and body implies she is embarrassed and not in control of the situation. The male on the other hand, is nearly naked at what seems to be a late night barbeque. However, his stance is stout and confident. In other words, she embodies the stereotypical vulnerable female while he embodies the strong and self-assured male. Furthermore participants believed the woman looked ‘slutty’ while the guy looked funny. This comments largely on western gender roles. Even though the male is wearing less clothes, the fact that he is a guy, makes it okay. If the photos had been reversed, and the female was wearing the pumpkin outfit and the male was taking off his undergarments, the female would still be considered slutty and the male would still be considered funny. This is a particularly interesting finding as it shows that there is not only sexuality on Facebook (contrary to what some people thought), but the gender roles that are present in the physical world apply to the virtual world as well.
Agency
Despite system limitations on Facebook that constrain sexuality, we found that users utilize their own agency on Facebook to shape their sexuality. Surprisingly, users did not exhibit much awareness of the outcome generated by representations of their sexuality. For example, many female users received culturally relative gendered stereotypical comments, most vivid in photographical information. Some female participants of our study implied that the photos they chose to post led to them being sexually misinterpreted. For example, a female interviewee mentioned that she posted pictures of herself at a themed party she attended where she wore a revealing costume. Soon after, she noticed her uncle had left her a comment in regards to the pictures saying, “Naughty Niece!” From this example we noticed, “individuals can and do form impressions of others through various computer-mediated-communication” such as Facebook (Tong et al 2008: 533). Not only did she fell uncomfortable by her uncle’s sexual innuendo, she was slightly unaware that the pictures of her at costume party had the ability to generate allegations towards the sexual characteristics of her identity. Such a pattern coincides with Adam Lee’s article which focuses on the consequences of reception through online journals. Lee makes an interesting point by asserting, “What bloggers have learned is that agency is never straightforwardly assigned; the text is not the person they expected it to be (Reed 2005: 238).” Such a concept has helped us understand how photographical information can lead to sexual misinterpretations that the user may or may not have expected to result. Our research suggests that users are aware that photographical information has been used by viewers in order to deduce new and often negative characteristics about them. All in all, Facebook and its users simultaneously work together to maintain constraining meanings of sexuality. Ultimately, these markers of sexuality on Facebook allow individuals to make inferences about sexuality that may or may not be beneficial.
Why analyze sexuality on Facebook?
Victoria Bernal’s article “Eritrea on-line” discusses the ways in which the internet can act as a place of “infinite mobility and flexibility and change conditions of knowledge production of public spheres” (Bernal 2005: 660). Such characteristics are true and enormously beneficial, yet our research has shown us that individuals often suspend such benefits when culturally relative stereotypes, morals, and ideals become embedded within cyberspace. Facebook is a fairly new online virtual environment made available to billions of people all over the world. Thus, it incorporates the socio-cultural ideologies of a large diverse group of people. For this reason, Facebook is a unique dimension to analyze the varying concepts and definitions of sexuality. Our research shows that although many are not entirely aware of sexuality on Facebook, its presence is indeed evident.
Conclusion
Our research focused on how people define, use and judge sexuality in the virtual, and social networking site known as Facebook. Ideas on sexuality clearly vary in some ways and overlap in others. Our interviewees’ definitions of sexuality ranged from a person’s sexual preference to his or her mode of expression and overall identity, to a number of overarching ideas linked the participants together to reveal an online culture which mimicked that of the physical world. Areas of identity such as sexuality are therefore reconstructed online according to the ideas of the site’s users. This is seen in the basic information section of the profile where users can choose whether or not to tell people if they are in a relationship. If so, they can label it as either exclusive by naming one other person, or define it as ‘open’– a somewhat ambiguous cultural term that refers to a relationship involving more than one person, no matter what the differing characteristics between subcategories of ‘open’ may be. Despite the fact that the internet allows almost complete flexibility and freedom of expression, Facebook was created with specific American cultural norms and users choose to adhere to those cultural norms. Unlike other sites where it is normal for visitors to make random screen names and post anonymously, Facebook is designed for the specific purpose of letting other people know who you are from your name to your appearance, even where you like to eat. This amount of reality and personal association takes the constraints of the physical world standards online, where users recreate their cultures with respect to their limitations. These cultural limitations translate almost directly from the physical world to the virtual world with respect to gender and sexuality; it is very rare to find someone lying about or experimenting with changing their profile to list them as the opposite gender or as being interested in a gender they are not actually attracted to. Similarly, people also attempt to follow cultural norms in relation to their sexuality by de-tagging or hiding altogether photos which mislead viewers’ perception of their sexuality. As a result, most do not find it unusual that Facebook follows a culturally-moderated system of sexuality and thereby puts boundaries on peoples’ ability to express themselves. This is done by creating a system of markers where one’s choice from a list of relationship options or decision to post certain photos can attract unwanted ridicule. For example ‘open’ relationships or sexually suggestive pictures. This can also lead to misinterpretations in regard to one’s sexuality. The majority of our participants stated that they felt their sexuality was not, in fact, correctly represented through their profile pages.
So what does this mean? Our research indicates that even though people do not generally consciously think about and realize the broader cultural ideas they glean from using Facebook, the site is undoubtedly a strong force in perpetuating American social standards on sexuality. In spite of the fact that the majority of our participants stated that their sexualities were not correctly represented through their web pages, Facebook creates an environment where it is easy to pass judgment on a person and forget that there is more to them than their profile. Because of the continuation of social criticism from the physical to the virtual, representations of gender and sexuality become very important. But for all this importance, Facebook places many limitations on one’s ability to represent oneself. As Pavel Curtis states in his piece, Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities, “For all that this choice [of a player’s gender] involves the fewest options for the player (unlike their name or description, which are limited only by their imagination), it is also the choice that can generate the greatest concern and interest on the part of other players” (Curtis 1992: 7). Here Curtis references the binary system of sexuality employed both online and off, and the expectations of others to comply with this system. This is only a small example of the cultural and systemic constraints placed on a user by Facebook, but many more abound.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bernal, Victoria. "Eritrea Online: Diaspora, Cyberspace, and Social Imagination." American Ethnologist
32.4 (2005): 660-75. Print.
Blackwood, Evelyn, and Saskia Wieringa. "Tombois in West Sumatra: Constructing Masculinity and
Erotic Desire." Female Desires: Same-sex Relations and Transgender Practices across Cultures. New
York: Columbia UP, 1999. 411-27. Print.
Curtis, Pavel. "Mudding: Social Phenomena in Text-Based Virtual Realities." Xerox PARC, 1992. Web.
8 Jun 2010.
"Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Jun 2010.
" Facebook Statistics." Facebook. N.p., 2010. Web.
Hepburn, Aden. "Facebook: Facts & Figures For 2010 ." Digital Buzz Blog. Digital Buzz Blog,
22/03/2010. Web. 4 Jun 2010.
Reed, Adam, “My Blog Is Me”: Texts and Persons in UK Online Journal Culture (and Anthropology).
Ethnos 70(2):220-42, 2005.
Tong, Stephanie, Brandon Heidi, and Lindsey Langwell. "Too Much of a Good Thing? The Relationship
Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal Impressions on Facebook." Journal of Computer
Mediated-Communication 13 (2008): 531-49. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment