This paper analyses online texts concerning the supposed ‘rules’ and ‘etiquette’ of heterosexual casual sex, exploring how ‘ideal’ casual sex was constructed – as object and practice. We examine how casual sex was constituted by authors who positioned themselves as knowledgeable and/or expert in relation to casual sex and demonstrate the discourses that their accounts drew on in constructing archetypal casual sex. Our analysis is situated within feminist/critical theorising and debates regarding the institution of heterosexuality and, in particular, construction of monogamy as ‘ideal’ when it comes to heterosexual relationships. We argue that casual sex was constituted as not a natural act through the specific instructions of how to ‘do casual sex right’. We outline the construction of an attraction imperative in relation to casual sex, its hierarchies of respectability, and address what an analysis about casual sex tells us about contemporary heterosexuality. This paper demonstrates that although casual sex could possibly offer an alternative to the currently pervasive mononormativity, it fails to provide this in accounts of ‘ideal’ casual sex as relayed in the public arena.
BoyntonP (2003) Abiding by the rules: Instructing women in relationships. Feminism & Psychology, 13(2): 237–245.
8.
BPS (2007) Conducting Research on the Internet: Guidelines for Ethical Practice in Psychological Research Online, Leicester, UK: The British Psychological Society.
9.
BraunV (2009) ‘The women are doing it for themselves': The rhetoric of choice and agency around female genital ‘cosmetic surgery'. Australian Feminist Studies, 24(60): 233–249.
10.
BurrV (2003) Social Constructionism, 2nd ed. London, UK: Routledge.
11.
ByersES (2005) Relationship satisfaction and sexual satisfaction: A longitudinal study of individuals in long-term relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 42(2): 113–118.
12.
ByersESDemmonsS (1999) Sexual satisfaction and sexual self‐disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 36(2): 180–189.
CooperML (2002) Alcohol use and risky sexual behavior among college students and youth: Evaluating the evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(14): 101–117.
15.
CoveneyLJacksonMJeffreysS (1984) The Sexuality Papers: Male Sexuality and the Social Control of Women, London, UK: Hutchins.
16.
DaviesBBrowneJGannonS (2006) Constituting the feminist subject in poststructuralist discourse. Feminism & Psychology, 16(1): 87–103.
17.
DuncombeJHarrisonKAllanG (2004) The State of Affairs: Explorations in Infidelity and Commitment, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18.
DuncombeJMarsdenD (1993) Love and intimacy: The gender division of emotion and ‘emotion work’. Sociology, 27(2): 221–241.
19.
ElgesemD (2002) What is special about the ethical issues in online research?Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3): 195–203.
20.
FarvidP (2010) The benefits of ambiguity: Methodological insights from researching ‘heterosexual casual sex’. Feminism & Psychology, 20(2): 232–237.
21.
Farvid P (2011) The social construction of heterosexual casual sex. Doctoral Thesis, The University of Auckland, Auckland.
22.
Farvid P and Braun V (2006) ‘Most of us guys are raring to go anytime, anyplace, anywhere’: Male and female sexuality in Cleo and Cosmo. Sex Roles 55(5-6): 295–310.
23.
Farvid P and Braun V (2013) The “sassy woman” and the “performing man”: Heterosexual casual sex advice and the (re)constitution of gendered subjectivities. Feminist Media Studies [Online]: 1–17.
24.
Farvid P and Braun V (Forthcoming) The pleasures and pains of heterosexual casual sex. Manuscript in progress.
25.
FinnM (2012) Monogamous order and the avoidance of chaotic excess. Psychology & Sexuality, 3(2): 123–136.
26.
FirestoneS (1971) The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, London, UK: Cape.
27.
FoucaultM (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London, UK: Allen Lane.
28.
FoucaultM(1988) Technologies of the self. In: MartinLGutmanHHuttonP (eds) In Technologies of the Self: a Seminar with Michel Foucault, London, UK: Tavistock, pp. 16–49.
29.
FreudS (1905/2000) Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (trans. Strachey J), New York, NY: Basic books.
30.
GaveyN (1989) Feminist poststructuralism and discourse analysis: Contributions to feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(4): 459–475.
31.
GaveyN (2005) Just Sex?: The Cultural Scaffolding of Rape, London, UK: Routledge.
32.
GiddensA (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
33.
GimplGFahrenholzF (2001) The oxytocin receptor system: Structure, function, and regulation. Physiological Review, 81(2): 629–683.
HamiltonLArmstrongEA (2009) Gendered sexuality in young adulthood: Double binds and flawed options. Gender & Society, 23(5): 589–616.
37.
HeckertJ(2010) Love without borders? Intimacy, identity and the sate of compulsory monogamy. In: BarkerMLangdridgeD (eds) Understanding Non-monogamies, New York, NY; London, UK: Routledge, pp. 255–265.
38.
HeldmanCWadeL (2010) Hook up culture: Setting a new research agenda. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(3): 323–334.
HollwayW(1984) Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In: HenriquesJHollwayWUrwinCVennCWalkerdineV (eds) Changing the Subject: Psychology, Social Regulation and Subjectivity, London, UK: Methuen, pp. 227–263.
43.
HollwayW (1989) Subjectivity and Method in Psychology: Gender, Meaning and Science, London, UK: Sage Publications.
44.
HookwayN (2008) ‘Entering the blogosphere’: Some strategies for using blogs in social research. Qualitative Research, 8(1): 91–113.
45.
JacksonS(1993) Love and romance as objects of feminist knowledge. In: KennedyMLubelskaWalshV (eds) Making Connections: Women's Studies, Women's Movements, Women's Lives, London, UK: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 39–50.
46.
JacksonS (1995a) Heterosexuality, power and pleasure. Feminism & Psychology, 5(1): 131–135.
47.
JacksonS(1995b) Women and heterosexual love: Complicity, resistance and change. In: PearceLStaceyJ (eds) Romance Revised, London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart, pp. 49–62.
48.
JacksonS (1999) Heterosexuality in Question, London, UK: Sage Publications.
49.
JacksonSScottS (1997) Gut reactions to matters of the heart: Reflections on rationality, irrationality and sexuality. Sociological Review, 45(4): 551–575.
50.
JacksonSScottS (2001) Embodying orgasm: Gendered power relations and sexual pleasure. Women & Therapy, 24(1/2): 99–110.
51.
JacksonSScottS (2004) The personal is still political: Heterosexuality, feminism and monogamy. Feminism & Psychology, 14(1): 151–157.
52.
JamiesonL (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies, Cambridge, UK: Polity.
53.
JamiesonL (1999) Intimacy transformed? A critical look at the ‘pure relationship'. Sociology, 33(3): 477–494.
54.
KitzingerC(1994) Experiential authority and heterosexuality. In: GriffinG (ed.) Changing our Lives: Doing Women's Studies, London, UK: Pluto Press, pp. 135–144.
55.
LearD (1995) Sexual communication in the age of AIDS: The construction of risk and trust among young adults. Social Science & Medicine, 41(9): 1311–1323.
56.
LittletonHTabernikHCanalesE (2009) Risky situation or harmless fun? A qualitative examination of college women's bad hook-up and rape scripts. Sex Roles, 60(11/12): 793–804.
MarcottyJ (2009) Results of casual-sex study surprise researchers. The Dominion Post.
59.
Maticka-TyndaleEHeroldESOppermannM (2003) Casual sex among Australian schoolies. Journal of Sex Research, 40(2): 158–169.
60.
McGinnD (2008) Hooked on quick encounters. Newsweek.
61.
McPhillipsKBraunVGaveyN (2001) Defining (hetero)sex: How imperative is the ‘coital imperative'?Women's Studies International Forum, 24(2): 229–240.
62.
MillsS (2004) Discourse, London, UK: Routledge.
63.
NicolsonP (1993) Deconstructing sexology: Understanding the pathologization of female sexuality. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11(4): 191–201.
64.
PaulELHayesKA (2002) The casualties of ‘casual’ sex: A qualitative exploration of the phenomenology of college students' hookups. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(5): 639–661.
65.
PaulELMcManusBHayesA (2000) “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. The Journal of Sex Research, 37(1): 76–88.
RichA (1980) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4): 631–660.
72.
RichardsonD (1996) Theorising Heterosexuality, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
73.
RobertsCKippaxSWaldbyC (1995) Faking it: The story of ‘Ohh!'. Women's Studies International Forum, 18(5-6): 523–532.
74.
RobinsonV (1997) My baby just cares for me: Feminism, heterosexuality and non-monogamy. Journal of Gender Studies, 6(2): 143–157.
75.
RosaB(1994) Anti-monogamy: A radical challenge to compulsory heterosexuality. In: GriffinGHesterMRaiSRosenellS (eds) Stirring It, Challenges for Feminism, London, UK: Taylor & Francis, pp. 107–120.
76.
RosenthalDGiffordSMooreS (1998) Safe sex or safe love?Competing discourses? AIDS Care, 10(1): 35–47.
77.
RubinG(1984) Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In: VanceCS (ed.) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 267–319.
StelboumJP (1999) Patriarchal monogamy. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3(1): 39–46.
82.
StuartADonaghueN (2011) Choosing to conform: The discursive complexities of choice in relation to feminine beauty practices. Feminism & Psychology, 22(1): 98–121.
Van EveryJ(1996) Heterosexuality and domestic life. In: RichardsonD (ed.) Theorising Heterosexuality, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, pp. 39–54.
88.
WaltherJB (2002) Research ethics in Internet-enabled research: Human subjects issues and methodological myopia. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3): 205–216.
89.
WarnerM (1999) The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life, Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
90.
WaskulDDouglasM (1996) Considering the electronic participant: Some polemical observations on the ethics of online research. The Information Society, 12: 129–139.
91.
WeedonC (1997) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
92.
WhiteheadLC (2007) Methodological and ethical issues in Internet-mediated research in the field of health: An integrated review of the literature. Social Science & Medicine, 65(4): 782–791.
WilligC (1997) The limitations of trust in intimate relationships: Constructions of trust and sexual risk taking. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36(2): 211–221.
