This article presents an in-depth case study of the way contemporary lesbians use labels in the niche dating site, “WomynLink.com.” Drawing on five months of online ethnography between November 2011 and March 2012, I examine and compare butch, femme, and queer members’ use of labels and bodily presentations in WomynLink’s (video) chat room, forum boards, and profiles. I also conducted 21 online interviews through WomynLink’s free chat room service or external messaging services such as Skype.
I draw on the boundary-making literature to illustrate how femme, butch, and queer members engage in different forms of boundary work to achieve online desirability by reconciling the tensions between their gendered bodily presentation, label use and other members’ perceptions of them. Femme members sought to highlight their femininity, butches’ boundary work made salient their sexual interest, and queer members defended their sex category as female and sexual identity as lesbian. These patterns of boundary work provide insight into how the salience of lesbian gender labels has evolved, particularly in the contemporary online era.
AshfordC (2009) Queer theory, cyber-ethnographies and researching online sex environments. Information and Communications Technology Law18(3): 297–314.
2.
BakerA (2005) Doubleclick: Romance and commitment among online couples, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
3.
BarghJAMcKennaKYAFitzsimonsGM (2002) Can you see the real me? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues58(1): 33–48.
4.
BurkeSK (2000) In Search of Lesbian Community in an Electronic World. Cyber Psychology & Behavior3(4): 591–604.
5.
ButlerJ (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge.
6.
CampbellJE (2004) Getting It On Online: Cyberspace, Gay Male Sexuality, and Embodied Identity, Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
7.
Ellison NB, Gibbs JL and Heino RD (2006) Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(2): article 2. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html (accessed 11 October 2011).
8.
GibbsJLEllisonNBHeinoRD (2006) Self-presentation in online personals: The role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research33(2): 152–177.
9.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
10.
GonzalesMHMeyersSA (1993) “Your mother would like me”: Self-presentation in the personal ads of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin19(2): 131–142.
11.
GrayM (2009) Negotiating identities/queering desires: Coming out online and the remediation of the coming-out story. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 1162–1189.
12.
GudelunasD (2008) Online personal ads. Journal of Homosexuality49(1): 1–33.
Fiore AT, Shaw Taylor L, et al. (2008) Assessing attractiveness in online dating profiles. In: CHI 2008 Proceedings: Friends, Foe, and Family, Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems conference held 5–10 April 2008, Florence Italy. New York: ACM Press, pp. 797–806.
17.
HalberstamJ (1998) Female Masculinity, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
18.
HalberstamJ (2005) In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives, New York: New York University Press.
19.
HardyM (2002) Life beyond the screen: Embodiment and identity through the internet. Sociological Review50(4): 570–585.
20.
LamontMMolnarV (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology28: 167–195.
RubinGS (1992) Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In: VanceCS (eds) Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, London: Pandora, pp. 267–293.
27.
RustPC (1992) The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and behavior among lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems39(4): 366–386.
28.
SmythC (1998) How do we look? Imaging butch/femme. In: MuntS (eds) Butch/Femme: Inside Lesbian Gender, London: Cassell, pp. 82–89.
29.
SteinA (2010) The incredible shrinking lesbian world and other queer conundra. Sexualities13(1): 21–32.
30.
TabatabaiA (2010) Protecting the lesbian border: The tension between individual and communal authenticity. Sexualities13(5): 563–581.
31.
TomaCLHancockJT (2010) Looks and lies: The role of physical attractiveness in online dating self-presentation and deception. Communication Research37(3): 335–351.
32.
WaltherJB (1992) Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational Perspective. Communication Research19(1): 52–90.
33.
WaltherJBurgoonJ (1992) Relational communication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research19(1): 50–88.
34.
WaltherJBParksMR (2002) Cues filtered out, cues filtered in. In: KnappMLDalyJAMillerGR (eds) The Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 529–563.
35.
WhismanV (1993) Identity crises: Who is a lesbian anyway? In: SteinA (eds) Sisters, Sexperts, Queers: Beyond the Lesbian Nation, New York: Penguin Books, pp. 47–60.
36.
WhittyMGavinJ (2001) Age/sex/location: Uncovering the social cues in the development of online relationships. CyberPsychology and Behavior4(5): 623–639.
