Digital seduction, that is, practices of flirting mediated by social media and other digital applications, usually involves the display and exchange of self-portraits, commonly known as ‘selfies’, displaying nudity and self-pornification. This is a playful and complex presentation of the self, where making, displaying and sharing self-portraits reveal a complex gaze game. Participants are both the subject who takes pictures and the object pictured. They also put themselves in the place of the potential viewers, introducing their preferences, expectations and evaluations. This article presents the results of a preliminary research carried out in Madrid about these practices and the pleasures, gender displacements, disquiets and ambivalent feelings elicited in the case of heterosexual men.
De LauretisT (1987) Technologies of Gender, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8.
EllisonNHeinoRGibbsJ (2006) Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication11(2): 415–441.
9.
FontcubertaJ (2010) A través del espejo, Barcelona: Oficina de Arte y Ediciones.
10.
Foucault M (1982) The subject and the power. Afterword. In: Foucault M, Dreyfus HL and Rabinow P (eds) Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 208–227.
11.
GarlickS (2010) Taking control of sex? Hegemonic masculinity, technology and internet pornography. Men and Masculinities12(5): 597–614.
12.
GroszE (1994) Volatile Bodies. Towards a Corporeal Feminism, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
HjorthL (2014) Locating the visual: A case study of gendered location-based services and camera phone practices in Seoul, South Korea. Television and New Media15(1): 30–42.
14.
KibbyMCostelloB (2001) Between the image and the act: Interactive sex entertainment on the internet. Sexualities4(3): 353–369.
15.
KimmelM (1994) Masculinity as homophobia. Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In: BrodHKaufmanM (eds) Theorizing Masculinities, Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: SAGE, pp. 119–142.
16.
KoskinenI (2007) Mobile Multimedia in Action, Berlin: Transaction Pub.
17.
LasénA (2010) Mobile culture and subjectivities: An example of the shared agency between people and technology. In: FortunatiL (eds) Interacting with Broadband Society, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 109–125.
18.
LasénA (2005) Understanding Mobile Phone Users and Usage, Newbury: Vodafone Group R&D.
19.
LasénAGómezE (2009) Digital photography and picture sharing: Redefining the public/private divide. Knowledge, Technology and Policy22(3): 205–215.
NightingaleV (2007) The cameraphone and online image sharing. Continuum21(2): 289–301.
22.
OkabeDItoM (2006) Everyday contexts of camera phone use: Steps Howard technosocial ethnographic frameworks. In: HöflichJHartmannM (eds) Mobile Communication in Everyday Life: An Ethnographic View, Berlin: Frank & Timme.
23.
PalmgrenAC (2010) Posing my identity. Today’s outfit, identity and gender in Swedish blogs. Observatorio (OBS) Journal. 4(2):19–34.
24.
RivièreC (2005) Mobile camera phones: A new form of ‘being together’ in daily interpersonal communication. In: LingRPedersenP (eds) Mobile Communications. Re-negotiation of the Social Sphere, London: Springer.
25.
SchwarzO (2010a) Going to bed with a camera. International Journal of Cultural Studies13(6): 637–656.
26.
SchwarzO (2010b) On friendship, boobs and the logic of the catalogue. Online self-portraits as a means for the exchange of capital. Convergence16(2): 163–183.
27.
Van HouseN (2011) Personal photography, digital technologies, and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies25(1): 125–134.
28.
WangYH (2009) ‘Posing into being’: An exploratory study of Taiwanese girls’ self-portraiture online. In: CapentierN (eds) Communicative Approaches to Politics and Ethics in Europe, Tartu: Tartu University Press, pp. 179–192.
29.
WhittyMBakerAInmanJ (2007) Online M@tchmaking, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
