Drawing on focus group research, this article examines the impact of norms of publicity and privacy on young people as they negotiate technologically mediated intimate and peer relations. This article argues that digital images of bodies circulate online in manner that reinforces gender inequalities, as the public feminine body is conflated with pornography in contrast to the range of meanings that can append to the public masculine body. While the exposed female body was subject to pejorative ascriptions of sexual promiscuity, the exposed masculine body could serve a range of purposes, including its deployment in sexual harassment. Young people tended to ignore male perpetration and hold girls and women responsible for managing the risks of online abuse. The article underscores the need for a ‘critical pedagogy’ of online abuse, but it also argues that social media is rendering the homosociality and misogynist strains of online publics visible and therefore contestable.
AhnJ (2011) Digital divides and social network sites: which students participate in social media?Journal of Educational Computing Research45(2): 147–163.
2.
AlburyKCrawfordK (2012) Sexting, consent and young people’s ethics: beyond Megan’s story. Continuum26(3): 463–473.
3.
AttwoodF (2011) Through the looking glass? Sexual agency and subjectification online. In: GillRScharffC (eds) New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 203–214.
4.
boydd (2014) It’s Complicated: The Social lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT; London: Yale University Press.
5.
DavidoffL (2003) Gender and the ‘great divide’: public and private in British gender history. Journal of Women’s History15(1): 11–27.
6.
DobsonAS (2014) Laddishness online: the possible significations and significance of ‘performative shamelessness’ for young women in the post-feminist context. Cultural Studies28(1): 142–164.
7.
FloodM (2008) Men, sex and homosociality: how bonds between men shape their sexual relations with women. Men and Masculinities10(3): 339–359.
8.
FuchsC (2008) Internet and Society: Social Theory in the Information Age. New York; Abingdon: Routledge.
9.
GillR (2012) Media, empowerment and the ‘sexualization of culture’ debates. Sex Roles66(11–12): 736–745.
10.
GillRHenwoodKMcLeanC (2005) Body projects and the regulation of normative masculinity. Body & Society11(1): 37–62.
11.
GordonMTRigerS (1989) The Female Fear: The Social Cost of Rape. New York: Free Press.
12.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
HasinoffAA (2013) Sexting as media production: rethinking social media and sexuality. New Media & Society15(4): 449–465.
14.
JaneEA (2014) ‘Back to the kitchen, cunt’: speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny. Continuum28(4): 558–570.
15.
KaraianL (2014). Policing ‘sexting’: Responsibilization, respectability and sexual subjectivity in child protection/crime prevention responses to teenagers’ digital sexual expression. Theoretical Criminology18(3): 282–299.
16.
KlettkeBHallfordDJMellorDJ (2014) Sexting prevalence and correlates: a systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review34(1): 44–53.
17.
LandesJ (ed.) (1998) Feminism, the Public and the Private. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
LippmanJRCampbellSW (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 Media8(4): 371–386.
McRobbieA (2004) Notes on postfeminism and popular culture: Bridget Jones and the new gender regime. In: HarrisA (ed.) All about the Girl: Culture, Power and Identity. New York; Oxon: Routledge, pp. 3–14.
21.
McRobbieA (2008) The Aftermath of Feminism: Gender, Culture and Social Change. London: SAGE.
22.
MarwickAEboydd (2014) Networked privacy: how teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society16(7): 1051–1067.
23.
MatthewsG (1992) The Rise of Public Woman: Women’s Power and Woman’s Place in the United States 1630–1970. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
NissenbaumH (2010) Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
PapacharissiZ (2010) A Private Sphere: Democracy in a Digital Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
26.
PapacharissiZGibsonP (2011) Fifteen minutes of privacy: privacy, sociality, and publicity on social network sites. In: TrepteSReineckeL (eds) Privacy Online: Perspectives on Privacy and Self-Disclosure in the Social Web. London; New York: Springer, pp. 75–89.
27.
PatemanC (1988) The Sexual Contract. Oxford: Polity Press.
28.
PooleE (2013) Hey girls, did you know: slut-Shaming on the internet needs to stop. USFL Review48: 221–260.
29.
RenoldERingroseJ (2011) Schizoid subjectivities? Re-theorizing teen girls’ sexual cultures in an era of ‘sexualization’. Journal of Sociology47(4): 389–409.
30.
RingroseJ (2011). Are you sexy, flirty, or a slut? Exploring ‘sexualization’and how teen girls perform/negotiate digital sexual identity on social networking sites. In: GillRScharffC (eds) New Femininities: Postfeminism, Neoliberalism and Subjectivity. Basingstocke, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 99–116.
31.
RingroseJHarveyLGillR. (2013) Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: gendered value in digital image exchange. Feminist Theory14(3): 305–323.
32.
SalterMCroftsTLeeM (2013) Beyond criminalisation and responsibilisation: sexting, gender and young people. Current Issues in Criminal Justice24(3): 301–316.
33.
SoloveDJ (2007) The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
SontagS (1977) On Photography. London: Penguin Books.
35.
StraussALCorbinJ (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
36.
TolmanDL (2002) Dilemmas of Desire: Teenage Girls Talk about Sexuality. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press.
