Abstract
Understanding and addressing the sexual risk taking of young men remains a key research, policy, and practice concern in attempts to improve the emotional and physical sexual health of young men and their sexual partners. This article explores one of the ways in which young men attempt to mitigate sexual risk through the assigning of labels to particular young women and using these as a basis for their decisions in relation to sexual activity, contraception, and condom use. The article uses the lens of hegemonic masculinities theory to increase understanding of the role played by the construction and performance of marginalized masculinities and how these in turn are influenced by social exclusionary processes. The article draws on focus group and interview data from 46 young men aged 15 to 17 years living in the northwest of England, purposively selected on the basis of the prevailing policy definitions of social inclusion and exclusion. The article describes a form of marginalized masculinity pertaining to socially excluded young men, which as a result of limited access to other tenets of hegemonic masculinity, is disproportionately reliant on sexual expertise and voracity alongside overt demonstrations of their superiority over women. It is in this context that young women are assigned the labels of “dirty” or “clean” on the basis of a selection of arbitrary judgments relating to dress, demeanor, area of residence, and perceived sexual activities. The motivations of the young men, the impact on young women, and the policy and practice implications are all discussed.
Keywords
Introduction
Increasing rates of sexually transmitted infections; stubbornly high levels of teenage conceptions; increasing reports of sexual pressure, coercion, and exploitation from young women; and growing concerns about the impact of pornography and sexualization combine to suggest that in the early 21st century young people’s sexual health remains a significant public health concern. (Horvath et al., 2013; Office of National Statistics, 2014; Papadopoulos, 2010; Public Health England, 2014). Underpinning this concern are gendered discourses that position young women as vulnerable and subordinate and young men as powerful and predatory; discourses that have pervaded recent sexual health policy in the United Kingdom and elsewhere (Department of Health, 2013). Pivotal to the positioning of young men in this way is the perception of a crisis in masculinities (Archer & Yamashita, 2010; McDowell, 2003) in which, deprived of traditional masculine roles, young men assert their masculinities through the means available to them, including overt demonstrations of sexual superiority (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 1998; Segal, 1997). Using the lens of hegemonic masculinities theory, this article explores a particular manifestation of this discourse, namely the application of labels of “dirty” and “clean” to young women as a sexual risk reduction strategy through which young men can simultaneously demonstrate their superiority over women and enact an appropriate masculine sexual role. This introductory section will position young men’s sexual risk taking within the context of the construction and performance of masculinities, and will specifically explore the intersections between masculinities and social exclusion. This will provide an appropriate context for the focus of this study, which seeks to illuminate how social exclusion affects the ways in which young men can construct their masculinities and how this in turn affects their conceptualizations of young women in relation to sex and their subsequent behavior in the sexual arena.
The recognition that masculinities are understood and constructed in relation to young women is well established in the literature and it is by opposing those qualities and behaviors that are defined as pertaining to women that young men are able to demonstrate their masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Courtenay, 2000; Frosh, Pheonix, & Pattman, 2002; Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2003; O’Donnell & Sharpe, 2000). Rejecting more essentialist and trait-based definitions of masculinities that had hitherto dominated theories of masculinities, Connell’s concept of hegemonic masculinities theorizes masculinities that are constructed through the performance of actions within a particular social context (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Furthermore, these actions are seen to be in pursuance of a hegemonic form of masculinity that embodies “the currently most honoured way of being a man, [requiring] all other men to position themselves in relation to it, and ideologically . . . [legitimising] the global subordination of women to men” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 832). This “configuration of gender practice” (Connell, 1995, p. 77) reflects both the relational nature of masculinities and the centrality of performance—masculinities are understood not as essential states of maleness, but as fluid performances of culturally, spatially, and temporally specific actions (Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Despite this fluidity, individual men are not able to simply adopt the position in the hegemonic hierarchy that they would choose, their options are constrained by “embodiment, by institutional histories, by economic forces, and by personal and family relationships” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005, p. 842). Consequently some men are seen to occupy marginalized masculinities in which other social forces are “simultaneously in play” (Connell, 1995, p. 80)
Boys will be boys differently depending on their position in the social structure and therefore upon their access to power and resources (Messerschmidt, 1993, p. 87)
The recognition that social and economic inequalities affect the performance of masculinities by effectively blocking deprived and working class young men from some of the key tenets of hegemonic masculinities including wealth, status, and inclusion in powerful institutions has been demonstrated through a number of empirical studies (McDowell, 2003; O’Donnell & Sharpe, 2000; Wight, 1994) and was succinctly summed up by Mac an Ghaill’s memorable summary of working class masculinities as “fighting, fucking and football” (Mac an Ghaill, 1994). This literature highlights how some young men are marginalized and rely on the limited aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are open to them.
Connell’s theory has not been without its critics as she herself recognized some two decades after the publications of Masculinities (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The theory has been variously criticized on the basis of the value of its supposed separation of masculinities from men (Hearn, 2004); the potential that it can lead to the development and description of typologies (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Petersen, 2003) and the assertion that an ideal that has no embodiment can have little power and meaning for men (Wetherell & Edley, 1999). Nonetheless, it does provide a coherent theoretical framework with the necessary flexibility to understand the complexity and nuance of young men’s risk-taking behaviors and has been effectively used in this way in a number of other studies including work on the impact of masculinities on health and health-seeking behaviors (Courtenay, 2000; Robertson, 2006); the construction of masculinities in school settings (Epstein, Kehily, Mac an Ghaill, & Redman, 2001; Frosh et al., 2002; Swain, 2006); and an exploration of what motivates young men to engage in heterosexual activities (Richardson, 2010).
The construction of masculinities is a process that begins in early childhood, is reinforced by family, community, and school and can be performed through play, dress, rejection of academia, and through sexualized talk, sexism, and homophobia (Epstein et al., 2001; Kimmel, 1994; Mac an Ghaill, 1994; Nayak & Kehily, 1996; Renold, 2003). By the time they reach their early teens, sex plays a significant part in many young men’s performance of masculinities, for some this is through sexual activity with a partner and for others through sex talk, sexism, homophobia, and pornography; and it is the sharing of these activities with other young men that enables the establishment and reinforcement of sexual norms. These norms, while adhering to the underlying requirements of hegemonic masculinities, vary in specific contexts and at different times (Haywood & Mac an Ghaill, 2003; Johansson & Hammaren, 2007; Kehily, 2001; Kimmel, 1994; Richardson, 2010). Underpinning these norms is compulsory heterosexuality with intercourse as the defining sexual activity (Frosh et al., 2002; Holland et al., 1998; Richardson, 2010; Segal, 1997). Sex not only has the ability to enhance masculinities, but to undermine them—meeting the approved masculine standard requires that young men be expert, proactive, and voracious (Allen, 2005; Hyde, Howlett, Brady, & Drennan, 2009; Ott, 2009). The fear of failure, of being seen not to measure up sexually, can be a significant driving force for young men making sex a site of vulnerability as well as power (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006; Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, & Thomson, 1994; Hyde et al., 2009). Furthermore, as Holland et al. (1994) reflected, the strategies that some young men adopt to manage and reduce their vulnerabilities have significant implications for young women as they are often reliant on the reinforcing effects of ever tighter adherence to peer norms, the objectification and dismissal of women generally and the attribution of negative labels to specific young women. The attachment of labels on young women to enable young men to position and appropriately respond to them sexually is identified in the literature, including the use of “dirty” to denote a woman who is thought to have a sexually transmitted infection, including HIV (Hyde et al., 2009; Waldby, Kippax, & Crawford, 1993). The label is conferred in relation to rumor and hearsay and based not only on sexual behaviors but on dress, demeanor, and appearance (Hyde, Howlett, Brady, & Drennan, 2008) and it allows young men to perform different sexualized masculinities depending on the label they have chosen to confer (Bamberg, 2004; Hird & Jackson, 2001).
As Courtenay, among others, has demonstrated the pursuit of good health is often seen by men as problematic as it is in conflict with the desire to take risks, it implies weakness and vulnerability, and it requires engagement with services that are often seen as the purview of women (Courtenay, 2000; Creighton & Oliffe, 2010). Condom use, for example, can be particularly problematic for young men as it requires that condoms are accessed (usually from feminized spaces including clinics); that their use is negotiated with prospective sexual partners; and it heightens concerns over sexual performance, particularly the loss of erection (Bell, 2009; Coleman & Ingham, 1999; Shai, Jewkes, Nduna, & Dunkle, 2012). The competing masculinity imperatives of sexual voracity and expertise can serve to undermine the pursuit of good sexual health and strategies that appear to be counterintuitive, in this case eschewing condom use, can be effective in performing an approved masculinity.
This article seeks to build on the recognition that some young men occupy marginalized masculinities (Connell, 1995), able only to access the tenets of hegemonic masculinities that are open to all men by virtue of the social construction of their gender. These young men are consequently, disproportionately reliant on heterosexual sex for their masculinity status which increases their sexual vulnerability and the need for overt display.
Method
The design of the research methodology was predicated on three specific intentions; the opportunity to compare the narratives of socially included and socially excluded young men; the possibility of exploring the subjective, complex, and multiple meanings that underpinned the young men’s personal strategies and beliefs; and the desire to utilize a process that maximized the opportunities for participants to perform their masculinities in a number of contexts. To achieve this, the sample was purposively selected to include young from a range of settings from affluent academic high achievers to those from the most socially deprived communities and/or engaged with the criminal justice system. A qualitative methodology promised to provide the necessary insight into motivation and meaning as well as providing the opportunity to observe the performance of masculinities.
The Setting and the Sample for the Research
The research was carried out in 2007-2008 in a postindustrial town in the north of England, a town that despite historic prosperity is now relatively deprived in the context of the United Kingdom (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2014) though with pockets of greater affluence. To provide an opportunity for the study to focus on the impact of social exclusion and deprivation on the sexual attitudes and behaviors within the context of the construction and performance of masculinities, participants were purposively selected on the basis of the extent of their engagement in education; residence in particularly affluent or deprived areas of the town; and involvement or otherwise in the criminal justice system. Participants were recruited through local schools, youth services, and the Youth Offending Team (a statutory service in the United Kingdom providing alternatives to custody for young offenders). Initial information was provided to participants through health or youth workers in the target organizations and those interested were contacted directly by the researcher. The sampling strategy enabled participants to be divided into two groups that could be defined in prevailing United Kingdom social policy terms as socially included (n = 24) or socially excluded (n = 22). In policy terms, social exclusion was understood as being broader than poverty and deprivation but closely aligned. It took into account factors including education status, isolation from social institutions, involvement in crime, unemployment, and teenage parenthood which although clearly related to material poverty were seen to be excluding factors in their own right. (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). The division of the sample into defined groups should not be taken to imply a conceptualization of social exclusion as a fixed state but while acknowledging the complexity and fluidity of exclusionary processes and their interplay with young people at different times and contexts, the approach taken in this study allows the exploration of masculinities constructed in different social contexts and enables the results to be applied more easily into policy and practice. The participants were aged 15 to 17 years and all defined themselves as White British. In the individual interview setting, the young men were asked if all their sexual experiences had been with women, and all answered in the affirmative. It is acknowledged that to describe their experience in any other way may have left individuals feeling exposed and vulnerable (Kimmel, 1994)
The Data Collection Process
As the aim of the research was to illuminate the subjective, complex, and multiple meanings that underpinned young men’s personal strategies and beliefs, a qualitative methodology was adopted (Hutchinson, Marsiglio, & Cohan, 2002; White & Johnson, 1998). The methodology further sought to emulate the approach of Allen (2005) who explicitly utilized her research process as a site for displays of hegemonic masculinities in which data “provide first hand insights into the way that male sexuality is made” (p. 35). The participants took part first in focus groups (n = 5, see Table 1) and subsequently in semistructured, in-depth interviews (n = 41).
Institutions Through Which the Participants Were Recruited.
The aim of this dual approach was to provide an opportunity to engage with the young men in groups of their peers on the basis that “the peer group, not individuals, are the bearers of gender definitions” (Connell, 2000, p. 162) and then to encourage them to reflect on their experiences in their individual interviews (Allen, 2005; Schwalbe & Wolkomir, 2001). The importance of using both focus groups and interviews was to provide an opportunity to observe the different ways in which young men performed their masculinities in the different settings reflecting that these performances would be “tailored towards the situation and audience at hand” (Schwalbe & Wolkomir, 2001, p. 90). The focus group and interview processes were specifically designed to maximize the opportunities for participants to perform aspects of their masculinities in the context of their peers, an older male researcher and—in the focus group context—a live drama embodiment of young masculinities drawn from transcripts of previous research with socially excluded young men (Limmer, 2002). The drama was specifically commissioned, written, and performed as a monologue enacting the experience of a 17-year-old young man reflecting on sex, young women, pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and the pressure to accord with the sense of masculinities that were valued by himself and his peers. The piece was performed live at the beginning of the focus group and was used to initiate discussions on masculinities in the context of the groups approval or otherwise of the characters actions and attitudes. The aim was to provide a safer conduit for discussion of some of the more sensitive issues through a “third person” as well as an opportunity for the researcher to reflect on how different participants positioned themselves in relation to this embodiment at different points in the focus group activity (Edgar, 1999; Hyde, Howlett, Brady, & Drennan, 2005).
Data Analysis
Data were recorded, transcribed in full and analyzed with the aid of the ATLAS.ti software program using a thematic framework to explore the interrelationships between masculinities, social exclusion, and sexual risk. Following transcription, the narratives were reread in full and coded using a combination of a priori and emergent codes (Silverman, 2011). A coding tree was constructed based around emergent theories and those that had been identified in the existing literature. The transcripts relating to the socially included and socially excluded young men were coded as one body of data to reduce the risk of the process itself creating assumptions of difference between the groups. This article reports on a subset of the themes focusing on those relating to the understanding and construction of masculinities and the role played by sex in this process; and the process of labeling as a risk reduction strategy. Researcher assumptions and potential bias were mitigated by the use of a colleague to review the process of coding and the development of themes (Mays & Pope, 2000). Data from the focus groups and interviews were separately coded by the researcher, common themes were integrated, and dissensions were identified and reported.
Ethical Considerations
Having satisfied the Ethics Committee that considerations of confidentiality, consent, and safety had been addressed, approval was granted and the data were collected over a 3-month period. Given the sensitivity of the subject matter of the research, ensuring confidentiality was particularly important. Clear agreements were put in place that guaranteed confidentiality except in circumstances where their own, or others’, safety were at risk. In these circumstances the prevailing Safeguarding Children Guidance would be utilized. The data collection took place in mutually agreed venues and all identifying information was removed from the data collected. A “dynamic” approach to consent was used (Seal, Bloom, & Somlai, 2001) with participants giving their consent in writing prior to their involvement in the process and verbally immediately before both the focus groups and interviews. Participants were paid £20, in the form of vouchers, for their involvement.
Results
Introduction/Overview
This section will begin by exploring how the young men in the study defined masculinity and the place that sex plays in this definition and its performance. It will go on to describe the basis on which sexual labels are applied to young women and how they are used to construct risk reduction strategies that are congruent with the participants performance of their masculinities. Where appropriate, the results section of this article will report on participant responses as being drawn from either the socially excluded or socially included young men. Where there was significant dissent within these groups this will be clearly noted in the text.
Defining Masculinities/Different Masculinities
The definitions of masculinities of the young men in this study were broadly reflective of those reported in previous studies (Frosh et al., 2002; McDowell, 2003; O’Donnell & Sharpe, 2000), that is to say while they aspired to something akin to the adult hegemonic ideal—“Job, house, nice house, nice car, promotion prospects and stuff like that” (Terry, aged 15)—their current masculinities were built around qualities that were more immediately accessible including performances of heterosexuality, homophobia, and fighting and in addition, for the socially included young men, through academic achievement, sporting prowess, and status in school and other social institutions. The narratives of the socially excluded young men were replete with stories of their heterosexual encounters and particularly their willingness to fight which was important in earning them the respect which they valued highly and which was essential for survival and credibility.
Respect, people like yous [referring to the researcher] don’t see it ‘cos you’re not on the streets. But respect on the streets means how hard you are, that’s what’s respect on the streets, innit boys. You have to be able to fight, you’re not going to get respect otherwise. (Paul, aged 17; socially excluded; focus group)
The engagement with wider social institutions that was common to the socially included group of young men gave them access to a wider range of role models that provided them with a more diverse set of lenses through which to define and understand their masculinities and in relation to whom they could assess and define appropriate attitudes and behaviors. The socially excluded young men, on the other hand, tended to have negative relationships with school and other social institutions and acknowledged a paucity of role models beyond their peers, their fathers, and occasionally older siblings.
Common to all the young men was the importance of family in providing them with love, support, and guidance and even those young men who described themselves as currently estranged from their families maintained the importance of those relationships in the formulation of their understanding of what it meant to be men with fathers and older male siblings being particularly valued. Young men from the included and excluded groups used similar language and emotional intensity to describe the impact of these relationships. For example, Keith points to the importance of his father as a source of appropriate values:
My dad has given me all my values. The way he has taught me all the things that you don’t get taught at school if you know what I mean, how to treat a woman and what to do and all that and I can talk to him about anything. (Keith, aged 15; socially included; interview)
In a similar way, Alex stressed the importance of his father:
Me dad. I just listened to him’ like. Stories an’ stuff like that. He’s done all sorts . . . he shares everything with us . . . he’s my dad, that’s the reason I respect him (Alex, aged 16; socially excluded; focus group)
In addition to fathers, older male siblings were seen as a credible source of appropriate masculine attitudes and behavior and this prizing of the family did not seem to be affected by the current family structure with even young men who came from dislocated families still drawing on the importance of family as a source of values. However, for the included young men family was seen as a current source of support and guidance, whereas for the excluded young men this had often been lost with the dislocation of their family units.
What emerged from the narratives, was a group of excluded young men who were constructing and performing marginalized masculinities built around sexism, heterosexuality, homophobia, and fighting, who were furthermore able to draw on very few role models of alternative masculinities and were thus essentially performing and judging their appropriateness in relation to their peer group. This reliance on the peer group for affirmation and belonging invested it with significant power to define and control their attitudes and behaviors and made exclusion from those groups a significant sanction. For some of the young men peer groups were described in the kind of language otherwise reserved for their families.
Someone who is trusting, someone who is understanding, someone you can talk to about stuff, someone who watches your back all the time and helps you, someone who cares about you as much as you care about them—because it’s your mate isn’t it. (Terry, aged 15; socially excluded; interview)
It is these young men and the impact that their marginalized masculinities had on their sexual behaviors and attitudes that will be an important focus of the remainder of this article.
Using Sex to Perform Masculinities
The socially excluded young men performed sexualized masculinities built around a number of key activities that were wider than sexual activity with a partner and encompassed performance through sex talk, heterosexism, and the sharing of pornography. Regardless of the nature of the performance, it was sexual intercourse that was seen as conferring status and while other sexual activities were valued (particularly the receiving of oral sex) they were not seen as proper sex (Hillier, Harrison, & Bowditch, 1999; Holland et al., 1994). It was important for the young men to be seen to have sexual expertise, which was reflected in concerns about threats to their own performance; losing their erection—“I would go sick if that happened” (Nick, aged 16; socially excluded; interview)—or ejaculating too soon; and in their ability to give sexual pleasure. The relationship between sex and pleasure was important to these young men, and whereas the socially included group were more likely to describe sex as being about closeness, maturity, or status:
It makes you feel close to the person when you are together and it is doing something that you need two of you so you know you are in a relationship with each other. It’s like saying you love each other really and showing each other. (Nigel, aged 16; socially included; interview)
The socially excluded young men almost exclusively talked of sex as being about their pleasure.
Yes just fucking boneing her an’ that. I don’t know, if it’s a mint bird you are just buzzin’ aren’t you—coming an’ that, it’s fucking mint. (Mark, aged 17; socially excluded; interview)
Where young women’s pleasure was mentioned at all it was in the context of a reflection on the sexual expertise of the young man and was valued as a passport to further sexual opportunities.
If you bang a bird an’ they’re lovin’ it they go round an’ tell their mates that you’re mint an’ that, do they not—an’ they come back, they come back for more. (Alex, aged 16; socially excluded; focus group)
The necessity for the young men’s sexual expression to be overtly heterosexual was a reflection of the power of homophobia and the fear of being labeled as gay by peers. One result of this was the perceived need not to reject a sexual opportunity unless for defined, peer-approved reasons and these usually related to the perceived characteristics and behaviors of the young woman.
Most of my mates would have sex with any girl they can get it off, if she is decent looking and as long as she hasn’t got diseases and that. (Jack, aged 16; socially excluded; interview)
Defining the Labels
There was an acceptance in the narratives from across the sample that there were some young women who could be defined as “dirty” and that in terms of protecting oneself sexually, an awareness of this and the need to develop a strategy to negate the risk was shared by all the young men. However, there were significant differences between the socially included and excluded young men in the ways that “dirty” was defined and in the strategies adopted. The narratives drawn from the focus groups and those from the individual interviews varied very little, though the language, particularly from the socially excluded group tended to be more hostile and overtly sexist in the focus group setting.
The socially included young men associated “dirty” with poverty, social class, and area of residence:
A rougher person off a council estate . . . they are usually the ones that get the diseases. (Peter, aged 16; socially included; focus group)
and it was part of a wider labeling of both young men and young women on the basis of living in the more deprived areas of the town. In the same way that working class young men were described as scrotes and scallies—uninterested and disruptive in school with a propensity for violence and few aspirations for the future—so young women were seen as sexually promiscuous and liable to have sexually transmitted infections.
There are certain girls, you know, you see as “easy to get” and, like “dirty”—and I suppose you just assume that it’s because it’s [the nearby council estate] not a nice place to be and they are not nice people. (James, aged 17; socially included; focus group)
In essence, for most of these young men the epithet “dirty” reflected a wider antipathy to a social group who they felt to be different and inferior, and in opposition to whom they were creating their sense of themselves as young men and as respectably middle-class and aspirational. That is not to say that there was not a sexual element to their depictions—for example, phrases like “girls with scabs,” “shagged around a bit,” and “sleeps with anyone,” were used by a number of the young men—but it was part of a wider conceptualization albeit one that they felt to be clearly discernible.
you can kinda tell, you know what I mean, hair at the side an’ short skirt an’ just that sort of stereotype. It’s funny, you see people walking around and they just fit your stereotype of that sort of person exactly, an’ it’s just a bit . . . I wouldn’t say it was right for everyone, but the majority of people who are like that tend to be like, easy and stuff, you know what I mean? (Harry, aged 15; socially included; focus group)
The attitude toward these young women tended to be distant, these were not young women with whom the young men expected to have social contact or sexual relationships and their language was denigrating and dismissive—in some cases, even callous.
They have short skirts and doing all this sort of stuff [miming a sashay and hair flick], trying to impress, trying to get raped. (Gavin, aged 16; socially included; focus group)
These young women are not seen to present a sexual risk as their social circles would never meet. These young men reflected on risk in sexual relationships with their female peers and most reported consistent condom use and the valuing of sex within committed relationships—a construction that further served to cement their position of superiority over the “lesser” men of the council estates. While for the included young men “dirty” essentially related to elsewhere—different social and geographical spaces—for the socially excluded young men there was a sense that the label “dirty” could be applied to the young women in their own social and geographical spaces.
I chill with my mates and that and the girls that I know, I know them, you know what I mean, and I have known them near enough all my life—gone to school with them and all that shit—but I wouldn’t have sex with none of them because they have probably all got Chlamydia or some shit like that. I don’t know, they are all slags aren’t they? I don’t want to shag a dirty girl or anything. It’s just mad. (Danny, aged 16; socially excluded; interview)
Consequently, the fear that they might attract the opprobrium of their peers by having sex with someone labeled “dirty” was much more real and present in the narratives. The imperative not to have sex with someone defined as “dirty” was driven both by the need to avoid infection and the need to be seen by their peers to be making the valued partner choice. The labeling of young women as “dirty” also provided a narrative which could be used to explain a failure to meet the perceived masculine sexual ideal. Failing to perform sexually or the decision to eschew a sexual opportunity could be laid at the door of the young woman
If you just didn’t get a boner off [can’t maintain an erection] that would be bad. I have had birds who I have gone to shag and they’ve just not turned me on enough so you think—just don’t go there.(Paul, aged 17; socially excluded; interview)
However, there were a number of narratives in the interviews and focus groups where the young men described having had sex with someone who was considered “dirty,” indeed one participant went as far as to suggest that they all had, even though they might be reluctant to acknowledge it.
I can guarantee that every one of them [other young men involved in the research] has slept with at least one “dirty,” including me, but they won’t admit it (Carl, aged 16; socially excluded; interview)
It is significant that this comment was drawn from the individual interviews—in the focus groups there was a reluctance to overtly suggest that other members of the group had sex with “dirty” girls—in fact, the only comment relating to other participants’ sexual partners emphasized how they were at odds with this characterization.
This reluctance emphasized the delicate tightrope that the young men had to negotiate between being seen to be voracious and having to be seen to have sex with the “right” partner. They often attempted to square this circle by claiming that they were drunk and therefore, not consciously responsible, or that the “need” that they had to have sex was such that they could not forsake an opportunity. As has been noted elsewhere in the literature (De Visser, Smith, & McDonnell, 2009) the defense of behavior that might be perceived as falling short of the masculinities ideal was validated on the basis of the performance of another aspect of masculinity—in this case the willingness to take risks, the ability to consume excessive amounts of alcohol, and the possession of a strong sexual appetite.
Using the Labels as a Strategy to Reduce Risk
The narratives drawn from the interview and focus group data were very similar in terms of how the excluded young men conceptualized the notion of “dirty” and on what basis the label could be assigned to particular young women. For all the young men, place was important and for the excluded young men, the aspiration was to have sex, and possibly a longer term relationship with a young woman from what were seen as the better areas of town. In a similar way to the included young men, these young men drew on a range of other assumptions about the young women from the wrong part of town—they were seen as wanting to trap young men into longer term relationships through emotional blackmail and deliberately getting pregnant and were seen to have extended families who were potentially violent, such that one of their specific fears in relation to sex was the reaction of fathers and brothers. They were also seen as taking advantage of the welfare system:
It’s sick, the same girls shagging about can get giros for more kids. (Damien, aged 15; socially excluded; focus group)
The young men from both the included and excluded groups conceptualized “dirty” women not only in relation to sex but in relation to all the behaviors and attitudes that were perceived to be inappropriate. More specifically, the socially excluded young men defined young women as “dirty” on the basis of their dress, their demeanor, and their personal hygiene, as the comments below illustrate:
What sort of clothes they wear, or how they walk, how they walk, what their hair’s like. (Martin, aged 17; socially excluded; focus group) If I know that she’s genuinely hygienic, pretty clean, then alright—but if I don’t know her I’ll tell her to have a bath and put a johnny [condom] on. (Mark, aged 17; socially excluded; focus group) You can tell by the way they speak, the way they act. (Alex, aged 16; socially excluded; focus group)
However, overwhelmingly being “dirty” was associated with how often young women were perceived to have had sex, with whom and what sexual acts they performed—the consequences being that this would enable the young man to identify the level of risk they posed in relation to passing on a sexually transmitted infection.
If she has been with loads of people she’s more likely to have a disease isn’t she? (Trevor, aged 17; socially excluded; interview) She’s all over yer, trying to get yer to do things. I know girls that have had sex more than X, but they are not as dirty as X. Just normal sex and not trying to finger yer arsehole and like their arsehole and shit like that. That’s dirty that. (Wayne, aged 17; socially excluded; interview)
The excluded young men were not only reliant on geography, dress, demeanor, and perceived sexual history—there was a belief among a significant proportion of them that it was possible to “spot” a young woman who might have a sexually transmitted infection on the basis of physical symptoms.
You can tell because if they have got scabs and everything, not all the time you can’t but most of the time you can. Some of the diseases are inside but some of them are on the outside. Most of the diseases are on the outside not on the inside. It comes out like green stuff and things like that and it’s ‘anging [disgusting]. (Gary, aged 17; socially excluded; interview)
For the young men in this sample then, the belief that it was possible to identify which young women fell into the category of “dirty” was ubiquitous. For the socially included young men, while they shared this belief they did not base their risk reduction strategy on it, instead they professed a current and future commitment to condom use and when in more long-term relationships, to alternative forms of contraception. It was the socially excluded young men, with their antipathy to condom use, who professed to use labeling as their primary risk reduction strategy. Their conviction that it was possible to identify young women who were likely to have a sexually transmitted infection through their reputation, demeanor, location, or symptoms meant that the strategy could be summed up as the careful selection of sexual partners and if all else fails,
when you shag someone you look at their fanny, I do an’ if it’s got spots then I don’t go there. (Andy, aged 16; socially excluded; focus group)
Contestation and Dissent
One of the challenges of building this study on the basis of a comparison between young men who were defined in policy terms as either socially included or excluded was the danger that in the analysis these groups would be treated as fixed and discrete and that the research would serve to essentialize a set of characteristics for each. Throughout the data from both the interviews and the focus groups, there was significant unanimity and consensus from within each of the two groups and conversely, there were clear ways in which the two sets of narratives were different. The socially included young men were more likely to talk positively of social institutions, to be more confidently aspirant for the future, to claim to prize relationships over sex, and to position themselves as different from the socially excluded young men and young women who they defined as “dirty.” The socially excluded young men were negative about social institutions (particularly school), lacked confidence in their ability to achieve their aspirations, and positioned themselves in opposition to the socially included young men. Like their socially included counterparts, these young men also valued relationships with young women but in most cases saw relationships as a longer term goal and described their short-term sexual aspirations in terms of pleasure and voracity.
So do you see yourself in a long term relationship?
No, there is too many Friday nights to be thinking about, isn’t there, too many dirties around [here].
So . . .
On a Friday night you go out and pull a bird, you go with her for a week shag her about 3 times and that’s it isn’t it—you go for another one. I have 1 week stands really.
But at some point . . .
Yeah, pretty soon—by the time I’m 18. By the time I am 18 I will have a bird and will have settled down maybe have a kid. That’s what I reckon, that’s what I am hoping for anyway.
(Alex, aged 16; socially excluded; interview)
At the same time there were also similarities across the sample in terms of a shared conviction that there were young women who were “dirty” and others that were “clean” and furthermore, that is was possible to discriminate between the two. The crucial difference was that, although this discourse was shared across the two groups its application as a basis of a risk reduction strategy was a feature of the socially excluded rather than the socially included young men.
There was also dissention within the groups, particularly among the socially excluded young men and this was usually expressed in the interviews rather than the focus groups—the main focus for dissention related to the relationship status of the young men. Those who were in what they saw as longer term and more committed relationships emphasized the intimacy and commitment of these relationships above and beyond the importance of sexual pleasure.
I live in a children’s home and there’s a girls there and she knows when I go back there at night then she knows I won’t do nothing with no-one else, she knows. It’s not worth it, is it? When I were away at [a different children’s home] there were girls there, and damn fine ones, and I still wouldn’t touch one of them. I know she wouldn’t find out but I’d be guilty, I’d end up telling her. That six months we’ve had doing nothing, I don’t want to waste it. (Paul, aged 17; socially excluded; interview)
It was both a strength and limitation of this study that the sample was purposively selected and defined in opposition to each other. While this led to some interesting and important insights into the relationship between social exclusion and sexual risk, it also risked imposing a form of masculinity identity on the young men that they felt bound perform.
As discussed earlier in this article, the research process constituted a particular space within which the young men were performing their masculinities, either in relation to their peers or in the interviews in relation to an older man about whom they would be making any number of assumptions. However, the ubiquity of the narratives of sexual labeling from the socially included and excluded young men, and in both the interview and focus group contexts, suggests that when they are performing their masculinities in a sexual setting they are drawing on the same discourses and beliefs. While it is tempting to be dismissive of the adoption of such sexual risk reduction strategies, particularly as expressed by the socially excluded young men, it is also important to reflect that for these young men sexually transmitted infections were not common currency in the sense that they either had not contracted them personally, or if they had they were unlikely to reveal that information to their peers. Thus, as Gary expresses below, their experience is that the strategy works and condoms are redundant.
I have never wore a johnny in my life. I will be honest I have never and never caught nothing in my life. I have been with about 14 [girls] or something, it is not that much but it is in my eyes. (Gary, aged 17; socially excluded; interview)
Discussion
The clear differences in the defined sexualized masculinities of the socially included and excluded young men reflected in their language, their understanding of the meaning and role of sex and their sexual behaviors should not mask some of the underlying similarities. All of the young men shared a conceptualization of appropriate gender roles in sexual relationships, an acceptance of the “dirty/clean” dichotomy and a faith in their ability to accurately label young women within it. However, for the socially included young men, this conceptualization was challenged by other individuals and institutions in their lives that not only offered different perspectives but offered a broader repertoire of approved masculine behaviors on which to draw, meaning that perceived failure in the sexual arena was not so undermining or destructive to their sense of themselves. The marginalization of the socially excluded young men with its dual impact of narrowing the masculine attributes which could be drawn on and privileging the peer group as the arbiters of appropriate masculinities led to the construction of a masculinity that was both over-reliant on sexual performance and cut off from alternative perspectives—a defended and vulnerable masculinity.
It is in this context that the socially excluded young men defined sexual risk and developed their risk reduction strategies—risk became constituted as risk to the successful performance of their sexualized masculinities which were built around the primacy of sexual intercourse, performed expertly with a partner approved by their peer group. From this perspective, the labeling of young women as “dirty” or “clean” can be seen as a way for the young men to control the meaning and status of their sexual relationships and at the same time providing a safety net in the event of sexual rejection or a failure to perform (Holland et al., 1994).
The findings from this research build on existing understandings of the relationships between marginalized masculinities and social exclusionary processes for young men (Frosh et al., 2002; McDowell, 2003;). The young men defined by policy as socially excluded and characterized by their relative deprivation, disengagement from education, and involvement on the fringes of the criminal justice system were unable to draw on the approved hegemonic masculinities and instead constructed sexualized masculinities that were reliant on superiority over women and “lesser” men. The enhanced importance of sex as a key aspect of their masculinities necessitated overt and constant performance through sex talk, sexism, homophobia, pornography, and, where possible, through sexual intercourse. Not only were the young men restricted in the nature of their performances, they were also able to draw on narrow credible sources to affirm or challenge their construction of masculinities as they were often disengaged from, or in opposition to, family, school, and wider social institutions. Instead, they were overly reliant on their peers who, sharing their social exclusion, were unlikely to offer a challenge or an alternative world view.
It is in this context that the labeling of young women as a sexual harm reduction strategy can be better understood. Sexual labeling allowed the young men to maintain control over the validity and acceptability of their sexual performance—they assigned the labels and were therefore able to define the status of sexual partners and the sexual encounters themselves. The pressure to demonstrate approved masculinities though sexual voracity and expertise could be assuaged by the ability to assign responsibility for a failure to meet the ideal to a flaw in the young woman. Labeling young women as too “dirty,” too knowing, and too forward enabled the young man to justify his sexual failure or his reluctance to take advantage of a sexual opportunity. Furthermore, assigning the label “dirty” or “clean” enabled the young men to validate and justify their antipathy to condom use as assigning the label “clean” to the young woman with whom they were having sex precluded, in their eyes, the need to protect themselves against infections. The findings from this study also provide a broader insight into the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the grounds on which labels were assigned. For socially included young men, the label “dirty” tended to denote young women from particular geographical communities, communities that were seen not only as materially deprived but within which criminality, violence, promiscuity, and lack of aspiration abounded. This labeling reflected a broader sense of themselves as socially superior not just to the young women but also to the young men from the same areas. For the socially excluded young men, the labeling was more complex in the sense that the young women who they defined as “dirty” were part of their own communities and were their likely social and sexual partners. They based their labels on a bewildering array of behaviors, characteristics, and demeanors alongside a belief in their ability to “spot” sexually transmitted infections. These processes for labeling young women reflect the relative imperative the two groups felt to establish distance and difference. The socially included young men were confident that they would never have a sexual encounter with the young women that they defined as “dirty,” whereas for the socially excluded young men, this was not the case and the need to define themselves as different and superior was more acute.
One of the implications of the labeling of the young women was that they essentially became invisible to the young men and irrelevant to their sexual encounters. Young women’s sexual needs, wishes, and desires were defined for them by the assigning of labels and this emotional distancing enabled more callous and disregarding approaches to sex and sexual relationships. This is not to suggest that the young women were passive and accepting of the labels ascribed to them, or that the assumptions made by the young men reflected any sense of reality. The key point is that, for the young men, the young women who they defined as “dirty” became invisible and their needs secondary to their own. The construction of their sexualized masculinities did not require engagement with young women and in that sense the key relationship was not that between the young man and his sexual partner, but between the young man and other young men. This distancing provides a significant impediment to the development of healthy, enhancing, and equitable sexual relationships.
While this study has focused on a particular group of young men in a specific social context in the United Kingdom, the key learning from it relates to the intersection between social exclusion (itself an amalgam of material deprivation, unemployment and dislocation from family, and social institutions), marginalized masculinities, and sexual risk taking. As such, this study illuminates beyond its specific social setting by reflecting how those young men who, for whatever reason, have the least grasp on the tenets of approved hegemonic masculinities become over reliant on the overt performance of those that are open to them, in this case sex. The results presented here demonstrate the way that some marginalized young men use sex and the casual denigration of young women to maintain some stake in the masculine hierarchy.
There are a number of policy and practice implications arising from this research, particularly relating to challenging the attitudes and behaviors of the socially excluded young men which clearly have the potential to contribute to poor physical and emotional sexual health. First, it is important that policy and practice understand and reflect these young men’s risk taking frame of reference. It can be tempting to dismiss as born of ignorance and recklessness the strategy of arbitrarily labeling young women and then basing sexual risk taking decisions on that label, but that belies the fact that for these young men it works—at least at some level. It enables them to maintain their masculine credibility in the eyes of their peers—their most immediate and credible critics—and it provides a rationale for the use and nonuse of condoms. Given the difficulties that many young men find in talking to young women about sex, it is easy to see the attraction of a strategy that precludes this need (Coleman & Ingham, 1999). Unfortunately, for these young men, the symptom free nature of many sexually transmitted infections and the gross stereotypes and assumptions on which the labeling of young women is based, mean that while this strategy bolsters their sense of their own masculinity it is ineffective and a threat to themselves and their sexual partners. Policy and practice that seeks to promote sexual health within this group needs to start from this frame of reference, from an understanding that this sexual harm reduction strategy works, at least to some degree, for these young men and that behavior change will only come about when they are offered and accept a viable and credible alternative. This realization should shift the policy focus away from individual behavior change strategies to a broader reflection on how to enable socially excluded young men to develop models of masculinities that are less reliant on overt sexual superiority and which are informed and supported by access to wider social institutions. Marginalized masculinities embedded in social and economic inequalities are at the heart of the problem and should be seen as providing the most appropriate starting point for change.
Limitations to the Study
A limitation to this study was that all of the sample defined themselves as White British which precluded the exploration of ethnicity as a specific marginalizing factor in young men’s lives. Furthermore, all the participants defined themselves as heterosexual, though as discussed elsewhere in the article this may be a reflection of the reluctance of young men to define themselves as gay in the context of this study. Further studies that include a broader range of ethnicities and gay men would provide additional insights that could build on the results of this study.
Conclusion
The quote that forms part of the title for this article was not selected to shock or offend, but to sum up in the words of one of the young men some of the key themes that underpinned the sexual risk reduction strategy of himself and his peers. The denigration of young women implicit in the choice of language; the identification of intercourse (“shagging”) as the primary sexual expression; the assumed ability to define and label young women; and the careless rejection of responsibility combine to encapsulate a way of performing young, sexualized masculinities that inevitably positions young women as vulnerable and subjects young men to unachievable expectations.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.