Social Quarterly 2014, Vol. 77(2) 100–122 ‘‘Good ’’: , Ó American Sociological Association 2014 DOI: 10.1177/0190272514521220 Social Class, and Slut http://spq.sagepub.com on Campus

Elizabeth A. Armstrong1, Laura T. Hamilton2, Elizabeth M. Armstrong1, and J. Lotus Seeley1

Abstract Women’s participation in slut shaming is often viewed as internalized : they apply disadvantageous sexual double standards established by men. This perspective grants women little agency and neglects their simultaneous location in social structures. In this article we synthesize insights from social psychology, gender, and to argue that undergrad- uate women use slut stigma to draw boundaries around status groups linked to social class—while also regulating sexual behavior and gender performance. High-status women employ slut discourse to assert class advantage, defining themselves as classy rather than tra- shy, while low-status women express class resentment—deriding rich, bitchy sluts for their exclusivity. Slut discourse enables, rather than constrains, sexual experimentation for the high-status women whose definitions prevail in the dominant social scene. This is a form of sexual privilege. In contrast, low-status women risk public shaming when they attempt to enter dominant social worlds.

Keywords stigma, status, reputation, gender, class, sexuality, identity, young adulthood, college women, qualitative methods

Slut shaming, the practice of maligning university in the Midwest, women labeled women for presumed sexual activity, is other women and marked their distance common among young Americans. For from ‘‘sluttiness.’’ example, Urban Dictionary—a website Women’s participation in slut shaming documenting slang—refers those is often viewed as evidence of internalized interested in the term slut to whore, , oppression (Ringrose and Renold 2012). skank, ho, cunt, prostitute, tramp, hooker, This argument proceeds as follows: slut easy,orslug.1 Boys and men are not alone in using these terms (Wolf 1997; Tanen- 1 baum 1999; White 2002). In our ethno- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 2 graphic and longitudinal study of college University of California, Merced, Merced, CA, USA women at a large, moderately selective Corresponding Author: Elizabeth A. Armstrong, Department of Sociology, 1‘‘Slut.’’ Urban Dictionary. Retrieved Decem- University of Michigan, Room 3001 LSA Building, ber 18, 2013 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/ 500 S. Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. define.php?term=slut). Email: [email protected] ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 101 shaming is based on sexual double stand- INTERPRETING SLUT DISCOURSE ards established and upheld by men, to AMONG WOMEN women’s disadvantage. Although young We outline three explanations of women’s men are expected to desire and pursue participation in slut shaming. These regardless of relational and emotional approaches are not mutually exclusive, context, young women are permitted sex- in part because the concept of status is ual activity only when in committed rela- central to all three. We treat status as tionships and ‘‘in ’’ (Crawford and the relative positioning of individuals in Popp 2003; Hamilton and Armstrong a based on esteem and respect. 2009; Schalet 2011; Bell 2013). Women This approach is fundamentally Weber- are vulnerable to slut stigma when they ian and consistent with (often implicit) violate this sexual standard and conse- definitions of the concept in social psy- quently experience status loss and dis- chology (see Berger, Ridgeway, and Zel- crimination (Phillips 2000; Nack 2002). ditch 2002; Ridgeway 2011; Lucas and Slut shaming is thus about sexual Phelan 2012). Those with high status inequality and reinforces male dominance experience esteem and approval; those and female subordination. Women’s par- with low status are more likely to experi- ticipation works at cross-purposes with ence disregard and stigma. While status toward . systems among adults often focus on occu- In this article, we complicate this pic- pation, among youth they develop in peer ture. We are unconvinced that women (e.g., Eder, Evans, and Parker would engage so enthusiastically in slut 1995; Milner 2006). Since the publication discourse with nothing to gain. Synthesiz- of Coleman’s (1961) The Adolescent Soci- ing insights from social psychological ety, on American peer cultures research on stigma, gender theory, and has found that youth status is informed cultural sociology, we argue that women’s by good looks, social skills, popularity participation in this practice is only indi- with the other gender, and athleticism— rectly related to judgments about sexual traits that are loosely linked to social activity. Instead it is about drawing class (Adler and Adler 1998). In this class-based moral boundaries that simul- case, status is produced and accrued in taneously organize sexual behavior and the dominant social world on campus— gender presentation. Women’s definitions the largely Greek-controlled party scene of sluttiness revolve around status on (also see Armstrong and Hamilton 2013). campus, which is largely dictated by class From a social psychological stigma background. High-status women employ approach, sexual labeling is primarily slut discourse to assert class advantage, about distancing the self from a stigma- defining their styles of and tized, and thus low-status, sexual cate- approaches to sexuality as classy rather gory. Another approach suggests that than trashy. Low-status women express labeling regulates public gender perfor- class resentment—deriding rich, bitchy mance. A final, cultural approach sug- sluts for their wealth, exclusivity, and gests that labeling facilitates the drawing participation in casual sexual activity. of class boundaries via distinctive styles For high-status women—whose defini- of performing gender. Individuals at tions prevail in the dominant social both ends of the status hierarchy seek to scene—slut discourse enables, rather apply their definitions of stigma, but than constrains, sexual experimentation. only high-status individuals succeed in In contrast, low-status women are vulner- the spaces where status is produced. able to public shaming. 102 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2)

Sexuality, Stigma, and Defensive code already imposed by a dominant Othering group’’ (Schwalbe et al. 2000:425). Social psychologists view the attribution In this case, however, the above model of negative meaning to a human differ- does not fully apply. As we will demon- ence as initiating the stigma process strate, women’s criteria for applying the (see Link and Phelan’s 2001 model; also slut label were not widely shared. There Lucas and Phelan 2012). The focus of appeared to be no group of women consis- tently identified as sluts—at least by most contemporary work in this women. Everyone succeeded at avoiding is on how individuals cope once a ‘‘social stable classification. Yet slut stigma still identity, or membership in some social felt very real. Women were convinced category, calls into question his or her that actual sluts existed and organized full humanity’’ (Crocker 1999:89; see their behaviors to avoid this label. Thus, also Jones et al. 1984). Research on the an explanation that ends with women’s management of stigma offers insight attempts to evade slut stigma by deflect- into how the stigmatized respond to their ing it onto other women is unsatisfying. situations (Goffman 1963; Major and We employ a discursive approach to O’Brien 2005; Killian and Johnson explain how individual efforts to deflect 2006; Saguy and Ward 2011; Thoits stigma reaffirm its salience for all women. 2011). One strategy involves deflecting stigma onto others (Blinde and Taub 1992; Pyke and Dang 2003; Payne 2010; Gender Performance and the Trautner and Collett 2010). This process, Circulation of Stigma referred to by Schwalbe and coauthors The ‘‘doing gender’’ tradition suggests (2000) as ‘‘defensive othering,’’ helps that slut stigma regulates the gender pre- explain women’s participation in slut sentations of all girls and women (Eder et stigma. The perspective suggests that al. 1995; Tanenbaum 1999). The empha- women—as subordinates to men—fear sis is on how women are sanctioned for contamination and thus work to distance failing to perform femininity acceptably themselves from stigma. This model cor- (West and Zimmerman 1987). This sug- responds with the taken-for-granted gests that slut stigma is more about regu- approach described at the start of the lating public gender performance than article. regulating private sexual practices. The framework outlined by Schwalbe Taking this approach further, Pascoe et al. (2000) and applied by a variety of (2007) draws on Foucault (1978) and But- scholars makes several assumptions: sub- ler (1990) to analyze the circulation of the ordinates accept the legitimacy of classifi- fag epithet among adolescent boys. She cation while distancing themselves from shows that the ubiquitous threat of being the stigmatized category. There is a clear labeled regulates performances by all line between subordinates and oppres- boys, ensuring conformity with hege- sors, with some people stably located in monic masculinity. Boys jockey for rank the subordinate category. Distancing is in peer by lobbing the fag seldom fully successful; those engaged in label at each other in a game of ‘‘hot defensive othering do not escape the sub- potato.’’ Fag is not, as Pascoe (2007:54) ordinate position, much as they would notes, ‘‘a static identity attached to a par- like to. Oppressors define the categories ticular (homosexual) boy’’ but rather ‘‘a and the meaning system, while subordi- discourse with which boys discipline nates react ‘‘to an oppressive identity themselves and each other.’’ ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 103

Pascoe’s discursive model, when have no necessary connection with sexual extended to our case, suggests that slut behavior yet are taken as its signifiers. discourse serves as a vehicle by which Performances of femininity are shaped girls discipline themselves and others. It by class and race and ranked in ways does not require the existence of ‘‘real’’ that benefit women in advantaged catego- sluts. Just as any boy can temporarily be ries (McCall 1992). Respectable feminin- a fag, so can any provisionally fill ity becomes synonymous with the polite, the slut position. Slut discourse may accommodating, demure style often per- even circulate more privately than fag formed by the white (Bettie discourse: girls do not need to know they 2003; Jones 2010; Garcia 2012). have been labeled for the discourse to This suggests that high-status women work. The fag label does not hinge on sex- have an interest in applying sexual ual identity or practices; similarly, the stigma to others, thus solidifying their slut label may have little or nothing to erotic rank. Such an explanation is par- do with the amount or kinds of sex tial as it does not account for why other women have. In the same way that the women engage in slut shaming. We need ‘‘fluidity of the fag identity’’ makes it a framework that accommodates the a ‘‘powerful disciplinary mechanism’’ interests of all actors, no matter how sub- (Pascoe 2007:54), so may the ubiquity of ordinate, in deflecting existing negative the slut label. classifications. Just as masculinities are hierarchi- cally organized, are also dif- ferentially valued. Labeling women as , Moral Boundaries, ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ is about status—the nego- and the Centrality of Class tiation of rank among women. Men play A third approach highlights the symbolic a critical role in establishing this rank boundaries people draw to affirm the by rewarding particular femininities. identities and reputations that them Women confront a double standard that apart from others (Lamont 1992). In penalizes them for (even the suggestion some cases, boundaries have a moral of) sexual behavior normalized for men dimension, distinguishing between the (Crawford and Popp 2003; Hamilton and pure and the polluting (Lamont and Mol- Armstrong 2009). We emphasize, how- na´r 2002; see also Gieryn 1983; Stuber ever, that women also sexually evaluate 2006). Individuals in distinct social loca- and rank each other. Women’s competi- tions work simultaneously to favorably tion is oriented toward both attention differentiate their groups from others. from men and esteem among women. We Lamont’s (1992, 2000) work—which challenge in which femininities attends to how people draw class bou- are seen as wholly derivative of masculin- ndaries—suggests that both affluent ities, where women passively accept crite- and working-class Americans construct ria established by men. a sense of superiority in relation to each Status competition among women is in other. She finds that working-class part about femininity. Yet other dimen- Americans often perceive the affluent as sions of inequality—particularly class superficial and lacking integrity. Stuber and race—intersect with gender to inform (2006) extends her work to American col- sexual evaluation. For example, Patricia lege , showing how classed mean- Hill Collins argues that ings are situated constructions arising in are often stereotyped as ‘‘jezebel, whore, interaction. She notes that the class dis- or ‘hoochie’’’ (2004:89). Class and race course of less affluent students tends to 104 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2) be more elaborate and emotionally discourse: all actively constitute it in charged than that of their wealthier interaction. peers. Similarly, Gorman (2000) found In what follows, we use insights from that middle-class and working-class indi- all three perspectives to develop a more viduals offered negative portrayals of complex explanation of women’s slut- members of the other social class. The shaming practices. We argue that women narratives of the more affluent revealed use sexual stigma to distance themselves contempt, while those of the working from other women, but not primarily on class indicated class injury. the basis of actual sexual activity. Women Scholars focusing on class, race, and use slut discourse to maintain status dis- intersectionality have observed that tinctions that are, in this case, linked social differences are often partly consti- closely to social class. Both low- and tuted in the realm of sexuality (Wilkins high-status women define their own per- 2008). Ortner claims that ‘‘class differen- formances of femininity as exempt from ces are largely represented as sexual dif- sexual stigma while labeling other groups ferences’’ (1991:178; quoted in Trautner as ‘‘slutty.’’ It is only high-status women, 2005:774, Trautner’s emphasis). Simi- though, who experience what we refer to larly, Bourdieu (1984:102) argues as sexual privilege—the ability to define that ‘‘sexual are as insepara- acceptable sexuality in high-status ble from class properties as the yellow- spaces. ness of a lemon is from its acidity.’’ In Women Without Class, Bettie (2003) METHODS shows that differences primarily about Our awareness of women’s use of slut dis- class (and race) were interpreted as course emerged inductively from a longi- exclusively about gender and sexuality. tudinal ethnographic and interview study Teachers saw the ‘‘Chica’’ femininity per- of a cohort of 53 women who began college formed by low-income Latina girls as in the 2004–2005 academic year at Mid- revealing sexual and the west University.2 We supplement these femininity of middle-class white girls as data with individual and group inter- indicating sexual restraint. Similarly, views conducted outside the residence womenfrommarginalizedgroupsoften hall sample. emphasizesexualdifferencetomark Below we describe the ethnographic class boundaries (Skeggs 1997; Wilkins and interview procedures, the partici- 2008). pants, our relationships with them, and This model suggests that women’s how we classified them into status groups deployment of slut discourse may be aligning closely—but not entirely—with partly about negotiating class differen- social class. We also address the social ces. It may define moral boundaries desirability issues acute in sex research, around class that also organize sexual most notably women’s underreporting behavior (i.e., how much and what kinds of sexual behavior (Laumann et al. of sexual activity women engage in 1994; Alexander and Fisher 2003). Sev- andwithwhom)andperformancesof eral aspects of our allowed us femininity. The positions women take, access to women often kept and the success they experience secret. when definitions conflict, may be influ- enced by prior social advantage. This perspective suggests that no group is entirely subject to, or in control of, slut 2We refer to the university with a pseudonym. ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 105

Ethnography and Longitudinal affluent. The remainder grew up in work- Interviews ing, lower-middle, or middle-class fami- A research team of nine, including two lies; we refer to these women as less authors, occupied a room on a residence affluent. hall floor. When data collection com- Women were told that we were there to menced, the first author was an assistant study the college experience, and indeed, professor in her late thirties and the sec- we attended to all facets of their lives. We observed throughout the academic ond author a graduate in her year, interacting with participants as early twenties. The team included they did with each other (Corsaro 1997). a male graduate student, an undergradu- We let women guide conversations and ate sorority member, and an undergradu- tried to avoid revealing our attitudes. ate from a working-class family. Varia- This made it difficult for them to deter- tion in age, approach, and self- mine what we were studying, which presentation facilitated different types of behaviors interested us, and how we relationships with women on the floor might judge them—minimizing the (Erickson and Stull 1998). effects of social desirability. The floor we studied was located in one We also conducted five waves of inter- of several ‘‘party dorms.’’ Affluent stu- views—from women’s first year of college dents often requested this residence hall to the year after most graduated. We if they were interested in drinking, hook- include data from 189 interviews with ing up, and joining the Greek system. Few the 44 heterosexual women (83 percent identified as feminist and all presented as of the floor) who participated in the final traditionally feminine. interview. The interviews ranged from Floor residents were similar in many 45 minutes to 2.5 hours. ways. They started college together, on All waves covered a broad range of the same floor, at the same school.3 All topics, including partying, sexuality, rela- were white, a result of low racial tionships, friendships, classes, employ- on campus and segregation in campus ment, , and relationships with housing (see Hurtado et al. 1999). All parents. The first wave included a ques- but two identified as heterosexual and tion about how women might view ‘‘a only one was not born in the girl who is known for having sex with . This homogeneity, though a lot of guys.’’ This wording reveals our a limitation, allowed us to isolate ways early assumption that the slut label was that social class shaped women’s positions about sexual activity and generated little on campus and moral boundaries they discussion when women stayed close to drew with respect to sexuality and gender the prompt. Later we realized that this, presentation. Assessment of class back- too, provided data. Aware that we were ground was based on parental education attempting to ask about ‘‘sluts,’’ many and occupation, student employment dur- women offered a definition of a ‘‘real’’ ing the school year, and student loans (see slut,asiftoeducateus.Wealsodraw Table 1.2 in Armstrong and Hamilton on the frequent, unsolicited use of slut 2013). Of the sample, 54 percent came discourse emerging from discussions of from upper-middle or upper-class back- college sexuality, peers, and partying. grounds; we refer to these women as Women were most concerned with the slut label during the first year of col- 3At the start of the study, 51 women were lege, as status hierarchies were being freshmen, and 2 were sophomores. established. 106 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2)

The second author collected most of the (see Armstrong and Hamilton 2013 for interviews, as women felt more comfort- more). Sorority membership was almost able around her. Some even sought her a requirement for high status: only four out for consultation about private sexual women managed to pursue alternative issues (e.g., assistance with a pregnancy paths into the party scene. One benefited test that needed to be done outside of from her relationship with an athlete, a sorority). When asking about sex, she another from residence in a luxurious always attempted to respond neutrally or apartment complex with a party reputa- positively. A number of women commented tion, and two capitalized on dense high that it was a relief to talk about sex without school networks. fear of judgment. One noted, ‘‘You are Status fell largely, although not someone who I feel I can tell anything to entirely, along class lines: the 23 high- because you have no or whatever. It’s status women were primarily upper class kind of nice. I always look forward to and upper middle class, in part because when I get to talk to you, and [my freshman they had time and money to participate. year roommate] does too’’ (Morgan Y5). Most were from out of state, which corre- Despite our efforts, women still seemed sponded with wealth due to the high cost to worry about revealing ‘‘too much’’ sex- of out-of-state tuition. Some middle-class ual activity. For example, one woman, women who successfully emulated afflu- when asked the number of sexual part- ent social and sexual styles were also clas- ners she had in college, was reticent to sified as high status. disclose specifics: The remaining 21 women were excluded from the Greek party scene. Naomi: Roughly . . . this is so embarrass- Fifteen lower-middle-class and working- ing. Roughly, like, 12? class women lacked the economic and Second Author: Why is that so embarrassing? cultural resources necessary for regular Naomi: It’s, it’s, it’s still a big number up participation and were low status by there. (Y4) default. They shared this designation with six middle-class to upper-class women Her hesitation suggested that she who did not join sororities. These women rounded down. hadfewfriendsoncampusandexpressed attitudes critical of the Greek party scene. They did not perform the gender style Classification into Status Groups that would have increased their status. We classified women according to partici- Two identified as lesbian, and the others pation in the Greek party scene, which viewed themselves as alternative or nerdy. was the most widely accepted signal of For these women, compliance would have peer status on campus. We categorized 23 been challenging and uncomfortable. women as high status and 21 as low status. We also analyzed data from four group High-status women exhibited a particu- interviews (24 women total) and 21 lar style of femininity valued in sororities. individual interviews. The first author, The accomplishment of ‘‘cuteness’’— usually accompanied by a research assis- a slender but fit, blonde, tan, fashionable tant, conducted the group interviews look—required class resources. Women with five to seven intimate friends in also gained admission on the basis of their own homes. Two of these were ‘‘good personalities’’—indicated by extro- among high-status women in sororities, version, interest in high-end fashion, and two were with low-status groups and familiarity with brand names (self-identified feminists or senior ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 107 women living in off-campus housing). sluttiness. High- and low-status women Supplemental individual interviews with draw moral boundaries consistent with senior women were, in contrast, as close their own classed styles of femininity, to anonymous as : the graduate effectively segregating the groups. As we student interviewer and participants had discuss in a final section, low-status no prior relationship, and interviews women sometimes attempt to enter the occurred only once. Participants, who dominant social scene. There they find were generally more sexually active than themselves classified according to high- the residence hall sample, selected into status standards, which places them at the interview knowing it focused on sex. risk of public sexual stigma. In contrast, high-status women are exempt from pub- lic slut shaming. This, we argue, is a form Data Analysis and Presentation of sexual privilege. We used ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis program, to organize and process Producing Slut Stigma Through interview transcripts and ethnographic Discourse notes. We identified patterns and looked Years after high school, two young women for counterexamples. Group differences, became angry as they revisited instances particularly by status and social class, when abstinence failed to protect them were subjected to a rigorous process of from slut stigma: comparison. We developed and tested hypotheses by writing theoretical memos, Woman 1: I was a virgin the first time I checking them against multiple data sour- was called a slut. ces, and refining theories. The involve- Woman 2: I was too. ment of the third and fourth authors Other Woman: Really? brought new perspectives and additional Woman 1: Yeah, because no one knew [I means for ascertaining reliability. was really a virgin]. Woman 2: They all thought I slept with The source of each data piece is identi- people. That’s what my volleyball fied in the text. FN (for field note) and the coach said to all my friends, that I date of the observation mark ethno- was the one that was going to be caus- graphic material. All longitudinal inter- ing trouble when I get older, and now views are flagged with the interview every one of my friends has had sex wave and a pseudonym assigned to the with like a hundred people! participant (e.g., Lydia Y3). We also indi- Woman 1: Or are pregnant or have been cate group interviews where relevant pregnant. and use unique numbers to designate Woman 2: Yeah, exactly. supplemental individual interviews First Author: What were they responding to? (e.g., S05). Woman 1: Like, if masturbation were to come up . . . I wouldn’t be afraid to SLUT BOUNDARY WORK talk about it. I think people got the The results are organized in three sec- wrong idea from that. tions. First, we discuss how women simul- Woman 2: In high school, they called me a cocktease. I didn’t do anything taneously produce and evade slut stigma but . . . I have always been the open through interaction and their investment one. (Off-Campus Group) in this cultural work. We then show that status on campus, organized largely by As was often the case, slut stigma was social class, shapes how women define disconnected from sexual behavior. Yet 108 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2) rather than challenge the use of this in private and was directed at targets label, these women, like others, endorsed unaware of their stigmatization. As one it. They argued that the accusations woman reported about her friend’s sexual were problematic because they were inac- relationship, curate. They even suggested that their friends who had sex with ‘‘like a hundred She just keeps going over there people’’ or ‘‘have been pregnant’’ were because she wants his attention more appropriate targets—deflecting because she likes him. That’s disgust- stigma onto someone else. ing. That to me, if you want to talk Conversations in which women dis- about slutty, that to me is whoring cussed and demarcated the line between yourself out. And, I mean, I hate to good and bad girls—labeling others nega- say that because she is one of my tively while positioning themselves favor- best friends, but good God, it’s like how stupid can you be? (S06) ably—were common. All but three women, or 93 percent, revealed familiar- Often the labeled were women viewed as ity with terms like slut, whore, skank,or sexual competition. As Becky told us, ho. Good girl, virgin,orclassy were used to indicate sexual or moral superiority. Women drew hierarchical distinctions My boyfriend, girls hit on him all the time, and during Halloween he told within groups as well as between ingroup me this story about a girl who was and outgroup members. Friends were wearing practically nothing. ...She easy targets, as women believed that went up to him [and he asked,] they knew more about their sexual behav- ‘‘What are you supposed to be?’’ And ior than that of other women. As we dis- she said, ‘‘I’m a cherry. Do you want cuss later, though, public slut shaming to pop my cherry?’’ She lifts up her was commonly directed at members of skirt and she’s wearing a thong that the opposing status group. had a cherry on it. That’s skanky. These cases might be seen as textbook That’s so skanky. (Y1) examples of defensive othering—a com- mon strategy for managing stigma. Yet Whether friends, enemies, or as detailed aspects of slut stigma differ from what below, women in the other status group, social psychological models of stigma pre- targets served as foils for women’s claims dict. The criteria for assigning stigma of virtue. were unclear and continually constructed The labeled woman did not even need through interaction. Women were both to exist. Women sometimes referred to potential recipients of sexual stigma and others who were so generic, interchange- producers of it—simultaneously engaged able, or socially distant as to be apocry- in both defensive and oppressive other- phal—the ‘‘mythical slut.’’ For instance, ing. As one insightful woman put it, ‘‘I sorority women in a group interview feel like you’re more likely to say [slut] if explained how serenading, a common you maybe feel like you could potentially Greek practice, was ‘‘ruined’’ by a ‘‘com- be called that’’ (Abby Y1). There was no plete slut’’ who purportedly ‘‘had sex stable division between stigmatized and with a guy in front of everybody.’’ As in normal individuals. similar stories (Fine 1992), the connection It was rare for the slut label to stick to to the ‘‘slut’’ was tenuous: no one actually any given woman, a requirement for sta- knew her—only of her. Her behavior, tus loss and persistent being particularly public in nature, was across situations. Most labeling occurred used to delimit the acceptable. ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 109

Defining the self as a good girl required . . . good girls don’t do this.’’ Some bar- ongoing boundary work. An exchange gained with themselves, following self- between Whitney and Mollie, roommates imposed rules meant to preserve good who completed the first-year interview girl identities. Tara recalled the agony of together, provides another example: waiting until her first serious relationship seemed official enough to make sex okay, Whitney: There’s like, some girls that are noting, ‘‘I need to wait 14 more days . . . big sluts. then that will be enough time’’ (Y3). Second Author: How do you know if a per- son’s a slut? What would be the Women feared public exposure as definition? sluts. Virtually all expressed the desire Whitney: They just go and sleep with a dif- to avoid a ‘‘bad reputation. I know that I ferent guy every night. Like this girl. wouldn’t want that reputation’’ (Olivia Anna has sex with a different guy Y1). At times they seemed to be assuring every single night and every single us (and themselves) of their virtue. As weekend. It’s so . . . I don’t understand one anxiously reported, ‘‘I’m not a fast- how someone could not have any more paced girl. I’m a good girl’’ (Naomi Y1). respect for themselves. It’s like, you In the context of a feminist group inter- enjoythis.She’slikewhatever...I view, one woman came close to positively could never let myself do that. Mollie: I couldn’t either. claiming a slut identity: she proclaimed Second Author: How did you know her? that she was done with her ‘‘secret life of Whitney: I met her through a friend. being promiscuous’’ and was ‘‘coming out She’s cool, but . . . to people now. . . . I’m promiscuous, dam- Mollie: Neither of us are like that, and I mit!’’ Yet she proceeded to admit that she can’t think of any of our high school was really only ‘‘out’’ to her friends, not- friends that are like that either. ing, ‘‘I don’t tell some of my friends— Whitney and Mollie achieved a working a lot of my friends. That’s why I really definition of the slut, applied the label to love my feminist thing. I reserve it, as someone else, and evaded stigma by dis- people aren’t going to judge me.’’ Even tancing themselves—and their friends— she feared public censure. from her. These processes occurred simul- taneously. They built the definition as Class and Status Differences in Moral they went, attributing improbable actions Boundaries (having ‘‘sex with a different guy every single night and every single weekend’’) As noted earlier, high-status women were to a conveniently absent target. Anna’s largely affluent, from out of state, and— supposed transgressions defined the stig- with few exceptions—sorority members. matized trait and concurrently catego- In contrast, low-status women were rized Whitney and Mollie as normal. mostly less affluent, local, and on the Although this was a fluid process— margins of campus life. Class differences over which women exercised considerable in conceptions of appropriate femininity control—they were deeply invested in it. were at the heart of women’s sexual and Most believed in a real difference between moral boundaries. good and bad girls and regulated their The high-status view: classy versus tra- behavior accordingly. As a participant in shy. For affluent women, a primary risk the feminist group stated, ‘‘A lot of it is of sex in college was its potential to . . . . There’s nothing keeping derail professional advancement and/or me from doing it. But emotionally I’m like class-appropriate . Hooking up, 110 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2) particularly without intercourse, was Armstrong, and Puentes 2012; Vannier viewed as relatively low risk because it and Byers 2013).4 did not require costly commitment (Hamil- Vaginal intercourse outside of relation- ton and Armstrong 2009). When asked ships was viewed as more problematic. who hooked up the most on campus, Nicole Becky, for example, judged those who responded,‘‘All...thepeoplewhocameto engaged in extrarelational intercourse. collegetohaveagoodtimeandparty’’(Y1). When asked how often she hooked up, Women even creatively reframed sexual Becky emphasized participation in low- exploration as a necessary precondition to middle-range activities: ‘‘I mean, I for a successful marriage. As Alicia wasn’t like a slut or anything. There’d explained, ‘‘I’m glad that I’ve had my one- be weekends I wouldn’t want to do any- night stands . . . because now I know thing except make out with someone, what it’s supposed to feel like when I’m and there’s weekends I wouldn’t want to with someone that I want to be with. . . . do anything, like maybe a little bit of I feel bad for some of my friends. . . . a kiss’’ (Y1). When the discussion turned They’re still virgins’’ (Y1). to vaginal intercourse she—like most High-status women rejected the view women—mentioned only sex with her that all sexual activity outside of relation- boyfriend. ships was bad. They viewed sexual activ- Yet having vaginal intercourse in ity along a continuum, with hooking up a hookup was sometimes permissible— falling conveniently in the middle. as long as women did not do so ‘‘too Becky’s nuanced definition of hooking up many’’ times or ‘‘too easily.’’ As Tara is illustrative. She argued that ‘‘kissing claimed, ‘‘I think when people have sex [is] excluded’’—minimizing this favorite with a lot of guys that aren’t their boy- activity of hers in seriousness. As she con- friends that’s really a slut’’ (Y1, emphasis tinued, ‘‘You have kissing over here added). She was vague about the number, [motions to one side] and sex over here unable to articulate whether one, five, or [motions to the other]. . . . Anything 50 hookups with intercourse made from making out to right before you hit a woman a slut. Another woman, who sex is hooking up. ...Ithink sex is in had more sexual partners than her its own class’’ (Y1). friends, claimed that the number of part- This view hinged on defining a range of ners was irrelevant. She noted, ‘‘Slutty sexual activities—such as ‘‘hardcore mak- doesn’t mean how many people [you slept ing out, heavy petting’’ (Becky Y1), with]. It just means how easy you are. mutual masturbation, and oral sex—as Like, if a guy wants it, are you gonna not ‘‘sex.’’ ‘‘Sex,’’ as women defined it, give it to him?’’ (Abby Y1). referred only to vaginal intercourse. Han- To high-status women, looking ‘‘tra- nah described herself as a virgin to both shy’’ was more indicative of sluttiness researchers and her , despite than any amount of sexual activity. admitting to oral sex with a hookup part- Women spent hours trying to perfect ner. She joked with her mother about a high-status sexy look without crossing a missed period, ‘‘Must be from all the the line into sluttiness. This was often sex I’ve been having. And she’s like, uhhhh. . . . I was like, Mom, I’m just kid- 4 ding. I’m still a virgin’’ (Y2). Hannah was Sex educators typically treat the defining of ‘‘oral sex’’ as ‘‘not sex’’ as a classification error not alone. Research suggests that many in need of correction by better education about young Americans do not define oral-geni- the importance of seeing sex as an entire range tal contact as ‘‘having sex’’ (Backstrom, of behaviors (Remez 2000). ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 111 a social exercise: women crowded in front Similarly, when asked to define her soror- of a mirror, trying on outfits and accesso- ity’s reputation, one sorority woman ries until everyone assembled approved. responded with a single word, ‘‘classy,’’ As Blair described, ‘‘A lot of the girls on which another focus group member when we we’re going out . . . they’re ask- elaborated: ‘‘I think we would be the girl ing, ‘I don’t look slutty, do I?’’’ The process next door.’’ was designed to protect against judgment The ‘‘perfect girl’’ or ‘‘girl next door’’ by others, although it also provided per- indexed the wholesome, demure, and sonal affirmation. For Blair, the fact that polite—but fun-loving—interactional style she and her sorority sisters asked these characteristic of affluent white women critical questions signaled that they were (Bettie 2003; Trautner 2005). Alicia’s use ‘‘classier. . . . That’s important’’ (Y1). of the word preppy offered another class Blair was not the only woman to con- clue: this style originated on elite Eastern trast a desirable, classy appearance with college campuses and was exemplified by an undesirable, trashy appearance. For fashion designers like Ralph Lauren, instance, Alicia noted, ‘‘If my house is con- known for selling not only clothing but sidered the trashy, slutty house and I an advantaged (Banks and Chap- didn’t know that and someone said that elle 2011). The preppy female student dis- [it] would hurt my feelings. [Especially] played confidence in elite social settings when I’m thinking . . . it’s the classy and could afford the trappings necessary house’’ (Y1). Classy denoted sophisticated to make a good impression. style, while trashy suggested exclusion Accomplishing a classy presentation from the upper rungs of society, as cap- required considerable resources. Parent- tured in the phrase ‘‘white trash’’ (Kusen- funded credit cards allowed women to sig- bach 2009). They rarely referred to actual nal affluent tastes in clothing and less-affluent women—who, by virtue of makeup. Several purchased expensive their exclusion from social life, were invis- MAC-brand eye shadow that read ible (see Fiske 2011). Instead, women as classy rather than the drugstore used labels to mark gradations of status eye shadow worn by at least one work- in their bounded social world. By closely ing-class woman. As Naomi told us, ‘‘I’m aligning economic advantage and moral high maintenance. . . . I like nice things purity, women who pulled off a classy [laughs]. I guess in a sense, I like things femininity were beyond reproach. brand name’’ (Y1). Without jobs, they The most successful women were those had time to go tanning, get their hair who constructed a seamless upper- done, do their nails, shop, and keep up middle-class gender presentation. Sorori- with fashion trends. By college, these ties actively recruited these women. As women were well versed in classed inter- Alicia continued, actional styles and bodywork. Many had cultivated these skills in high-school peer cultures as cheerleaders, prom Let’s say I’m president of the house or something and I [want to] keep the queens, and dance squad members. classy [sorority] name that we’ve had High-status women also knew the from the previous year then [we nuanced rules of the party scene before need] more people with that classy arrival. Most had previous party experi- [sorority] look. . . . The preppy, classy, ence and brought advice from college- good girl that likes to have fun and be savvy friends and family with them. friendly. You know, the perfect girl. Becky described one such rule, about (Y1) attire: 112 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2)

[Halloween is] the night that girls can women, whose expectations about appro- dress skanky. Me and my friends do it. priate relationship timelines were shaped [And] in the summer, I’m not gonna by a different social world. Many of their lie, I wear itty bitty skirts. . . . Then friends back home were already married there are the sluts that just dress or had children. Amanda, a working-class slutty, and sure they could be actual woman, recalled, ‘‘I thought I’d get mar- sluts. I don’t get girls that go to frater- nity parties in the dead of winter ried in college. . . . I wanted to have kids wearing skirts that you can see their before I was 25’’ (Y4). Hooking up made asses in. (Y1) little sense uncoupled from the desire to postpone commitment. As one less- As she noted, good girls do not wear short affluent woman noted, skirts or revealing shirts without social permission. She was aware that women Who would be interested in just meet- who dressed provocatively were not neces- ing somebody and then doing some- sarily ‘‘actual sluts,’’ but her language sug- thing that night? And then never talk- gested in such women’s existence, ing to them again? . . . I’m supposed to necessitating efforts to avoid being placed do this; I’m supposed to get drunk every weekend. I’m supposed to go to in this category. Another woman high- parties every weekend . . . and I’m lighted ways that dress and deportment supposed to enjoy it like everyone could be played off each other. She noted else. But it just doesn’t appeal to me. that it was acceptable for women to (Valerie Y1) ‘‘have a short skirt on’’ if ‘‘they’re being cool’’ but ‘‘if they’re dancing really gross Lacking access to classed beliefs support- with a short skirt on, then like, oh slut. ing sexual exploration, less-affluent You’ve got to have the combination’’ (Lydia women treated sexual activity outside of Y1). Women lacking familiarity with these relationships as morally suspect. As unstated rules started at a disadvantage. lower-middle-class Olivia explained, In general, classy girls did not get in trouble, draw inappropriate attention, or I have really strong feelings about the do anything ‘‘weird.’’ For instance, one whole sex thing. . . . I know that some supposed slut was ‘‘involved with drugs, people have boyfriends and they’ve and she stole a lot of stuff, and her been with them for a long time, and I parents sent her to boarding school’’ (Nic- understand that. But I listen to some ole Y1). Others were described as having people when they talk about [hooking ‘‘problems at home with their families up]. . . . I know that personally for me, I would rather be a virgin for as and stuff’’ (Nicole Y4). In one case, a slut much as I can than go out and do was remarkable for ‘‘eat[ing] ketchup for God knows who and do whatever. (Y1) dinner [laughter]. [First Author: Like, only ketchup?] Right, she has some As discussed in the Methods section, not issues’’ (Erica and Taylor Y1). These all low-status women lacked class advan- activities were not sexual. Instead, they tage, but even low-status women from represented failure to successfully per- affluent families opposed hooking up. As form an affluent femininity, with sexual upper-middle-class Madison noted, ‘‘I stigma applied as the penalty. just don’t [hook up]. . . . I’m not really The low-status view: nice versus bitchy. into that kinda thing, I guess. I just The notion that youth should participate don’t like getting with random people’’ in hookups was foreign to less-affluent (Y1). Similarly, upper-middle-class Linda ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 113 described herself as ‘‘very sexually con- them with more information about the servative’’ in contrast to her ‘‘liberal’’ complexities of hooking up, although floor, in part due to their participation they did not alter their own sexual in hooking up (Y1). practices. Some low-status women were confused Low-status women maintained a dis- about hooking up, as they were excluded tinction between themselves and those from the social networks where the prac- who hooked up. As Olivia noted, tice made sense. When asked for a defini- tion, Mary, a middle-class woman, My friends are similar when it comes responded, ‘‘Good question. I honestly, I to things like [sex]. We don’t think of couldn’t tell you what some of their. . . I it as doing whatever with who knows mean I’ve heard them use [the word] who. . . . I’m sure there’s more people that are like me, but I know there and I’m kind of like, well what does that are people who just do it casually. mean? Did you have sex with them or did They don’t think of it as anything youjustmakeoutwiththemor...?’’ ’cause a lot of them have done it (Y1). Working-class Megan had not even before. For them it’s different. (Y1) heard of hooking up until we asked her about it. She equated hooking up with an Her explanation, using us-versus-them allegedsororityhazingritualinwhich language, divided college women into ‘‘they would tie the girls up naked on two groups and implied her group was a bed and then a guy would come in and superior. they would have sex with them’’ (Y1). The judgment low-status women Without insider cultural , passed on their high-status peers was low-status women did not make the about more than sexuality. They often same fine-grained distinctions between derided sorority women and those who types of sexual activity outside of relation- attended parties. As Carrie described, ships. For these women, the relevant ‘‘[My sister] who goes to [private college] divide was whether the activity occurred is in [a sorority]. Umm, hello. All those in a relationship or not. They assumed girls are sluts. Sorry, they were. All they that hookups, like most committed rela- did was drink and go to parties. She’s tionships, involved vaginal intercourse. not like that so she deactivated’’ (Y1). A roommate pair explained: Linda referred to women in the Greek system as ‘‘the party sluts’’ (Y4). Heather: A lot of the girls . . . they’re always like oh you hooked up. Underlying this disapproval was a rejec- Stacey: We’re not used to that. Hooking tion of their partying peers’ interactional up means you guys fucked. . . . I’d be style. Madison, right after she transferred like omigod and everyone else’s like to a regional college, explained what she what? And I’m like you guys hooked disliked about many women on the floor: up? They’d be like so? Second Author: You thought everyone Sorority girls are kinda whorish and was having random sex? unfriendly and very cliquey. If you Stacey: [I felt like saying] you slut. weren’t Greek, then you didn’t really Heather: At first we were like, what is matter. ...Ifeel like most, if not all, this place? (Y1) the sorority girls I met at MU were bitches and stuck up. [In response to These two women would briefly (and the indignation of a friend from unsuccessfully) attempt to befriend afflu- another school, who was present dur- ent partiers on the floor. This provided ing this segment of the interview:] I 114 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2)

met [Sasha’s sorority] sisters and excruciatingly aware of those above them, they’re really nice. (Y3) whereas those with status attend less to those below them. Lacking language to Madison equated sluttiness with exclu- make sense of the class differences that sivity—being bitchy, stuck up, cliquey, permeated social life at Midwest Univer- and unfriendly. She contrasted this with sity, the slut label did cultural work. the desirable trait, ‘‘niceness,’’ which she Low-status women conflated unkindness was obligated to attribute to Sasha and and perceived promiscuity when they her friends. called high-status women ‘‘slutty.’’ Their Niceness, also described as being use of the term captured both their reac- ‘‘friendly,’’ ‘‘laid back,’’ or ‘‘down home,’’ tions to poor treatment and the unfair- referenced a classed femininity in which ness of others’ getting away with sexual social climbing, expensive consumption behavior they viewed as inappropriate patterns, and efforts to distinguish oneself (and for which they would have been as ‘‘better than’’ others were disparaged. penalized). Slut discourse was thus Madison rejected high-status femininity, employed in privately waged battles of despite her own affluence. She explained, classrevenge.Aswediscussbelow,this animosity had few consequences for Most of the girls . . . they seem to be high-status women. snotty. There were a few girls that are just like [my friend’s and my] Status, Affluence, and Competing Bound- level, where we aren’t gonna be, oh aries. Slut discourse helped establish we have money, we’re gonna live bet- ter than you. But there are a few and maintain boundaries between high- that definitely you could tell they and low-status women. Midway through had like an unlimited income. They college there were no friendships crossing went shopping all the time. (Y3) this line, despite the cross-group interac- tions necessitated by living on the same Similarly, Stacey—who was from a lower- floor. Women enforced moral boundaries middle-class family—remarked bitterly, on uneven ground. Most cases of conflict ‘‘There’s a lot of rich bitches in sororities, occurred when low-status women—lured and they have everything that their by the promise of fun, status, and belong- gives them. . . . I mean, they prob- ing—attempted to interact with high- ably saw on TV we’re the number one status women, especially in the party party school, like, four years ago and scene. There was not much movement in they’re like, ‘Daddy, Mommy, I wanna the other direction: high-status women go there!’’’ (Y3/Y4). Sluttiness and wealth had little to gain by associating with were often conflated. As Alana reported, low-status women. ‘‘Some people think [this dorm is where] Women rarely labeled others publicly. the whores are. You know, oh those ‘Mac- We recorded only five instances in our slutts in MacAdams. . . . ’ People think first-year residence hall observations. [it’s] like the rich people. . . . Their stereo- None of the women carried a negative types might be true’’ (Y1). reputation outside the situations where These women expressed considerable labeling occurred. These interactions, class and status vulnerability—even ani- however, were among the most explosive mosity. Their private commentary was and painful we witnessed. Targets pointed, directed at specific high-status were low-status—and, in four cases, women. As Fiske (2011) suggests, those at less-affluent—women who attempted to the bottom of a hierarchy tend to be make inroads with high-status women. ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 115

High-status women valued a muted, way and that she was joking but Stacey polite, and demure femininity. This con- stormed off anyway. (FN 1-13-05) trasted with the louder, cruder, overtly sexual femininity exhibited by Stacey Stacey attempted to apply her own defini- and Heather, a working-class roommate tion of slut to the actions of the television pair who, early in the year, attempted to character, calling her out for hooking up. associate with partiers on the floor. As Chelsea rejected this, turning the label field notes recount, back on Stacey, who was offended. Later, a lower-middle-class woman attempted to Whitney . . . came out into the hall as defend Stacey. She remarked, ‘‘It’s not Heather and Stacey (applying finish- like Stacey sleeps around anyway.’’ The ing touches to her tube top) came damage had already been done though. out. Both were in tight pants (one None of the other women in the room black one brown?) and tight tops. They had plenty of makeup on (this chimed in to confirm Stacey’s virtue. was clear from far away) and tall In another instance, the ‘‘wrong’’ choice heels. . . . They were headed for of an erotic partner landed working-class another dorm to say ‘‘hey’’ to a guy Monica a label. As we recorded, that Stacey had met. Whitney made a comment about how dressed up Monica’s really open flirting and sexu- they were to just say ‘‘hey.’’ [The girls] ality with Heather’s brother was laughed it off and very loudly yelled looked down on by people on the floor. something about going to ‘‘whore Many rolled eyes and insinuate[d] around.’’ (FN 9-15-04) that she was being slutty or inappro- priate. This guy (both because he In this incident, high-status Whitney was someone’s brother and because implicitly passed judgment on Heather he was clearly working-class—not in and Stacey, whose clothing and demeanor a frat or middle-class) was the wrong violated high-status norms of self- object. (FN 2-10-05) presentation. The two women immedi- ately understood that their behavior was From the perspective of high-status being coded as sexually deviant. Ironi- women, good girls only flirted with afflu- cally, their attempt at saving face—by ent men who had high status on campus. joking about ‘‘whoring around’’—likely This disadvantaged less-affluent women, made Whitney’s comment seem even who were often drawn to men sharing more warranted in the eyes of their afflu- their class background. These men were ent peers. not in fraternities or necessarily even in Several months after the hallway inci- college. dent, Stacey was watching a television Monica’s dalliance with Heather’s show with several high-status women brother might have escaped notice had who lived near her: she not also made brief forays into the party scene. Monica and her middle-class One of the characters was hooking up roommate Karen—who worked her way with somebody new and Stacey said, into the high-status group—ended the ‘‘Slut-bag!’’ Chelsea said, ‘‘Stacey?’’ as year in a vicious battle, flinging the slut if to imply jokingly that she had no right to call this woman a slut. Stacey labelbackandforthbehindeachother’s was clearly offended by this and said backs. Monica, however, was singled out indignantly, ‘‘I am NOT a slut.’’ Chel- for judgment by shared acquaintances. sea, seeing her take it so badly, said Prior to their dramatic split, Monica and that she really didn’t mean it that Karen often kissed each other at parties— 116 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2) a form of same-sex often intended Table 1. Participation in Hookups and to appeal to men (Hamilton 2007). Several Relationships by Status Group floormates decided in conversation that Status Group Low High Monica was ‘‘somewhat weird and ‘slutty’ . . . [while] Karen’s sexuality or sluttiness Little to no sexual or 50 nevercameup....Itwasn’tevenaques- romantic activity tion’’ (FN 3-8-05). Monica lacked friends Relationships only 8 1 positioned to spread similar rumors about Relationships primary 13 but also hookups Karen. Unexpectedly, Monica left shortly Hookups and relationships 7 19 beforetheendoftheyearanddidnot N2123 return to Midwest University. Monica’s, Stacey’s, and Heather’s expe- riences illustrate the challenges women from less-advantaged backgrounds faced it was not for them. Nearly two thirds of if they attempted to break into the party this group did not hook up at all. A few scene. They were also at risk of acquiring low-status women left college without sexual stigma back home, where they having had vaginal intercourse, but no were judged for associating with rich par- high-status women refrained from inter- tiers. For instance, Monica’s hometown course entirely. Most low-status women acquaintances started a virulent rumor limited their sexual activity to relation- that she had an abortion while at Midwest ships. Low-status women reported to us, University. This suggests that people in on average, roughly 1.5 fewer sexual part- her hometown shared the construction of ners (for oral sex or intercourse) during sluttiness we described above, viewing college than high-status women. These affluent college girls as sluts in contrast patterns underscore the disconnect with down-to-earth, small-town girls. between vulnerability to slut stigma and Monica had been tainted by association. sexual activity. In contrast, the only affluent woman to From the perspective of low-status be publicly shamed was from the low-sta- women, the sexual activities of high-status tus group. She had angered many of her peers were riskier than their own strategy floormates with her blatant and public of restricting sex to relationships (or avoid- . They retaliated by writing ing it altogether)—yet high-status women derogatory comments, including the slut evaded the most damaging kind of label- label, on the whiteboard posted on her ing. As long as they were discreet and did door. Aside from this case, affluent not, as one put it, ‘‘go bragging about the women were virtually exempt from public guys I’ve hooked up with,’’ high-status shaming by other women, whether at women experienced minimal threat of school or at home, where their friends’ judgment by others (Lydia Y1). Upper- definitions were roughly in sync with middle-class Rory, who with more than their own. 60 partners was the most sexually active This freedom from stigma is particu- woman we interviewed, explained, ‘‘I’m larly remarkable considering what we the kind a girl that everybody would ascertained about women’s sexual activi- like talk shit about if they knew. . . . I ties (see Table 1). All but one high-status have this really good image. Hah. And woman hooked up during college in people don’t think of me that way. They between committed relationships. Some think I’m like nice and smart, and I’m low-status women also hooked up, but like yeah’’ (S07). Casual sexual activity usually only once or twice before deciding posed little reputational risk for savvy, ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 117 affluent women who maintained a classy (Crawford and Popp 2003). But equalizing image. sexual standards—while undoubtedly an important goal—would not necessarily DISCUSSION eliminate slut shaming, which assists women in drawing class boundaries. Slut discourse was ubiquitous among the As other scholars have noted, there is women we studied. Sexual labels were a tendency for women to be viewed as exchanged fluidly but rarely became sta- ‘‘without class’’ (Bettie 2003). Women bly attached to particular women. Stigma may themselves interpret their differen- was instead produced in interaction, as ces as being about sexuality, or gender women defined their virtue against real style, when they are at root class differ- or imagined bad girls. The boundaries ences (Bettie 2003; Wilkins 2008). Yet women drew were shaped by status on like men, women on both sides of the campus, which was closely linked to class class divide actively construct a sense of background. High-status women consid- group superiority. Those with limited ered the performance of a classy feminin- resources also nurse—and try to ity—which relied on economic advan- avenge—class injuries. In this case, slut tage—as proof that one was not trashy. discourse conveys intense feelings about In contrast, low-status women, mostly a form of inequality for which there is lit- from less-affluent backgrounds, emphasized tle other language. niceness and viewed partying as evidence of The white women in this study oper- sluttiness. ated in racially homogeneous social Both groups actively reconstituted worlds, making it easier for us to see the slut label to their advantage. Despite class-based processes. Race is not absent this, they were not equally situated from their accounts, however. The notion to enforce their moral boundaries. High- of the ‘‘girl next door’’ and even the status women operated within a discursive ‘‘nice’’ down-home girl are both racialized. system allowing greater space for sexual Had we also studied the small nonwhite experimentation. When low-status women student population on campus—who, attempted to participate in high-status like less-affluent women, were excluded social worlds, they risked public slut from the predominately white Greek sys- shaming. At the same time, their more tem—it is likely that we would have rec- restrictive definitions lacked social conse- ognized moral boundaries drawn around quences for higher-status women. This, race. Indeed, Garcia’s (2012) Latina par- as we argue below, is a form of sexual priv- ticipants viewed ‘‘sluttiness’’ as primarily ilege. Low-status women resented the white (also see Espiritu 2001). class and sexual advantages of their afflu- ent peers and unsuccessfully used sexual stigma in an attempt to level differences. Sexual Privilege Classed resources provided affluent white Class, Race, and Moral Boundaries women with more room to maneuver sex- The behaviors of women and girls are ually. They drew on the notion that young often viewed through the lens of sexual adulthood should be about exploration to and , particularly where justify sexual experimentation in non- sexual practices are concerned (Bettie committed sexual contexts (Hamilton 2003; Wilkins 2008). Certainly, sexual and Armstrong 2009). Slut discourse, double standards are real and may guide rather than constraining their sexual men’s use of the slut label against women options, ensured that they could safely 118 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2) enjoy the sexual opportunities of the Sexual privilege, however, involves the party scene. Those without the time, ability to define acceptable sexuality in money, and knowledge needed to effect ways that apply in high-status spaces. a ‘‘classy’’ appearance lacked similar pro- High-status women in our study were tections. It is thus unsurprising that deeply embedded in the dominant social women who hook up on residential college scene on campus. Over the years, campuses are more likely to be affluent they moved into positions of greater and white (Owen et al. 2010; Paula Eng- influence—for instance, later selecting land, personal communication with sec- the women who joined them in elite soror- ond author, 2013).5 ity houses. They did not care what margin- The definition of sluttiness offered by alized individuals thought of them as these the low-status women in our study does, opinions were inconsequential both during however, have a place in youth culture. college and beyond. As gatekeepers to the See, for example, this definition of ‘‘soros- party scene, however, high-status women titute’’ (a play on prostitute) from Urban had considerable power over low-status Dictionary: women who wished to belong. It is in this context that the sexual activity of advan- You can find me on campus in the taged women becomes invisible. SUV my daddy bought for me. . . . I This is not to downplay men’s power in never leave my sorority house without sexualized interactions or deny the gen- my letters somewhere on me. I date dered sexual double standard faced by a fratdaddy. I don’t care that he cheats women. Yet we differ from the classic on me with other sorostitutes because I cheat on him too. . . . Looks are all framework posed by Connell (1987), in that matter to me. I spent money which no femininity holds a position of that was supposed to be for books on power equivalent to that of hegemonic mas- tanning and manicures. I have had culinity among men (but see Schippers plastic surgery. I’m always well 2007). We argue that women are actively dressed. I pop my collar and all of my invested in slut shaming because they handbags—my Louis [Vuitton], my have something to gain. They are not simply Kate Spade, my Prada—are real. If I unwitting victims of men’s sexual domi- look like this, frat boys will want me nance. The winners—those whose feminin- and other sororities will be jealous. I ities are valued—enjoy sexual privilege. look better than you, I act better This is a benefit also extended to men who than you, I AM better than you.6 display a (DeSantis The circulation of this term suggests that 2007; Sweeney 2013). It indicates the impor- our participants are not alone in attempt- tance of attending to dynamics within—not ing to label affluent sorority women as only across—gender. slutty. Stigma at the Discursive Level 5Paula England’s Online College Social Life The questions generally answered by Survey of 21 four-year colleges and universities social psychological research on stigma— includes maternal education as the measure of who the labeled and labelers are, how social class. These data indicate that women whose have either a BA or an advanced deviants are labeled and respond to degree report significantly higher numbers of stigma—are indeed important. A focus hookups than those whose mothers have a high school degree or less. White women also report 6‘‘Sorostitute.’’ Urban Dictionary. Retrieved significantly greater numbers of hookups than December 18, 2013 (http://www.urbandictionary women in all other racial/ethnic categories. .com/define.php?term=sorostitute). ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 119 on the individual level does not, however, questions for future research. We might provide a complete picture of stigma pro- ask why and when some discursive sys- cesses. Our work, building on that of gen- tems—not others—are in play. This focus der scholars and cultural sociologists, introduces room for multiple, competing points to the value of examining how ways of constituting stigma. It raises stigma is constituted and circulated. questions of power and status in the suc- A discursive approach suggests that cessful application of stigma—that is, the social psychological model of ‘‘other- whose definitions of deviance are more ing’’ might be constructively reworked influential? At the level of discourse, it (Jones et al. 1984; Crocker et al. 1998; is also easier to see variation across types Crocker 1999). Subordinates may succeed of stigma. Why are some forms particu- in generating alternative public classifi- larly rigid and likely to stick, while cation systems or subtly reworking domi- others—like the slut or fag labels—more nant ones. For example, the actions of fluid and able to constrain the actions of low-status women are not exclusively all individuals, not just a recognizable devoted to adapting to meaning systems group of deviants? Attention to the discur- established by high-status, socially domi- sive level makes it easier to detect addi- nant women on campus. Instead, they tional, subtler bases for stigma and better produce their own discursive system ascertain its operation. demarcating the line between good and These questions may be difficult to bad girls in a way that benefits them. answer in the laboratories where much The process of othering may thus pro- social psychological research on stigma vide ongoing opportunities for reclassifi- is conducted (Hebl and Dovidio 2005; cation, potentially along entirely different Trautner and Collett 2010). An expanded dimensions than designated by oppres- focus necessitates a parallel openness to sors—even if alternative frames are diffi- , interviews, and other quali- cult to sustain. Othering may be not only tative methods, alongside conventional oppressive or defensive but also confron- approaches. Qualitative techniques are tational or challenging. Indeed, the exam- often ideal for studying interactions ple of the sorostitute suggests cultural within and across social groups and cap- resistance to classification systems turing the processes through which dis- exempting affluent, high-status college course is created and circulates. women’s sexual behavior from stigma. As we noted in the introduction, some To see this process, stigma research research—notably Pascoe’s (2007) analy- must be explicitly intersectional, looking sis of the circulation of the fag epithet— at how dominants and subordinates pushes in this direction. Yet research tra- draw on dimensions of stratification to ditions often develop separately, even define within-group hierarchies. Here, when similar concepts are explored. For for instance, women draw on classed example, Pascoe’s research neither cites understandings of femininity and accept- nor is cited by scholars studying stigma. able sexuality to deflect sexual stigma This limits production of knowledge and define themselves as morally supe- across subfields—for example, social rior. Without a classed lens, it is easy to psychology, cultural theory, and gender miss the competition among women that theory—that would benefit from greater motivates women’s participation in slut dialogue. Our research highlights the shaming. potential of cross-fertilization and calls Attention to how sets of categories are for more work in this vein. constructed and organized also generates 120 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Blinde, Elaine M. and Diane E. Taub. 1992. ‘‘Women Athletes as Falsely Accused Devi- Thanks to the reviewers and editors of the Social ants: Managing the Lesbian Stigma.’’ Socio- Psychology Quarterly for insightful comments. logical Quarterly 33(4):521–33. Thanks to Pam Jackson and Pam Walters for Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social assistance in arranging transcription of the mate- Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cam- rial and to Katie Bradley, Teresa Cummings, Olu- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. watope Fashola, Jennifer Fischer, Aimee Lipkis, Butler, Judith. 1990. : Femi- Kat Novotny, Evelyn Perry, Jennifer Puentes, nism and the of Identity. New Brian Sweeney, Amanda Tanner, and Reyna Uli- York: Routledge. barri for assistance in data collection. Coleman, James S. 1961. The Adolescent Soci- ety: The Social Life of the Teenager and FUNDING Its Impact on Education. New York: Free Press. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following Collins, Patricia Hill. 2004. Black Sexual Poli- financial support for the research, authorship, tics: African Americans, Gender, and the and/or publication of this article: The work was New . New York: Routledge. supported by a National Academy of Education/ Connell, Raewyn. 1987. Gender and Power: Spencer Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, Society, the Person, and Sexual . a Radcliffe Institute Fellowship at Harvard Uni- Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. versity, and a Spencer Foundation Small Grant Corsaro, William A. 1997. The Sociology of awarded to Elizabeth A. Armstrong. Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Crawford, Mary and Danielle Popp. 2003. REFERENCES ‘‘Sexual Double Standards: A Review and Methodological Critique of Two Decades of Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1998. Peer Research.’’ Journal of Sex Research Power: Preadolescent Culture and Identity. 40(1):13–26. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Crocker, Jennifer. 1999. ‘‘ and Press. Self-Esteem: Situational Construction of Alexander, Michele G. and Terri D. Fisher. Self-Worth.’’ Journal of Experimental 2003. ‘‘Truth and Consequences: Using the Social Psychology 35(1):89–107. Bogus Pipeline to Examine Sex Differences Crocker, Jennifer, Brenda Major, and Claude in Self-Reported Sexuality.’’ Journal of Sex M. Steele. 1998. ‘‘Social Stigma.’’ Pp. 504– Research 40(1):27–35. 53 in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Armstrong, Elizabeth A. and Laura T. Hamil- ed. Daniel Todd Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, ton. 2013. Paying for the Party: How College and Gardner Lindzey, Fourth ed. Boston: Maintains Inequality. Cambridge, MA: McGraw-Hill. Harvard University Press. DeSantis, Alan D. 2007. Inside Greek U. Lex- Backstrom, Laura, Elizabeth A. Armstrong, ington: University of Kentucky Press. and Jennifer Puentes. 2012. ‘‘Women’s Eder, Donna, Catherine Colleen Evans, and Negotiation of Cunnilingus in College Stephen Parker. 1995. School Talk: Gender Hookups and Relationships.’’ Journal of and Adolescent Culture. New Brunswick, Sex Research 49(1):1–12. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Banks, Jeffrey and Doria de la Chapelle. 2011. Erickson, Ken and Donald D. Stull. 1998. Preppy: Cultivating Ivy Style. New York: Doing Team Ethnography: Warnings and Random House. Advice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bell, Leslie C. 2013. Hard to Get: Twenty- Espiritu, Yen Le. 2001. ‘‘‘We Don’t Sleep Something Women and the Paradox of Sex- around Like White Girls Do’: Family, Cul- ual Freedom. Berkeley: University of Cali- ture, and Gender in Filipina American fornia Press. Lives.’’ 26(2):415–40. Berger, Joseph, Cecilia L. Ridgeway, and Mor- Fine, Gary Alan. 1992. Manufacturing Tales: ris Zelditch. 2002. ‘‘Construction of Status Sex and Money in Contemporary Legends. and Referential Structures.’’ Sociological Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Theory 20(2):157–79. Fiske, Susan T. 2011. Envy Up, Scorn Down: Bettie, Julie. 2003. Women Without Class: How Status Divides Us. New York: Russell Girls, Race, and Identity. Berkeley: Univer- Sage. sity of California Press. ‘‘ Good Girls’’ 121

Foucault, Michel. 1978. The of Sexual- Lamont, Miche`le. 2000. The Dignity of Work- ity. Vol. 1, An Introduction. Translated by ing Men: Morality and the Boundaries of R. Hurley. New York: Vintage. Race, Class, and Immigration. Cambridge, Garcia, Lorena. 2012. Respect Yourself, Protect MA: Harvard University Press. Yourself: Latina Girls and Sexual Identity. Lamont, Miche`le and Vira´gMolna´r. 2002. ‘‘The New York: New York University Press. Study of Boundaries in the Social .’’ Gieryn, Thomas. 1983. ‘‘Boundary-Work and Annual Review of Sociology 28:167–95. the Demarcation of from Non-Sci- Laumann, Edward, John Gagnon, Robert ence: Strains and Interests in Professional Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 1994. The of Scientists.’’ American Socio- Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual logical Review 48(6):781–95. Practices in the United States. Chicago: Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the University of Chicago Press. Management of Spoiled Identity. Engle- Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. ‘‘Con- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. ceptualizing Stigma.’’ Annual Review of Gorman, Thomas J. 2000. ‘‘Cross-Class Per- Sociology 27:363–85. ceptions of Social Class.’’ Sociological Spec- Lucas, Jeffrey W. and Jo C. Phelan. 2012. trum 20(1):93–120. ‘‘Stigma and Status: The Interrelation of Hamilton, Laura. 2007. ‘‘Trading on Hetero- Two Theoretical Perspectives.’’ Social Psy- sexuality: College Women’s Gender Strate- chology Quarterly 75(4):310–33. gies and Homophobia.’’ Gender & Society Major, Brenda and Laurie T. O’Brien. 2005. 21(2):145–72. ‘‘The Social Psychology of Stigma.’’ Annual Hamilton, Laura and Elizabeth A. Armstrong. Review of Psychology 56(1):393–421. 2009. ‘‘Gendered Sexuality in Young Adult- McCall, Leslie. 1992. ‘‘Does Gender Fit? Bour- hood: Double Binds and Flawed Options.’’ dieu, , and Conceptions of Social Gender & Society 23(5):589–616. Order.’’ Theory and Society 21(6):837–67. Hebl, Michelle and John F. Dovidio. 2005. Milner, Murray, Jr. 2006. Freaks, Geeks, and ‘‘Promoting the ‘Social’ in the Examination Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, of Social Stigmas.’’ Personality and Social and the Culture of Consumption. New Psychology Review 9(2):156–82. York: Routledge. Hurtado, Sylvia, Jeffrey Milem, Alma Clayton- Nack, Adina. 2002. ‘‘Bad Girls and Fallen Pedersen, and Walter Allen. 1999. Enacting Women: Chronic STD Diagnoses as Gate- Diverse Learning Environments: Improving ways to Tribal Stigma.’’ Symbolic Interac- the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in tion 25(4):463–85. Higher Education. Washington, DC: Grad- Ortner, Sherry B. 1991. ‘‘Reading America: Pre- uate School of Education and Human liminary Notes on Class and Culture.’’ Pp. Development, George Washington. 163–89 in Recapturing : Work- Jones, Edward E., Amerigo Farina, Albert H. ing in the Present, edited by R. G. Fox. Santa Hastorf, and Rita French. 1984. Social Fe, NM: School of American Research. Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Rela- Owen, Jesse, Galena Rhoades, Scott Stanley, tionships. New York: W.H. Freeman. and Frank Fincham. 2010. ‘‘‘Hooking Up’ Jones, Nikki. 2010. Between Good and Ghetto: among College Students: Demographic African American Girls and Inner City Vio- and Psychosocial Correlates.’’ of lence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univer- Sexual Behavior 39(3):653–63. sity Press. Pascoe, C. J. 2007. Dude, You’re a Fag: Mascu- Killian, Caitlin and Cathryn Johnson. 2006. linity and Sexuality in High School. Berke- ‘‘‘I’m Not an Immigrant!’: Resistance, ley: University of California Press. Redefinition, and the Role of Resources in Payne, Elizabethe. 2010. ‘‘Sluts: Heteronorma- Identity Work.’’ Social Psychology Quar- tive Policing in the Stories of Lesbian terly 69(1):60–80. Youth.’’ Educational Studies 46(3):317–36. Kusenbach, Margarethe. 2009. ‘‘Salvaging Phillips, Lynn M. 2000. Flirting with Danger: Decency: Mobile Home Residents’ Strate- Young Women’s Reflections on Sexuality gies of Managing the Stigma of ‘Trailer’ Liv- and Domination. New York: New York ing.’’ Qualitative Sociology 32(4):399–428. University. Lamont, Miche`le. 1992. Money, Morals, and Pyke, Karen and Tran Dang. 2003. ‘‘‘FOB’ Manners: The Culture of the French and and ‘Whitewashed’: Identity and Internalized the American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: Racism among Second Generation Asian Amer- University of Chicago Press. icans.’’ Qualitative Sociology 27(2):147–72. 122 Social Psychology Quarterly 77(2)

Remez, Lisa. 2000. ‘‘Oral Sex among Adoles- Students’ Perceptions of Oral Sex, Inter- cents: Is It Sex or Is It Abstinence?’’ Family course, and Intimacy.’’ Archives of Sexual Planning Perspectives 32(6):298–304. Behavior 42(8):1573–81. Ridgeway, Cecilia. 2011. Framed by Gender: West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. How Gender Inequality Persists in the Mod- ‘‘Doing Gender.’’ Gender & Society ern World. New York: Oxford University. 1(2):125–51. Ringrose, Jessica and Emma Renold. 2012. White, Emily. 2002. Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes ‘‘Slut-Shaming, and ‘Sexualisa- and the Myth of the Slut. New York: tion’: Thinking through the Politics of the Scribner. International with Teen Girls.’’ Wilkins, Amy C. 2008. Wannabes, Goths, and Gender and Education 24(3):333–43. Christians: The Boundaries of Sex, Style, Saguy, Abigail C. and Anna Ward. 2011. ‘‘Com- and Status. Chicago: University of Chicago ing Out as Fat: Rethinking Stigma.’’ Social Press. Psychology Quarterly 74(1):53–75. Wolf, Naomi. 1997. Promiscuities: The Secret Schalet, Amy. 2011. Not Under My Roof: Struggle for Womanhood. New York: Ran- Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex. Chi- dom House. cago: University of Chicago Press. Schippers, Mimi. 2007. ‘‘Recovering the Femi- BIOS nine Other: Masculinity, Femininity, and Gender .’’ Theory and Society Elizabeth A. Armstrong is an associate 36(1):85–102. professor of sociology and organizational Schwalbe, Michael, Daphne Holden, Douglas studies at the University of Michigan. Schrock, Sandra Godwin, Shealy Thompson, She and Laura T. Hamilton are authors and Michele Wolkomir. 2000. ‘‘Generic Pro- cesses in the of Inequality: of Paying for the Party: How College An Interactionist Analysis.’’ Social Forces Maintains Inequality (2013). 79(2):419–52. Skeggs, Beverley. 1997. Formations of Class Laura T. Hamilton is an assistant pro- and Gender: Becoming Respectable. Thou- fessor of sociology at the University of sand Oaks, CA: Sage. California, Merced. Her recent work Stuber, Jenny M. 2006. ‘‘Talk of Class: The examines the role that parental invest- Discursive Repertoires of White Working- and Upper-Middle-Class College Students.’’ ments play in college student perfor- Journal of Contemporary Ethnography mance and completion (‘‘More Is More or 35(3):285–318. More Is Less?’’ in American Sociological Sweeney, Brian. Forthcoming. ‘‘Sorting Review 2013). Women Sexually: Masculine Status, Sexual Performance, and the Sexual Stigmatiza- Elizabeth M. Armstrong is a PhD can- tion of Women.’’ Symbolic Interaction. didate in and sociology at Tanenbaum, Leora. 1999. Slut! Growing up Female with a Bad Reputation. New York: the University of Michigan. Her research Seven Stories. focuses on the relationship between the Thoits, Peggy A. 2011. ‘‘Resisting the Stigma of social service systems for intimate part- Mental Illness.’’ Social Psychology Quar- ner violence and substance abuse in the terly 74(1):6–28. Trautner, Mary Nell. 2005. ‘‘Doing Gender, United States since the 1960s. Doing Class: The Performance of Sexuality in Exotic Dance Clubs.’’ Gender & Society J. Lotus Seeley is a PhD candidate in 19(6):771–88. women’s studies and sociology at the Uni- Trautner, Mary Nell and Jessica L. Collett. versity of Michigan. Her research focuses 2010. ‘‘Students Who Strip: The Benefits of on gender and work with an emphasis on Alternate Identities for Managing Stigma.’’ interactive support work. Symbolic Interaction 33(2):257–79. Vannier, Sarah A. and E. Sandra Byers. 2013. ‘‘A Qualitative Study of University