“Trying To Be A Hot Girl Is

Dangerous” Consent and Sexual Agency in the Digital Age

ANNABEL LEVY

“Trying To Be A Hot Girl Is Dangerous”

Consent and Sexual Agency in the Digital Age

ANNABEL LEVY

HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE

2016

CHAIR: LISE SANDERS

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: VIVECA GREENE, LILI KIM

Table of Contents

Foreword ...... 1

Introduction ...... 4

Chapter 1: Sex(t) Positive: College Students’ Responses to Sexting ...... 10

Chapter 2: Sorry For What?: Policing Girls’ Sexuality on the Internet” ...... 42

Chapter 3: “She Was Drunk”: Inherent Victim-Blaming, Shame and Consent in

Degrassi: The Next Generation ...... 59

Conclusion ...... 96

Appendix ...... 100

Works Citied ...... 101

Foreword

I was thirteen and in the eighth grade. I was texting with a fifteen-year-old boy whom I had a crush on that summer. He never knew I existed when we were at sleep-away camp, but somehow he had acquired my AOL instant messenger screen name. Or maybe I somehow acquired his. That fall we IM’d and talked every day, or rather, I typed sentences and asked leading questions while he typed words like

“lol” or “yea.” I was eager to impress the older emo boy from camp. I remember telling him I was nervous to enter the 8th grade, and him saying I shouldn’t worry because, as he said, “you’re not ugly ;)” At the time I probably took it as a compliment; at the time it probably made me squeal in girlish delight. Eventually we exchanged numbers and started texting. I added him to my contacts under a secret nickname, Trenchboy. It was only a matter of months until the inevitable moment came. It was late at night when I received it and I was shocked. I remember frantically texting my friends asking, “What do I do????” It was too late in the night for any of them to respond, so I just wrote back, “I have to go to sleep now bye!” He replied with a “hmmm” as if he didn’t believe me and as if he hadn’t just suddenly sent me a photo of his penis unannounced. I had never even kissed a boy, let alone seen a penis. I was in shock, from what I was seeing, but it also felt incredibly powerful. I, a thirteen-year-old loser, had received a photo of a boy’s penis; of course

I wanted to share it with my friends. And so I did.

Looking back on my experience is confusing. I still look back on it fondly, as one in a series of “firsts,” but I also think about how rude and disrespectful it was that he sent me a photo of his penis without asking. I struggle with the sense of

1 power it gave me, how I stared in shock but also amazement. I cringe at the memory of my reply, not even acknowledging the photo. I think about how messed up it was of me to have sent it to my friends, just so they could share in my excitement and confusion. I was selfish and wanted my friends to know I was the recipient of a dick pic. I never thought about how my friends’ well-being, or how they would feel about receiving a photo of a stranger’s penis.

I wanted to scream, “Look at me look at me!” and make others jealous that I was a recipient of such a photo. Sure, I didn’t send a photo back, and I didn’t even want the photo in the first place. But that didn’t matter. There it was sitting in my inbox, and I had to do something with it. Unlike the TV portrayals and the media’s

“moral panic” about teen sexuality, nothing happened with that dick pic. He never found out I showed it to anyone, no adults found out I was in possession of such a photo, and the worst that happened to me was that my friends teased me and called me a pervert. It was then, amongst the teasing, that I knew I had to keep this a secret, both the photo itself, and my sense of pride. I struggled with wanting to tell everyone, but knowing I shouldn’t, to wanting to keep the exchange with Trenchboy my own little perverted secret.

I think about this moment a lot: it was the moment I first felt both power and shame as a result of my sexuality. I was sexually curious, and earned the label of a slut and pervert throughout middle and high school, without doing anything more sexual than my peers. I was just the one who talked about it. I believe this confusion and the feelings of pride and shame I have so far described, are ones that every young woman has experienced in one way or another at some point in her life. It’s

2 for that reason I find it important to introduce this piece with a personal essay. I want to share my own experience before sharing those of others.

3 Introduction

A young woman’s sexuality is seldom talked about. Adolescent female sexuality is shushed and silenced; girls’ virginity and innocence however, are praised. I believe this silencing of such a vital and important developmental period in a girl’s life should be recognized so that the larger meanings of this process can be researched and understood. While not a foreign concept, young men and women are treated differently for their sexual experiences. This is commonly referred to as the

“double standard,” by which young men are praised, amongst their peers, while women are often shamed for the same acts. However, while this phenomenon has been explored, researched, and written about, I find that there are seldom discussions on why young women are engaging in these acts. If girls know about this double standard, and the possible shame associated with such sexual acts, why do they choose to engage in sexual acts while knowing the social consequences? In my

Division III I attempt to explore the fine line between pleasure and pressure that young women face with respect to their sexuality. I argue that not enough research has been done to allow young women to explore their sexual agency and to move past the shame. I aim to pose such “shameful” acts, such as sexting, as a positive, and as an act in which these women have agency and empowerment.

This thesis explores the challenges of navigating young women’s sexual agency and consent in the digital age. To do so I address the subject of sexting, the policing of young women’s sexuality through cyberbullying, and audience responses to a case of sextortion in an episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation. In each case, I

4 argue that young women are continuously policed and shamed by others for visible displays of their sexuality.

For my first chapter “Sex(t) Positive: College Students’ Responses to Sexting”

I have collected a series of college students’ responses to their own experiences with sexting. I asked them to reflect on their own uses and personal benefits for sexting.

Most importantly, I asked them how to gain consent before sending the first sext.

Looking back to that first sext I ever received I am proud of myself for not replying in kind. I did not succumb to pressure, and I was enough in control to know it was something I didn’t want to reciprocate. My cringe-worthy response of “I’m going to sleep now” was indeed an excuse, an excuse to get out of a sexual situation I never wanted. Other girls, like those we read about in the newspaper or hear about on the news, weren’t so fortunate. Those are the stories that have created a moral panic about sexting. The moral panic, it turns out, is true. Or at least, half-true. Participants recounted their own stories of middle-school sexting, while knowing it was wrong because they were told so. The women I interviewed were well aware of the so- called risks, that, like I did years ago, someone could send it to their friends and it would be out “there” forever.

The second chapter, “Sorry for What?: Policing Girls’ Sexuality On The

Internet”, tackles the subject of cyberbullying. Using Anne McClintock’s concept of touchless torture, I argue that cyberbullying breaks down the victim, making them anxious and distressed. Cyberbullying turns the innocent into the guilty, and forces people to apologize for being themselves. Throughout the paper I analyze examples of torturous cyberbullying in the films Sexting in Suburbia, Cyberbully, and

5 Unfriended. I attempt to redefine friendship in an age of social media, I ask who must apologize and for what, and I offer solutions to the mistreatment of young women. I ask audiences to contemplate the bigger picture, the policing and shaming of young women’s sexuality, and ask who is truly doing wrong.

The third chapter “’She was Drunk’: Victim-blaming, Shame and Consent in

Degrassi: The Next Generation” is a study of audience responses to a case of sexual exploitation in an episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation. Study participants addressed body issues, self-love, agency and consent, and were harsh in their reactions to Manny’s character, claiming a lack of self-confidence was her main problem. Peter’s character, while disliked, was thought to be a product of his upbringing and privilege. The language used by my participants veered toward victim blaming terminology, as participants focused on Manny’s decision to drink.

Most participants noted that they did not think Manny had any agency in her situation, as she did nothing to better herself. While everyone knew Manny had not given consent, due to her drinking, participants nonetheless believed Manny’s situation could have been avoided if she had not sought out attention or been so insecure.

A significant portion of my research addresses the issue of consent. The subject of consent, and defining it, is complex. There are many definitions of consent, and as I have conducted all of my interviews on the Hampshire College campus, it can be assumed that the majority of my participants adhere to

Hampshire’s definition of consent. Hampshire’s policy regarding consent is as follows:

6

In order for individuals to engage in sexual activity of any type with

each other, there must be clear, knowing and voluntary consent prior

to and during sexual activity. Consent is permission for sexual acts.

Consent can be given by word or action, but non-verbal consent is not

as clear as talking about what you want sexually and what you don’t.

Consent to some form of sexual activity cannot be automatically taken

as consent to any other form of sexual activity. Silence--without

actions demonstrating permission--cannot be assumed to show

consent. […] Individuals who consent to sex must be able to

understand what they are doing. Under this policy, “No” always means

“No,” and “Yes” may not always mean “Yes.” Anything but a clear,

knowing and voluntary consent to any sexual activity is equivalent to

a “no.”"

Hampshire’s consent policy seems to cover the basic ground rule that “’No’ always means ‘No’." However, Hampshire’s policy is also lacking, as demonstrated by the statement concerning the involvement of drugs and alcohol.

Because alcohol or other drug use can place the capacity to consent in

question, sober sex is less likely to raise such questions. When alcohol or

other drugs are being used, a person will be considered unable to give valid

consent if they cannot fully understand the details of a sexual interaction

7 (who, what, when, where, why, or how) because they lack the capacity to

reasonably understand the situation.

I believe Hampshire’s policy, while mentioning the gray area between verbal and nonverbal consent, fails when drug and alcohol involvement. I believe its definition leaves room for loopholes, such as “When alcohol or other drugs are being used, a person will be considered unable to give valid consent if they cannot fully understand the details of a sexual interaction (who, what, when, where, why, or how).” Hampshire’s policy makes it seem that a person under the influence can consent, as long as they understand what is happening. However, the policy fails to mention if the understanding is during the sexual interaction, or afterwards. I applaud Hampshire’s definition for mentioning the gray area between verbal and nonverbal consent. While in an ideal world consent would always be given verbally, it is, I believe, unrealistic to expect a strong “yes” or even a strong “no.” Those who believe verbal consent is the only way to consent or not consent fail to think about coercion or fear, which often happens during rape or assault.

Throughout my research and writing, based on multiple policies and discussions, I have come up with my own definition of consent. For my definition, I make it explicitly clear that those under the influence of drugs or alcohol cannot consent. Having a consensual experience is when all parties are sober and all agree to participate in a sexual activity. Consent can be taken back during said activity if at any moment a party member says “stop,” “no,” or is in visible distress (fear).

8 Consent must be given freely without hesitation, coercion, or force. Consent is verbally given, or non-verbally.

But the larger point is that consent is complex. Consent is about having discussions, while opening and maintaining healthy conversation. When engaging in sexual activity it is always important to establish trust and safety between sexual partners, regardless if it’s a long-term relationship or a one-time hookup.

My purpose in writing this paper is to let others read real responses to sexting, cyberbullying, and issues of agency and consent. It was important to me to do audience interviews in order to give my participants their own voices and allow them to reflect on their own thoughts and findings on the media they consume. In my conclusion I address/examine my findings in the context of a larger discussion on consent. In doing so I hope to open dialogue surrounding consent policy at

Hampshire College and the happenings on Hampshire College’s campus surrounding survivors and their assailants.

9 CHAPTER 1:

SEX(T) POSITIVE: COLLEGE STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO SEXTING

Introduction

In October 2015 a high school in Canon City, Colorado made headlines in the mainstream media. Reportedly, at least one hundred students were caught trading naked photos of themselves (Fowler). What started as a “scandal” that “jolted”

(Cloos, Turkewitz) the Colorado community grew overnight into a “massive sexting ring” (Nicks), making national headlines.

The media was quick to report on the incident, declaring it “Colorado’s

Sexting Nightmare” (Allen). The supposed scandal was reported to include “at least

100 students” (Rahman), with some of them “as young as 12” (Rahman). The “illicit photo ring” (Holley) was organized by the high school’s football team, and it consisted of trading nude pictures and posting them on social media (Rahman). The high school’s principal, Bret Meuli, revealed that sexting incidents have happened before; however, “nothing, nothing compared to the magnitude of what was going on” (Sky News). In light of the recent news, Meuli laments, “there is an extreme case of fear among our student body” (Mitchell).

According to The Washington Post the big question is, “How could a scandal involving at least 100 students and hundreds more nude photos go undetected for so long?” (Holley). The answer, this and other sources claim, is “photo vaults”

(Holley). Photo vaults are apps that are designed to look like any other smartphone app, like a calculator, but instead of a calculator, the app serves as undercover photo

10 storage. MSN reports that students are turning to these apps “to hide the photos from their parents and school officials” (Rahman).

The students involved in the “sexting ring” are faced with possible felony charges. Due to the fact that most of the students involved are under 18, the students could be charged with child pornography. It is against the law to possess or distribute child pornography; however, Colorado law officials have been unsure of how to proceed, as there might be safety in numbers: as TIME reports, district attorney Thom LeDoux has stated he “doesn’t intend to arrest hundreds of children”

(as cited in Nicks). Furthermore, law officials are unsure of how to charge the students, as they are minors themselves (Nicks). That the exchange of photos may have been consensual is not a legal consideration because the students were under the age of 18. LeDoux has pointed out “It doesn't matter if it was consensual, there is no distinction according to Colorado state statutes” (Sky News) and therefore the state is treating the sending and receiving of these photographs as possession of child pornography.

Although legal institutions might not be taking much action, at least at the time of this writing, the school and the students’ parents are. The high school’s football team was told they must forfeit their final game of the season, and according to The New York Times, some parents are now deciding to homeschool their children

(Cloos and Turkewitz). The football team has been accused of being ringleaders of the “sexting ring,” and school administrators found it best to cancel the team’s final scheduled football game, as the superintendent did not want the team representing the community (Cloos, Turkewitz). When one mother brought up photos she had

11 found three years prior to this “scandal,” she was told, “there was nothing the school could do because half the school was sexting” (Cloos, Turkewitz). The mother eventually pulled her daughter from the public school, and started home schooling.

Despite the attention the Canon City high school drew, what happened there is nothing new; at least, the way in which the media chose to frame it is nothing new.

Media reports of sexting scandals are more often than not sensationalized, leading to moral panic and the use of cautionary language, especially towards youth and their parents.

Sexting has caught the public’s eye through cautionary tales, threatening lawsuits, and pleas from concerned parents. As research demonstrates, sexting, the act of sending someone sexually explicit photographs or messages via cellphone, is practiced by many people of all ages (Barry). Despite the widespread reach of the practice it is younger people who are negatively portrayed through news sources, parents and law officials, and even their own peers, often resulting in a loss of agency. And even though magazines such as Vogue and Cosmopolitan declare sexting sexy for an older woman, it’s something that is profusely shamed, policed, or forbidden for young women.

A simple Google search of the word “sexting” directs one to pages filled with suggestions on how to sext. The suggestions and headlines are seemingly “sext positive,” but as one will find, the addition of the word “youth” or “kids,” the headlines drastically change to those that include words such as “dangers,”

“preventions,” and “dilemma.” Plenty of sites catering to parents appear with guides on how to talk to your child about sexting. A Kids Helpline article focuses on the

12 dangers of sexting by reminding readers that naked photography is “illegal,” and once you’ve sent something into cyberspace you cannot get it back (Kids Helpline).

In contrast, with just the word “sexting” in the search bar readers are linked to

Vogue where they will learn that “sexting is an important life skill” (Sciortino). It’s clear that sexting, depending on one’s age, is being taught in two very different ways.

Like the story of the Colorado’s “sexting ring,” news headlines flood Google results with stories like “Why Kids Sext” (Rosin), thus underscoring the importance of cultural discourses around sexting and highlighting the mystery and lack of understanding on the subject. Mainstream news like CNN warn parents that sexting is everywhere (Wallace), and clue in parents to the secret life of teens by giving them a list of acronyms teens are supposedly using to talk about sex and drugs in the open (Wallace).

By contrast, women’s magazines such as Cosmopolitan and Vogue present sexting as “flirty” and “playful,” and such magazines tend to defend the act and encourage women to use certain tips and tricks to spice up a relationship. Their website and magazine is full of tips and tricks on how to “do it right”

(Cosmopolitan.com), which is to say how to sext to get the other person off, without getting caught. Sexting is, Cosmopolitan claims, “just another part of having a healthy sex life in the twenty-first century” (Cosmopolitan.com). In contrast to parent help sites and cautionary scare tactics, mainstream women’s magazines such as

Cosmopolitan and Vogue make it seem normal and healthy to “figure out your sext goals” (Grant). However, most of these articles are focused on pleasing men. Sexting

13 in these magazines tends to focus on the pleasure and happiness of others, ignoring the agency of the sender.

Feminist magazines and blogs such as bitch Media, Jezebel, and BUST

Magazine discuss sexting in much more “sext positive” ways by reminding women that doing so is their choice, while still alerting women of potential harms, risks, and dangers. Soraya Chemaly at bitch media reminds us that “teen sexting isn’t the problem -- non-consensual forwarding of photos is” (Chemaly). If the problem the authorities, parents, and the news have with sexting is that sexting is child pornography, then Chemaly claims that child pornography is not about teenagers sending sexts to other teenagers, but instead is rooted in the lack of safety and privacy when those sexts get shared unwillingly (Chemaly). Similar to that argument, Jezebel reminds us of the double standard for girls. Even if a young woman is consenting to send a sext, it’s very likely she will be shamed for her choice, or was possibly coerced (Coker). In other words, consensual or not, Jezebel points out that women suffer from the stigma of sexting no matter their personal feelings on the matter. However, Jezebel doesn’t end the conversation there. Coker points out that there needs to be more effort to move away from the double standards and sexism within sexting, as “sex is a natural human function” and so

“shame and judgment don't need to be assigned any time there’s an erotic feeling, and that includes sexting kids” (Coker). Like Cosmopolitan, BUST magazine gives tips on how to properly sext, for men and women. By teaching male readers on how to send a photo “without disrespecting her or making your wang look wack” (Duncan),

BUST reminds us that sexting isn’t for women to do and men to receive. The list

14 includes “don’t be an objectifying douchebag,“ “don’t send a pre-mature dick pic,” and “R-E-S-P-E-C-T” thus suggesting that sexting is best when consent is given, and there’s a respect of privacy to ensure that sexts are “for your eyes only” (Duncan).

Feminist sources, unlike the news or women’s magazines, remind us that women’s agency and consent is important, while also actively including men in on the ongoing sexting conversation.

In my study I explore young adults’ experience with sexting compared to the media’s influence. Are the stories told by the media happening in real life? How common is sexting? Through a review of relevant scholarly literature and interviews with young adults, I explore the importance of consent, and the pleasure of both the sender and receiver involved in sexting. I am interested in discovering the ways people have learned about sexting, their sexting habits, and their impression of sexting. Can sexting be empowering? Can sexting be feminist? What are the ways society should be talking about sexting, and what does “safe sexting” look like?

Literature Review

In this section I review scholarly literature that addresses issues and themes

I further explore in my interviews about sexting. The themes include the issue of sexual/gendered double standards and sexism, alternative frameworks for understanding sexting, young people’s and female agency, and consent.

Through the use of interviews, Jessica Ringrose et al. explore the gender inequalities and sexual double standards in sexting. Discussing the dramatization of the media’s portrayal of sexting, they conclude that “the implicit message in… anti-

15 sexting narratives is that inherent responsibility for sexting gone wrong therefore lies with the body in the image rather than, for instance, the agents of distribution”

(Ringrose, 307). In other words, Ringrose et al. argue that media blames victims, which “results in a form of victim-blaming ‘similar to the ways women have been held responsible for protecting themselves from sexual assault’” (307) and thus neglects to reprimand the forwarder or disseminator of these private photographs.

Ringrose et al. aim to move away from the mainstream media’s discourse, as it

“positions girls’ sexuality as something innocent, pure and at risk of contamination”

(307) and thus situates the media as means of protecting the “virginal body” by victim-blaming to ensure such sexual behavior does not happen. Instead, Ringrose et al. “develop a feminist lens to critically analyze how young people interpret and negotiate gendered discourses about sexuality and morality through their discussion of their uses” (307).

Sexting, it seems, constitutes as “a new norm of feminine desirability within today’s digital teen peer networks” (319). Girls in the Ringrose et al. study reported that it was a “major compliment to be asked for photos,” but they had to be careful in “negotiating requests” as they didn’t want to risk being a “sket” (a British slang term for slut) (311). It appears that the girls in the study were aware of the “sket” label, but chose to defy it by sending a photo, anyway, for the compliments and/or desirability (312). Girls are subject to the sket label, whereas boys are not, a sexual double standard that corroborates Julia Lippman and Scott W. Campbell’s findings in their piece “‘Damned If You Do Damned If You Don’t… If You’re a Girl’: Relational and Normative Contexts of Adolescent Sexting in the United States,” a study in which

16 they found that both genders sext, however it was girls who are more pressured to send nude photographs. These women, as well as the ones in Ringrose et al’s study, had to deal with negotiating their status as a “slut” in addition to the risks of sexting that all teens are seen to face (Lippman & Campbell, 374). Lippman and Campbell’s most significant finding was that although both boys and girls engage in the act of sexting, it’s only the girls who are socially punished for it. They found that “boys in our study described girls who did send sexts as 'sluts' or 'insecure,' whereas they characterized girls who did not send sexts as 'prude' or 'stuck up'" (382). Like

Ringrose et al. it is not just boys who shame these girls; sexting tends to also lead to shaming of girls by girls, which thus “indicates that sexting is a lose–lose proposition for girls; regardless of whether or not they sext, their behavior is evaluated in harsh—and often sexist—terms” (382).

Lippman and Campbell’s participants described sexting as happening mostly in the context of flirting, romance or sex between older teens, but those younger said that it can be platonic, and a joke (380-381). I believe this indicates that the body is therefore not always seen as sexual, and therefore indicates some sort of pleasure for the receiver and sender that is not sexual, which is something I explore further in my analysis of my participants’ data.

Sexting takes place in a digital landscape, and Amy Hasinoff is trying to change the sexting discourse by framing sexting as a form of media production and stressing the importance of consent. Hasinoff points out that teen sexting is illegal, due to age, and therefore law and media do not distinguish between sexting that is harassment or consensual, because, by law, it is “illegal for them to photograph their

17 sex acts” (Hasinoff, 450). Hasinoff offers an “alternative model of sexting as media production that highlights the need for further research on the potential benefits of sexting”; in her view, “expanding the concept of media production to include sexting also suggests that models of social media should account for authorship, consent and sexuality more thoroughly” (450). In other words, as she argues, if we started viewing sexting not in the eyes of the law, but as media production, we would start thinking of sexting in matters of consent, and perhaps stop victim-blaming and start putting the blame on the nonconsensual spreading of sexts (450). Focusing on what the media identifies as the two most prominent risks of sexting -- the internet’s anonymity and girls’ disinhibition -- Hasinoff explains why these risks are actually unexplored potentials and benefits to young women’s sexualities.

Hasinoff argues that as a result of the current discourse around the internets’ anonymity and girls’ disinhibition, the public is unable to see the various benefits these supposed “risks” actually provide. In Hasinoff’s view the problem with the media’s approach to anonymity is that it puts the responsibility on the sender of the sext. Media outlets caution young women to appear “gender invisible by using ‘a gender-neutral screen name’” (452). In doing so these media outlets are essentially telling young women they should “not appear in online public space as girls” and placing immediate “distrust” in the people they meet online, “who could be concealing their identities or malicious (rather than safety-based) purposes” (452).

By that standard, these young women will likely not be able to make meaningful connections with other women on the Internet, due to their concealed identity.

Hasinoff reminds us that the mainstream media’s reaction to the internet’s

18 anonymity is sensationalized, as sext crimes are often carried out in the same way offline sexual assault occurs: “the vast majority of perpetrators are still family members, acquaintances, and intimate partners” (452). By that standard, Hasinoff says, people should be aware of offline predators, not online predators, and thus fearing the Internet is only a displacement of anxieties about offline sexual consent.

Instead, Hasinoff offers an alternative way of thinking of anonymity on the

Internet. The positive side of the Internet’s anonymity is the community it provides.

She sees the internet as a potential community that “may help provide girls, queer teens, and other marginalized youth, in particular, find a refuge from some of the stigmas and restrictions they experience at home and at school” (454). She cites the message boards on gurl.com as one environment in which young women “offered each other support and information about sexuality and topics such as menstruation” (455). Online communities like gurl.com are extremely important in her view, providing a potential way to connect with others and gain confidence.

It seems that teenaged peers aren’t the only ones who slut-shame. Hasinoff asserts that the media does their fair share of shaming: the “dominant fear is that the immediacy and ease of mobile media communication undermines their supposedly innate desire for chastity” (453). Due to the comfort that cellphones bring teenagers, some observers worry that cellphones and the internet will cause girls to “engage in risky or non-normative sexual behavior” (453) which will lead to unwanted pregnancies. She quotes online safety expert Parry Aftab: “teenagers are

‘disconnected from the immediate consequences of their actions online, [so] many

“good” kids and teens find themselves doing things online they would never dream

19 of doing in real life’” (453). Hasinoff doesn’t disagree with this statement; instead she argues for it to be regarded as a positive. Hasinoff points out that sexting does indeed have “communicative benefits,” except we only see them portrayed in

“lifestyle articles…aimed at adults” (455). She asks: why not articulate those same benefits for young women? She explains that the “lack of inhibition” is an “important feature of sexual health and clear communication of needs and desires”(455). Due to the ease of digital social media, teenage girls in her study were more likely to express their needs and desires, by being more aggressive. This aggressiveness is necessary to have open communication in relationships and, as Hasinoff points out, could possibly be a way in which “sexting could help girls find new ways to express their sexual needs and desires and even perhaps re-write some of the gender norms that ask girls to be passive and acquiescent in intimate heterosexual relationships”

(455-456).

Lastly, Hasinoff calls for sexting to be considered media production. She claims that media production, for girls, can offer “an important way to respond to the objectifying media portrayals of women” (456). It’s thought that giving girls a camera to be behind and in front of, will ultimately empower them to “resist sexualization because it ‘enables them to be more effective cultural critics’” (456).

Although there is merit to Hasinoff’s argument, it is not always the case, as a man could view such media, and it would still appear as contributing media to the male gaze. Nevertheless, by placing girls behind the camera and making them a producer of media, Hasinoff argues, sexting then “helps make it possible to consider the creativity and ingenuity of teens who consensually produce their own sexual

20 images” which would then lead to studies about whether sexting could be seen as

“personal exploration or critical reflection on gender and sexual representations in mass media” (457).

In the context of recasting sexting as media production, Hasinoff addresses the crucial issue of consent. If we view sexting as media production, we “assert that people who create ephemeral social media artifacts need not surrender all their privacy rights when they share this content selectively” (459). When a sext is seen to involve ownership on the part of the person sending the sext or taking the photo, the unwilling and nonconsensual spreading of the sext would be taken much more seriously as it establishes privacy rights (459). If authorities thought of consensual sexting as a creative form of self-expression, perhaps they would not want to

“criminalize the teens who produce sexts, and could instead focus on developing ways to protect adolescents (and adults) from the distribution of their private images” (460).

Methodology

Studies have shown that qualitative interviews can offer useful perspectives on individuals’ personal engagement with the media. Drawing on this methodological foundation, I interviewed 20 people in order to explore young people’s experiences with sexting. I searched for people who were familiar with sexting prior to the interview. The degrees to which they were exposed to sexting varied. Exposure ranged from those who actively engaged in sexting, to those who knew only of the concept. Due to the subject of my study, I felt it best to do one-on-

21 one interviews, as it seemed to create a relatively safe, private, and comfortable environment for my participants to express themselves freely. The interviews were done in person, via Skype, or Facebook Messenger, or through a questionnaire, depending on what the participant’s location and schedule would allow. I recruited people with ads on Facebook, Yik Yak, and Tinder. Participants were 18+ and signed an informed consent form.

In-person interviews took place wherever the participant felt most comfortable. Some took place in spaces of their own choosing, while others took place at my home. Participants were told at the beginning that if any point they felt uncomfortable, recording would stop and we would discontinue the interview. Post- interview I would debrief with them and ask if they had felt comfortable during the interview, while also allowing them to ask me any questions I had asked them, to level out the power dynamic that I felt was present due to the personal and private nature of the interview and stories that were being shared. Everything that was shared during this point not recorded and did not influence my data.

As noted previously, some of my interviews were conducted via Facebook

Messenger. This allowed for a relaxed atmosphere, as it allowed my participants to take their time with their answers, and possibly think through the questions before jumping to answer them. Those who filled out the questionnaire also had more freedom in their time to answer, they were permitted to email me back their answers by the end of that day.

I asked all participants -- whether they were interviewed on Facebook,

Skype, via the questionnaire, or in person -- the same questions. I started off with

22 initial questions, and then based on answers, I asked follow-up questions. For those who filled out the questionnaire I would reach out to them via Facebook Messenger and ask if they would care to elaborate. The first question I would ask was “How do you define sexting?” followed by “Given this definition, do you partake in sexting?”

Other questions focused on when and where they first learned about sexting, why they do it, and how they do it. Questionnaires were more limiting, as I could not easily ask them clarifying or follow-up questions. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in the appendix.

More open-ended questions such as “Why do you sext?” provided space for a wide range of answers, and from those answers I was able to formulate more detailed questions. Working from open-ended to detailed questions allowed for the participants to freely and openly voice their thoughts, and also allowed me the gateway to ask more specific questions to my study. Even though participants went off topic at times, or seemed to bring up matters not (obviously) relevant to my study, I was able to use their initial thoughts to understand what is relevant to them, and to engage with other perspectives that I had not considered.

For the purposes of this study, which explores the positive aspects of sexting, the study was open to anyone who was interested in participating, regardless of race, gender, and sexual identification. However, I actively sought female perspectives, for as I did research it struck me how few mainstream sources focus on the possible pleasures and positives of sexting, particularly for women. As mainstream news sources elaborate the risks and dangers of sexting and women’s magazines like Cosmopolitan focus on the receiver’s pleasure, I was most interested

23 in finding out how people, women especially, find and take pleasure in actively participating in something society shames or dictates.

Data

In my interviews, people’s reactions and experiences with sexting were generally positive. Women described the act of sexting as an “absolute confidence booster” and “empowering.” Male participants found it “fun” and “really hot.”

Female participants were eager to express their love of sexting, but also acknowledged the potential dangers and offered ways to have safe and consensual sext.

Defining Sexting

Most participants defined sexting as something that was “sexually pleasing for both parties,” whether in the form of word-based text messages or picture messages. Kelsey expressed that she feels “there are two ‘kinds’ of sexting. The obvious one is sending nude or semi-nude pictures. And then there's sexting through IM or texting, where no pictures are sent but it's all writing. And a lot of the time they go hand in hand” (Kelsey). Others characterized these as the two primary kinds of sexting as well.

It did not seem like one form was more popular than the other. However,

Eddie (who uses they/them pronouns) stated that sexting, for them, consisted of

“sending nudes” and acknowledged “also words” but noted “but like I don’t do that, that much,” therefore indicating that word-based sexting was not something they

24 personally did. That sentiment was reflected in remarks from other interviewees, who observed that sexting can consist of both photos and words, but that they usually stuck to one or the other.

In the case of photos, photo sexts were commonly referred to as “nudes”

(Chuck), and while they were regarded as sexts, these messages were distinctively called “nudes.” Janet defined sexting as “sending scandalous picture[s] of yourself to other people.” Rosie felt similarly, and also claimed that the photos “don't have to be of someone like touching themselves or anything, but any kind of naked picture says sexting to me.”

In what follows, I’ve organized my findings into recurring themes that surfaced during the interview process. I focus on the various ways in which people expressed where they get their pleasure and the role consent plays in sexting. These two categories are overarching themes, with several subcategories: for example, pleasure takes the form of conversations around fantasy, confidence, and even nonsexual benefits. Consent has been broken down by how people have discussed the various elements, such as control and trust, as well addressing the nonconsensual sext. It should be noted that these topics are all connected to each other and in some cases overlap.

Pleasures: Fantasy, Confidence, and Nonsexual Benefits

Chuck explained that sexting was very fantasy-based for him. He was someone who considered sexting as text-based: as he explained, “sexting is when two people are having a text conversation, but with just some erotic content.” Prior

25 to the interview, Chuck did not consider that he had sexted before as he was under the conception that “sexting was with a significant other.” Unlike many others who were interviewed, Chuck actively participated in sexting with strangers. Chuck claimed, “The only time I’ve sexted is with anonymous online chat. I love anonymous online chat; it’s VERY interesting to sext with those people.” Chatting with strangers, in a sexual manner, allowed Chuck to see his online activity not as sexting, but as fantasy and story-building. When entering a sexual anonymous chat, Chuck was aware of the fantasy, for both him and the other person. “I don’t have to be me, and I don’t really care if they’re them.”

For Chuck, the pleasure he received while sexting was not sexual at all, as he specified, “I want to be clear about this, I wasn’t masturbating. I could have been, but

I wasn’t.” He went on to explain, “I was ONLY doing this because I felt a connection without the intention behind what they were saying and I enjoyed making up a story.” Calling himself an “extrovert,” he also stated that he liked to “talk to people when I was lonely, when I didn’t have anyone to talk to. I would want to have some kind of connection with someone on the other side of the screen.” The subject of conversation did not matter to Chuck, as he would “let them initiate whatever they are interested in, what they want the conversation to be” and often times it would be sex, as “sex is interesting, and that’s what they want to talk about. So I’d just build a story with them.”

Interviewee Marc explained that, for him, sexting was “sharing a fantasy.”

Marc recounted that in a long-distance relationship, sexting was a way to explore sexual situations that he could not do in person. The fantasy was something the two

26 shared, and unlike Chuck’s fantasies, their fantasies were still tied to reality. Marc explains, “Our sexting would stop at where the boundaries were in real life, because she wasn't comfortable fantasizing.” The fantasy wasn’t so much as something that wasn’t done in real life, but it was something that couldn’t be done easily, due to their distance and different locations. As the relationship progressed, so did Marc and his partner’s sexting fantasies, as his partner later began to be comfortable talking about sexual acts they had not done in real life yet. “Towards the end of the relationship, we were comfortable sexting about [something] even if we weren't comfortable doing it. Though we did not as often, and it was clear that there was moments and times where she was willing to fantasize that far, but there was others where that clearly made her uncomfortable.” The boundaries with sexual acts changed, when talked about as opposed to actually doing them. Marc recalls his partner being uncomfortable with certain sexual acts in reality, and that “those positions were very uncomfortable for her,” but “in the fantasy in sexting that was allowed, because it wasn’t physically occurring, but in person that would never happen.” Sexting, for their relationship, enabled them to connect emotionally in a sexual way.

Similarly to Chuck, Marc also viewed sexting as story-building. This was an extreme turn on. He explained, “It’s better than just a fantasy when I’m masturbating, because you're getting the feedback from the other person.” And that

“it's not just the fantasy of what you're typing, but it's the fantasy of what they're doing at that moment.” Marc found that that fantasy, of what the receiver was possibly doing, was even “better than just a fantasy when I’m masturbating” because

27 “there’s something that's so titillating and arousing about knowing that my girlfriend or my partner is masturbating right now, like that's so hot.” And so “the ability to get into situation where I know that they're touching themselves, thinking about me… is very awesome.” But then he later added, “even if I realize that it's hot for really dumb reasons, dumb oppressive reasons, it is, and I can't fight that.”

Other participants echoed similar statements regarding the pleasure of the fantasy. However, women expressed fantasy in terms of control and power. Jenny believed that sexting was “an opportunity to share my fantasies.” Sharon expressed a similar sentiment and further explained, “Behind a keyboard of some kind, I have the power to choose a sexual scenario without any kind of pressure. I may not necessarily want to perform this scenario in real life, but sexting is in the realm of fantasy.”

Self-Confidence

Several women I spoke to claimed that sexting was a great boost in self- confidence. Many women expressed that sexting made them feel “sexy,” as well as

“sexually competent”(Jenny). Kelsey explained that in addition to sexting giving her

“self confidence about my body,” she also liked that it made her partner happy, which in return, made her happy: “it makes me happy to be making my partner happy.” Sharon had stated that a huge reason that she sexts is because of the way it makes her feel. Sharon said, “it makes me feel attractive and desirable,” especially when “being told that you are the most attractive thing in someone’s universe;” however, she added at the end, “if only for a moment.” Sharon also noted that

28 sexting has helped “explore [her] own sexuality.” Subsequently, Sharon claimed that she sexts “completely for [herself].” Sharon felt, overall, sexting was a confidence booster, “especially when pictures are involved.”

Nude photos seemed to a source of body positivity and self-confidence for women. Rosie felt that “confidence is learned by doing it [sending nude photos].”

She observed that when “you take a pic without the intent of sending it and then send it because you want them to see,” that experience makes her feel confident with her body, while also bringing her partner pleasure. Rosie further explained that confidence comes from the times when “you can look at a picture and think ‘wow I look REALLY good’ and send it, and know you look good without being told.”

Interestingly enough, Rosie also expressed that “pics feel less vulnerable, which I know is maybe backwards, but it’s like ‘I know you’ve seen this before and I know you're into it’. Whereas with text it could be like ‘well why would I want you to do that’ or like ‘ew what?’" For Rosie, it’s important for her sexts to be well received, and she doesn’t want to risk rejection.

For others, text-based sexts were more “enticing.” Ariel defends her preference of words by calling herself “a bit of a word nerd.” Ariel explains why she is “more of a fan of dirty talk than sending nudes” by saying she finds herself getting

“turned on by really well put together phrases.” She also adds, “Plus it's a great way to practice writing creatively. Or building your vocabulary!” Jenny agreed, as she also felt that she tends “to be more aroused by words than pictures so I find it [word sexting] very erotic.” Cindy also thought that text sexts are “exciting” because it’s a

“in-detail description of what they want to do.” While Cindy likes reading what

29 others are typing, Ariel and Jenny both like to be the one doing the writing. Ariel explained, “It's a pretty good feeling to know that I'm turning my partner on with my words and my brain.”

Nonsexual Sexting

Sexting does not always have to be sexual, according to the people I interviewed. Several participants shared that, in addition to being fun in a “sexy” way, sexting was also fun in a “weird” and “funny” way. Rosie, who was previously mentioned as being a fan of “nudes,” says sometimes she has a hard time taking her sexting seriously, because “a lot of the time I think it’s sort of funny, like it is such a weird thing to do.” Rosie admitted she thinks sexting is, ultimately, weird because “it feels like everyone who does it is trying so hard, and trying to say the right thing and

[it] just feels so much less organic than actually just having sex.” However, she still receives pleasure in sexting, and, again, when it comes to sharing nude photos, she absolutely thinks “sending pictures doesn't have to be sexual,” because “that is more about appreciation of the other person’s body.”

Another mode of nonsexual sexting involves asking friends to review one’s sext before sending it to the intended recipient, Sharon explained that sometimes she shares naked photos with her friends, before sending them to the person she is sexting. She explained, “I may send a friend a sexual picture first to make sure that I actually look sexy and don’t just think that I do. Sometimes second opinions can take the form of confidence boosters as well.”

30 Consent: Initiating, Trust & Control, and Saying No

Consent is vital when it comes to sex, and sexting is no exception. Below are various ways in which my participants explain and navigate the important issue of consent in sexting.

Initiating

There was no typical way of going about initiating a sexting conversation, according to the participants of the study. Participants who sexted only with partners, and those who sexted more casually, both agreed that consent was important, but still struggled on how to gain it. Participants explained that it’s rare to bluntly state, “We are going to sext now” (Cindy), and most prefer a more natural progression. Cindy elaborated that she felt like sexting “always sort of happens as an accident.” Ariel reported something similar, as there is no question-asking, but “one of us usually will initiate it [sexting] somehow, and if we’re both okay with it we keep going.” The only way Ariel and her partner know that the other is not okay with it is when someone says something. She elaborated “If not, then one of us will say something like, ‘Oh, I'm not really in the mood,’ or ‘I'm not a huge fan of sexting,’ and then it'll stop.” In this case, Ariel and her partner’s shared silence is consent.

Rosie explains that to initiate, she will “send like an initial sext, that is sort of vague like ‘I wish we were doin it’ or something like that,’ and then if they ask for more or seem into it then we keep going but if not then that’s it.” Rosie acknowledged, however, that perhaps this was not the best way to initiate as she stated, “I could probably find a better way [to ask for consent].” She explains that by having already

31 been in in-person sexual situations with her sexting partner, Rosie feels as though “a lot of what I do is with people that I know and understand really well and because of that I already know what the jumping-off point is because I know what they feel comfortable with.”

Marc explained that consent is something he worries about often. He explained one way in which he asks for consent is by “phrasing it as a question.” So instead of demanding photos, or demanding something, he would phrase his desire as a question such as “Can I see this?” or “Would you like it if I did this?” much like how, he says, he gains consent in real-life sexual situations. However, Marc is aware that it is sometimes “easy to stop phrasing it as questions. To be [like] ‘I do this’, instead of what if I did this?” with that in mind, he believes he tries to be conscious of consent while engaging in sexting.

Trust

Trust seems to be the key element in having a consensual sexting experience.

Kelsey stressed, “Trust is super important. You need to know your partner isn't going to show people unless you're okay with it. You also need to know that the person wouldn't do something negative with the photos or texts if you guys were to break up or something.“ Trusting sexting partners was something highly emphasized, as Kelsey explained that the reason she began sexting “ was when I was in a long-term relationship (2 years) and there was a lot of trust involved.” Kelsey added, “I'm totally fine continuing to sext her because it's long distance and I trust her more than I trust anyone else.” Without that trust, or relationship, Kelsey

32 wouldn’t sext in the same way. She mentioned, when describing “a ‘thing’ with a guy,” she was “okay with racy messages and I did sent him pictures but because the trust wasn't there I wouldn't put my face in the photos and I wouldn't send full nudes.”

Leaked photos were commented on frequently. Depending on the level of trust between sexting partners, participants worried this could happen with more casual sexting situations. While Sharon pointed out that “your trust in a person could be violated,” many participants personally did not worry about their partners leaking or sharing their sexts. Rosie pointed out that she did not fear her photos being leaked, as she observed, “I mean I don't really understand the cloud and where pictures really *are* but I don't feel like I date the kind of people that would want to exact revenge post break up by unleashing pics of me.” Rosie states, though,

“There is always the opportunity for rejection, and if you send pictures you never know where they could end up! And you have to really just trust that you will be okay.”

While most participants stressed how important it is to be able to trust your partner, some also stressed the importance of trusting yourself. In other words, trusting oneself that this is “something you want to do” (Kelsey). To trust one’s partner and oneself, Kelsey advises that “If there’s even a slight thought in your head saying ‘should I do this?’ you probably shouldn't because then the trust isn't there.” She continues to stress that sending a sext is your own choice: “You should never send someone nude images of yourself unless you're positive that it's something you want to do. Not just something someone else wants you to do.” She

33 warns that trust comes at a cost, however, because it can be lost. The sender has to be the one in control of what is being sent. The receiver cannot dictate what they are to receive. Kelsey advises that “it's your body and it's the only thing you can fully control” and that “you can't give someone else that control even if it is digital.” Janet describes knowing when it’s “right” for her, when she is “comfortable with my body at that point in time.” She has to make sure she is comfortable, noting that “I do know that there’s always the chance, and that is something that I have to weigh in my head before I send it.” By having to keep the possibility of leaks in mind, Janet and others trust themselves and their partners that all will be kept between one another. Following that, Janet urges people to “remember, like, why you’re doing it” because, even though she states “I think that sexting can be fun and I think it can be very body positive,” one needs to trust oneself that sexting is something both parties are comfortable with.

Control

Whatever sort of sexts you are producing (text or photo), it’s important for the sender to be in control of what is being sent and received. Janet explained that with her boyfriend, “Sometimes he’ll ask me for pictures or whatever and I’ll be like

‘no not feeling it right now.’” She acknowledges that saying no is easy because she’s

“talking from a background of being in like a really committed relationship” and so

“it’s easier for me to be like ‘yo, like no’ than someone else, maybe, like a random person, cause I know it’s like hard to say no to those kinds of things.” Which is why

Janet emphasizes that you must always be in control of your actions, and “to be very

34 cognizant of like, ‘why am I doing this’.” Janet concludes by asserting, “you have to be really assertive” when saying no, as well as really making sure “you’re doing it for yourself.“

Control was also defined by being in control of one’s sexual agency. Janet suggested that by sexting, “You’re taking charge of your sexuality, sort of owning your body, and having agency with that.” Owning one’s sexual agency felt empowering to Sharon, who said, “As a woman I feel almost empowered when I can have complete control over a sexual situation.” Sharon also felt that it was easier to gain control of a sexting situation, as she felt that “the beauty of sexting is that there’s not a way to be forced into it.” Whether or not this is true, Sharon felt that because there is not a way to be forced, it would be easier to say no to sexting as

“giving consent to sext can be as simple as a reply.” Even though there is “no way to control a spontaneous picture or message, the other party does have the ability to not reply or respond with a message saying that they are not interested.”

Nonconsensual

Nonconsensual sexts are mostly referred to as “unsolicited dick pics”

(Sharon). Unsolicited pictures were the most common example of a nonconsensual sexting experience. Janet thinks that “there is something very almost aggressive or violent sending like sexual pictures like unsolicited or when you’re pressured to send them.”

Another way of thinking about nonconsensual sexting experiences is when both parties were not actively engaged. Cindy mentioned, “If the other person

35 initiates it and I am not in the mood, it just makes me feel creeped out and empty.”

However, despite her discomfort, often times she claimed she found that even “if I wasn't really feeling it, I would still sometimes try if they wanted to, because I knew they wanted to and I felt guilty for not wanting to, being that we were far away from each other so I almost owed it to them.” Going through the motions was something both Cindy and Rosie felt was common in their sexting. While not necessarily a bad thing, as neither of them thought of it as such, Cindy and Rosie explains that while sexting can be sexual for one person, “you may not always want it to be.”

Elaborating on that, Cindy explains that that could mean “sexting a person because they initiated it, and you go through the motions of what you think you ‘should’ say, but [you’re] not actually feeling it.”

Rosie’s thoughts echoed this, as she also found herself sexting in situations when she was “not feeling it.” She feels as though, on days when she’s “trying to have a cool chill time and wouldn’t want to be having sex if I were with the other person” she “sometimes feels like I’m really phoning it in and just responding or rephrasing what the other person said.” Rosie still chooses to engage, during these times, but acknowledges that sometimes she just wants to “chill and watch my show” instead of thinking “about where I would put [blank] or what I would [blank] and [blank] or whatever it is.” She recalled a time in which “my girlfriend was just asking me to send her pictures and I was feeling really cranky and didn't want to but did anyway because she kept asking and I knew she wanted me to.” Passive engagement with sexting is a gray area of consent, as Rosie notes that “it’s definitely

36 hard [consent] because it sort of feels like it has to be consensual for it to happen because you are the one doing it but I know that's not the case.”

Analysis & Conclusion

As my interviews illustrate, sexting offers many kinds of pleasure. Sharon showed us that when she confessed to sending the same sexual photos she would send to a sexting partner, to her friends. To that audience, her friends, Sharon did not intend to elicit any type of sexual response, but instead hoped for a “thumbs up” or a go-ahead. Rosie had a similar perspective; she claimed that naked photos are not always inherently sexual, but instead more of an appreciation of the body. Rosie chose to share photos of herself, in which she thought she looked good, with her girlfriend, but would have taken the photo regardless. By taking photos that weren’t necessarily for sexting purposes, Rosie’s experiences suggests that there are other pleasures to sexting worth exploring, other than the obvious sexual pleasure (or the pleasure of pleasing someone else!). This pleasure may be the pleasure in knowing you look good, or getting approval from others.

Although my interviewees note that masturbation does occur while sexting, it doesn’t always have to. In fact, Chuck claimed he never masturbated while sexting, because he was not into it for the sexual pleasure. Instead, Chuck sought out pleasure in the form of communication. Chuck’s pleasure came from talking to people and making a connection however necessary. He defended his anonymous online chats by stating that sex is what other people liked to talk about, and therefore he obliged in order to get what he wanted, someone to talk to. For Chuck

37 and several others, pleasure came in connecting and feeling close to those they were sexting. Lippman and Campbell’s findings underscored that although sexting usually happens in the context of flirting, romance or sex between older teens, younger teens said that it could be platonic, and a joke. I believe their findings and mine indicate that the body is not always seen as sexual, and therefore indicates some sort of pleasure for the receiver and sender that are not sexual.

Marc and Janet claimed that sexting had a positive influence in their relationships, which was mainly long distance. Sexting acted as a way for them to be intimate with each other when they physically could not. Janet said that the emotional desire and the physical desire were both present, and that sexting is a great way to remind each other that their relationship “is physical and emotional,” so sexting is ”kind of like taking care of, or trying to tap into the physical part, when we are away from each other for like months at a time.” Marc shared similar points, as he felt it was a way to emotionally connect and share each other’s desires. Marc also claimed that sexting helped his sexual relationship, as sexting acted as a stepping stool for his girlfriend who was not comfortable with certain sexual acts at first. By sexting about those acts, she began to become more comfortable with the thought of trying it in real life.

As Amy Hasinoff argues, what the media consider sexting “cons” are actually what people consider “pros.” Hasinoff identified the Internet’s anonymity and girls’ disinhibition as two large problems perpetuated by the media. My interviews did not support this view, as Sharon implied that she felt safer behind a keyboard.

Behind a keyboard or a screen Sharon, and others, were free to explore their kinks

38 and sexuality in a scenario where it wasn’t actually happening. By fantasizing through their phones, my interviewees felt that sexual situations were much easier to control, and much easier to stop if it went too far. Hasinoff claimed that technology has opened the pathway to healthy communication, and a way for women to be more straightforward. Sharon’s statement that “as a woman I feel almost empowered when I can have complete control over a sexual situation” exemplifies this. With sexting, Sharon, and other women, literally have the control in the palm of their hands. By acknowledging her sexual needs and desires, Sharon shows that the pleasure of sexting is not only for men’s pleasure, as women’s magazines seem to suggest.

The “slut” issue that was so prevalent in Lippman and Cambell’s study (and

Ringrose et al’s) was not in my own. This may be the result of age differences -- my interviewees are adults (18+), and therefore have a different sense of agency and vulnerability than the high-school students or younger teens studied by Lippman and Campbell, and Ringrose et al. The word “slut” was not used to describe those who sext, except in the past tense when interviewees reminisced on a time when they were around the same age as Lippman and Campbell’s and Ringrose et al’s participants. However, when talking about what turned her on, Ariel noted that she liked that she could turn her partners on with her “words and brain,” which perhaps indicates there is a difference in sending photos and sending words as one is focused on the body, and the other the brain.

As previously noted, my participants seem to have a greater sense and awareness of agency and ability to evaluate themselves as sexual actors and media

39 producers than those surveyed and interviewed elsewhere. This finding aligns with

Hasinoff’s suggestion that we think about sexting as “media production” rather than an activity subject to shame and legal ramifications. My participants seem to understand that they have a choice about whether or not to sext, with whom, and how to go about it, as well as that they are actively choosing to produce these texts for themselves, as well as their partners. They realize that the responsibility rests with both parties. By maintaining open channels of communication with their sexting partners, a sense of trust was established and senders were less likely to worry about their partner breaking that trust by leaking any naked photos of the sender. Hasinoff notes that thinking of sexting as media production will open a dialogue around ownership and authorship. In her view the sext rightfully belongs to the creator, the sender, rather than to the receiver. My interviews provide evidence of this point, as participants were quick to explain that sexting isn’t bad, but the potential breach of trust is. None of my participants have (thankfully) experienced this breach of trust, but have heard of others who have. These tales of leaks all happened in either high school, or middle school. While I am hesitant to state that all of the leaks mentioned happened when both parties were underage, it is evident that the older people become, the more aware they are of the repercussions of their actions and what it means to be consensually sextually active.

If there were more of a discourse on consent and safe sexting, the number of leaked sexts would likely diminish, and sexting would not be called “scandalous.”

It’s important to keep investigating both the sexual and the nonsexual pleasures of sexting for both parties, as I believe that the more we outline the

40 benefits of sexting, the less stigmatized it will become. By having more known benefits, perhaps it will open up a dialogue on sexting, and how to have safe sext.

41 CHAPTER 2:

SORRY FOR WHAT?: POLICING GIRLS’ SEXUALITY ON THE INTERNET

Introduction

Amanda Todd, a fifteen-year-old teen from British Colombia, Canada, committed suicide on October 10, 2012 after being bullied online. Amanda Todd is now regarded as a household name (Dean), and is one of the many poster children for anti-cyberbullying campaigns. Todd’s story became infamous when she posted her video, “My story: Struggling, bullying, suicide, self harm" on Youtube, documenting and describing her torment and descent into self-destruction (Ng). The media labeled Todd’s video a “cry for help”(Patchin). In a black-and-white video,

Todd held note cards up to the camera, describing told her story [see figure 1.0].

Through her notecards viewers learn that Todd was chatting online with a man she had met on the Internet. At his request, she flashed him her breasts and he

42 subsequently took a screenshot. The man stalked her online for years afterwards, asking her to put on another show for him. When Todd refused, the man would find classmates on Facebook and send them the screenshot of Todd’s breasts. As a result

Todd was ostracized by her peers and classmates (Todd), Todd explains that to cope with the anxiety and depression she started using drugs and alcohol, while also engaging in “ill advised flirtations and sex” (Dean).

Todd’s video offers no apology for her previous actions; instead her goal is only to tell her story. Without an apology, and without showing her face in the video, the camera only frames the notecards in front of Todd’s chest. Todd has been praised for uploading the video, in which she took control of “her own story” (Dean).

In doing so, her video serves as an act of resistance to her bullies. However, despite the accomplishments of her video, Todd still continues to serve as a cautionary tale for what happens when young women are cyberbullied for their sexuality. Todd’s video has had lasting impact as her flash card story has been replicated in movies and TV shows, such as Unfriended and Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

Cyberbullying is a form of touchless torture, to use Anne McClintock’s term.

Cyberbullying breaks down the tortured by doing so in ways that cause paranoia or self-harm. Paranoia leaves the tortured always on edge, afraid of what could be coming next. The tortured are then blamed for their actions. In the films Sexting In

Suburbia (2012), Cyberbully (2011), and Unfriended (2015), cyberbullying leads to the destruction of three young women. The female protagonists in each film are harassed and shamed by their peers for their expressions of sexual knowledge or behavior. Within the films are nods to Amanda Todd’s suicide, as within each film a

43 female character is shown explaining her story, or apologizing for their supposed mistake, through the use of video or notecards. The tortures inflicted upon the girls in these films are a way of controlling the girls’ sexual agency.

In this chapter I analyze the different representations of cyberbullying as torture in these films. I do so by comparing them to arguments on torture made by

Anne McClintock, and their relations to conceptions of power as outlined by

Foucault. I examine the films’ apologies by Coicaud and Jonsson’s definition, and I promote Chun and Friedland’s argument for “the right to loiter” as a possible solution for these girls’ troubles and anxieties. I conclude that the notion of reclaiming sexual selfhood for young women will make the Internet a safer space.

Cyberbullying and Touchless Torture

“Touchless torture” as defined by Anne McClintock is “the breaking down of the self through radical sensory deprivation, disorientation and extreme stress -- torture administrated without visible trace or touch” (McClintock, 65). In her piece

“Paranoid Empire: Specters from Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib” McClintock explores torture and the power relations surrounding it. McClintock reminds us that those who are tortured are seldom “terrorists” or “enemy combatants,” but instead are

“innocent people”(51). McClintock poses the question “What is the motive for torturing people whom the government and the interrogators know are innocent?”

(51) She explains that torture is not about the tortured’s confessions, as their information is useless, it’s about dominating power. To obtain this power,

44 McClintock argues, one must create a paranoid response: “It is only in paranoia that one finds…absolute power” (51).

By making torture public it allows others to witness the power that the torturers hold. McClintock explains that after 9/11 happened, the US “had to turn ordinary people into enemy bodies, bodies that could be subordinated to…’super- vision’ and put on display for retaliation” (57). The way in which bodies were documented and subjected to “super-vision” was done through the use of photography. McClintock argues that the use of photography, here, is nothing but spectacle; as such, it allows the masking, or camouflaging, of the real issues at hand.

McClintock quotes Susan Sontag who states, “cameras define reality in two ways… as spectacle (for the masses) and as an object of surveillance” (59). In other words, photography was used as a tool of power for both the general public (the masses) to remind them of the power of torture, and as a tool of humiliation for those tortured.

The photographic surveillance that occurred humiliated the prisoners, and eventually became “a form of humiliation, torment, and torture; many of the prisoners so photographed fell into deep depression and some became suicidal”

(58). The real power of the photography that took place was not just the power it held over the prisoners, but that it hid the torture. By placing it so obviously in front of eyes of the masses, the masses only responded to the “porn-like” explicit qualities of the photographs, ignoring the torture that was happening. McClintock argues that

“sexualizing the atrocities made it easier to dismiss them” (63) and thus the conversations surrounding the photographs were not about the awful deeds that were being done to people, but instead, the conversations were brought back to the

45 US and its “morality and corrupt sexualities” (63). By focusing on the porn-like qualities of the photographs, and not what was portrayed in the photographs, the photos gave the US a way to “misdirect attention away from the real abuse” (64).

Paul Horton, in his piece on “Social Bullying and Social and Moral Orders,” relates bullying to power. Similar to McClintock’s argument regarding the function of torture, Horton argues that bullying is not always done with evil intent; instead, he claims, “bullying is a social phenomenon involving ordinary children in particular situations” (Horton, 269). Horton believes the reason for bullying is closely linked to

“the role it performs in power relations” (269). Bullying, for Horton, says less about aggression, and more about relations of power in our society. Horton quotes Michael

Foucault, in The History of Sexuality: “power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategically situation in a particular society” (270). In other words, power comes from how one is placed in society, according to Horton, which is based on “age, class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or other ‘social vectors of inequality’” (270). By understanding that power is “‘exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of non-egalitarian and mobile relations’” (Foucault qtd, 271) bullying can be seen as a way of creating social mobility, and a way of gaining power over others. Closely related to McClintock’s argument regarding the production of paranoia through torture, bullying exercises the same power over others to dominate a sense of knowing who is in control.

In the 2012 Lifetime TV movie Sexting in Suburbia, Dina Van Cleave is subjected to constant torture. Following Dina’s death, it is her mother, Rachel, who

46 becomes tortured. In the film’s opening scene Rachel Van Cleave finds her daughter dead in her bedroom. Her daughter had committed suicide after being bullied relentlessly by her peers. Through a series of flashbacks we find out what causes

Dina to be bullied and harassed. Dina had felt guilty for not having sex with her boyfriend, and decided to text him a naked photo. The next day at school, it is revealed that the photo Dina had privately sent her boyfriend had become public.

The publicity of her private photo led her peers to call her a “slut” and a “whore,” resulting in public graffiti (hidden from the school’s administration) in the girls’ bathroom, and a “Dina Van Cleave is a Slut” Facebook page. When Dina finds the graffiti in the bathroom she has a breakdown, furiously trying to clear the writing on the wall, as to clear her name. Through several more flashbacks leading towards

Dina’s suicide, we see all of her friends have turned against her. Her boyfriend has stopped dating her, and her best friend has turned against her by alerting Dina’s field hockey coach of the leaked picture, resulting in Dina’s getting kicked off of her team and losing her college scholarship. As Dina finds it hard to make friends, or trust anyone, she finds that her “future is gone” all because she “sent some stupid picture.” In tears Dina confesses, via video diary, that she is “done, just… so done” and commits suicide.

In a scene where Dina goes to field hockey camp we see how visibly paranoid she is. Dina is afraid that everyone has seen her leaked photo, and that it has traveled outside of her social circle. When a girl from another school stops Dina and asks “You go to Westfield, right?” she denies it, as Dina is worried the other girl is referencing her leaked photo. When it’s revealed the other girl does not know about

47 the picture, but only knows Dina because of her field hockey reputation, Dina smiles and relaxes. Dina had become paranoid that her “mistake” would follow her everywhere, and eventually it did. In a following scene everyone’s phone buzzes and all the girls open their phones to see Dina’s photo. Dina’s nightmare came true, and she escapes by running away from the scene.

Dina’s harassment does not stop after she dies. Following her death, Rachel, her mom, brings the issue of the bullying to the school. The school claims they can’t do anything about it because the names linked to the bullying account did not belong to any students. The school’s guidance counselor explains that they are mostly likely “dummy accounts” which are “common with cyberbullying. It's a way to remain anonymous.” Rachel is unwilling to accept this, and writes an op-ed piece in her local paper blaming cyberbullying as a reason for her daughter’s death.

Parents in the community feel as though Rachel is attacking their kids, and they all turn on Rachel. She loses potential clients, finds threatening letters in her mailbox, and discovers that Dina’s grave has been vandalized. The paranoid acts of Dina have thus been relocated to her mother. Rachel sits at the kitchen table with her friend,

Patty, and asks nervously if Patty has seen any “strange cars.” Rachel becomes paranoid enough that she accuses anyone with the crime of leaking her daughter’s photo with any little bit of evidence she can find.

The power of bullying led to Dina’s suicide, but it also was a way of gaining power for others. The person who leaked the photo, Patty, did so as a way of gaining power for her daughter, Skylar. As the movie introduces Skylar we see that she always seems to be coming in second best to Dina. As the picture of Dina is leaked

48 and the film progresses we see Skylar is now the one in power. Skylar obtains everything that had previously belonged to Dina. This includes Dina’s ex-boyfriend,

Mark, the college scholarship, and the title field hockey MVP. While Skylar was unaware that her mother was responsible for the leaked photo, Skylar had actively bullied Dina in school. Upon finding out what her mother did, Skylar claims that the scholarship rightfully belonged to Dina and feels guilt over what had transpired.

Previously, before finding out who leaked the photo, Skylar felt unsympathetic and blamed Dina for acting stupid. In Skylar and Patty’s world, Dina’s new vulnerability was their chance to gain social power.

As Sexting in Suburbia underscores, cyberbulling as a form of touchless torture actively breaks down the person. Dina, towards the end of her life, was reduced to a shell of her former self. She started skipping field hockey practices, which her boyfriend Mark “couldn’t believe” as she “loved that game more than anything else.” And as McClintock points out in the context of Abu Ghraib and

Guantánamo, Dina’s demise came in the form of photography. The leaked photograph of Dina performs as the photographs from Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.

Both acts of photography were camouflaging what was really going on. By focusing on the photograph itself, a photo of a naked teenage girl, people did not see what was really going on: bullying. It would be “easy to say that Dina was responsible for her own death,” that she killed herself over her leaked photo, but that wouldn’t be the truth. As Dina’s friend Claire states in the film’s resolution, “Dina Van Cleave was bullied to death. She was not responsible. Everyone in this room is responsible.

Everyone who called her names, everyone who giggled when she passed in the halls.

49 Everyone who didn’t do everything in their power to stop the cruelty that Dina had to endure.”

In the 2011 ABC Family movie Cyberbully Taylor Hillridge attempts suicide due to online bullying. The bullying started when a fake status that read, “I’m a naughty bad girl, someone should spank me” was put up on her social media page.

The fake status led to Taylor’s peers calling her other nasty names on her page.

When Taylor becomes upset about the bullying, her mother, Kris, suggests deleting her account. However, Taylor endures the bullying, as she does not want to lose the social status that her page brings and does not want to give up the possibility of flirting with her crush on her page. Hope seems to come in the form of a profile belonging to James, a boy who goes to a neighboring school. One night when everyone writes “slut” on Taylor’s page, James defends her saying “haters suck, the girl is more cool than u.” Taylor’s friend, Sam, approves of James and disapproves of

Taylor’s crush on Scott, a jock at their school. When Scott asks Taylor to the school dance that night, the James profile writes a message on Taylor’s page saying “U really r skanky whore, I got with you, now I have the clap.” With her only Internet ally now against her, Taylor begins to crumble. The next day in school, in the girls’ bathroom, on and offline mean girl Lindsay calls Taylor and her friends the “skank patrol.” Taylor’s friend Cheyenne is upset by her label by association and turns against Taylor. Taylor has had the final straw when a video has been uploaded to

Taylor’s wall in which the bullies have made a skit depicting Taylor as a prostitute.

In a response video Taylor tells the camera “I’m the real Taylor Hillridge.” In the video Taylor confesses that she doesn’t know why “everybody hates me so much but

50 maybe I do. Because I hate me too.” After confessing that she now hates herself she explains that she doesn’t see the point in “trying, talking or breathing” and, like Dina, she is “just done.” She says “bye” and the video shuts off. Her friend Sam views the video shortly after it is posted and calls Taylor’s mom while rushing to Taylor’s house to stop her. Sam gets to the house in time, and finds Taylor crying and struggling to get the cap off of a bottle of pills.

As evidenced by her suicide attempt, her online peers have broken down

Taylor Hillridge. Though she received snide comments at school, they were nothing compared to those she received online. It is there that she was called a “prostitute” who charges “5 bux.” Behind their screens Taylor’s bullies remained powerful as there is nothing the school, police, or state law could do to help. The comments remain as evidence of the torturing that occurs, as Taylor’s mom reminds Taylor

“when you put something online it’s no longer private” which then allows other people to chime in and say their nasty comments. Cyberbullying depends on public shaming, and thus everyone can join in and gain a little bit of power over that person.

As evidenced by Sexting in Suburbia and Cyberbully, by exerting power over a person, bullies and torturers gain control over the lives of the tortured, so much so that it will eventually lead to the destruction and decay of a life.

Redefining Friendship

Who is a friend? How does the Internet’s anonymity change the redefinition of a friend in the digital age? In “Habits of Leaking: Of Sluts and Network Cards”

51 Wendy Chun and Sarah Friedland point out that social media “is driven by a profound confusion of the private and the public, and the online and the off-line”

(Chun and Friedland, 6). Citing Friendster, Chun and Friedland acknowledge “social networking sites have transformed friendship from something inherently broadcast and difficult to track into a reciprocal and reciprocating relation.“ It’s now easy to see “friends” due to the visible connection, but we also witness these so called

“friends” doing harmful actions against one another. As Chun and Friedland note,

“cyberbulling takes place most effectively within the trusted structure of ‘friend’ networks” (7). Due to social networking, there is little difference between friend and foe now.

Her “friends” ultimately led to Taylor Hillridge’s demise. On a social networking site called “Cliquesters” only those Taylor accepted as “friends” were allowed to post on her page. In an even more striking blow, we eventually learn that the James profile was a fake, and the profile truly belonged to Taylor’s best friend,

Sam. Sam claimed she created the fake James profile to “protect Taylor from a boy,”

Scott. She wanted to show Taylor, through James, what a nice boy acted like. Sam says she got in over her head, and when Taylor still showed a preference for Scott,

Sam turned the James profile against her. Sam claimed, “When you do it [bully] online, you don’t even realize you’re doing it.” Here, Sam shows us that it’s easy to get lost behind a screen and still act as a friend in real life. During the time in which

Taylor was bullied, Sam acted as her friend in real life, while acting as a bully online.

Though her bullying persona was not her face, it was nonetheless Sam behind the words. Sam noted that during the time she pretended to be James, she didn’t see

52 herself as a bully, as she “always thought of bullies as the people at school who pick on you.” It’s evident that social networking blurs the lines of friendship, as bullying takes different forms and faces.

The blurring of friend and bully is what led writer, Nelson Greaves and director, Leo Gabriadze to make Unfriended. The 2015 horror movie takes place entirely on the character Blair’s laptop screen, and focuses on a hacked Skype session Blair and her friends have one night. On the anniversary of their friend

Laura Barns’ suicide, Blair and her friend’s Skype call gets hacked by a user named

“billie227.” Blair realizes that the account belongs to Laura, and that the user is slowly killing the members of the chat one by one. In a game of “Never Have I Ever”

Laura’s ghost, “billie” makes the remaining friends confess to their secrets about one another. The movie ends with the reveal that it was Blair who had leaked the video of Laura that had led to Laura’s bullying and suicide, and in a shot in which we watch Blair switching between the video of Laura’s suicide, and the embarrassing video that caused Laura to be bullied, we see in the sidebar that Laura has created her own black-and-white flash card story in an homage to Amanda Todd.

Nelson Greaves, the film’s director, had said that he was set on “telling a story about cyberbullying” (Smith). Cyberbullying actively redefines friendship because, as the name suggests, cyberbullying takes place online. Greaves points out

“Facebook friends these days are not ‘Facebook friends’, that’s just what friendship is today in 2015”(Smith) He notes that friendship “is a thing that involves technology” these days, and without it you can’t tell an “honest” story about “human relationships”(Smith).

53 As the film unravels we see that the people in this friend group are hardly friends. They aren’t nice to each other: they talk behind each other’s backs, cheat on each other, crash cars, and leak embarrassing photos of one another. These acts are done for what reason? Greaves believes it’s for “power and status.” He believes

“they’re doing it to get likes; they doing it to be popular because it’s sort of this strange democratization of bullying”(Smith). When Laura’s ghost kills her friends, she reminds them that they’re not true friends, as true friends wouldn’t have done any of the things Laura makes them confess to. Laura’s insistence that Blair tell her who leaked the video of Laura offers Blair redemption. As Blair keeps returning to a screen on how to get rid of a ghost, the page tells her to confess for her sins. A true friend would tell Laura the truth and apologize, but instead Blair chooses herself to protect, and that ultimately costs her her life.

Apology -- Who Has To Do It?

Jean-Marc Coicaud and Jibecke Jonsson in “Elements of a Road Map for a

Politics of Apology” lay out the makings of what it takes to have a successful apology. Apology is “a way to recognize and attempt to amend the past’s wrongs”

(Coicaus and Jonsson, 77). The apology has to be a performance of feelings.

However, despite the need to perform, the apology also needs to be “genuine,” and to do so the apologizer needs a “sense of guilt” for it to have any “real value” (78).

The apology remains incomplete if there is no acceptance of the apology. Coicaud and Jonsson make it clear that the apology is two-way; there must always be an

54 issuer and a receiver. As the two explain “it takes two to experience a wrong; one committing it and another suffering from it” (79).

There can be benefits to apology. Coicaud and Jonsson note that it can bring peace to a situation and lead to a mutual trust. However, the road leading to trust is a bumpy one. They say “a sense of awkwardness is therefore prone to be a permanent feature of the interpersonal relationship” (80) and that “once the wrong has taken place, a state of innocence has been lost, which not even the best of apologies can reverse” (81). However, by getting over these humps the relationship between the parties can be stronger than before.

Take for example, Taylor and Sam’s friendship in Cyberbully. After Sam’s confession that she is behind the James profile, Taylor is unsure if Sam and she could ever be friends again. It isn’t until Sam apologizes to Taylor, and reveals she herself is now the target of cyberbullying, that Taylor realizes that she and Sam must stick together. Noting that she doesn’t know if they “can ever be friends in the same way,” Taylor is nonetheless willing to try, as it’s a step forward in showing the bullies Taylor and Sam are stronger than the bullies think. They try to rise above the awkwardness that their relationship has for something larger at stake, taking away the bullies’ power. As Coicaud and Jonsson note, apology is “a matter of humanization” (90). Lastly, “apology, although a small part, is still an important part of justice” and that “surely, there can be justice without apology” (90).

For Rachel Van Cleave, apology and justice are intertwined. Rachel states several times that she is seeking justice for her daughter, and that justice will come when the leaker reveals themselves and apologizes. Rachel gets several apologies,

55 however none from the leaker. Instead, Rachel receives apologies in the forms of sympathies, and guilt. This guilt, however, is not because of actions but of lack of actions. Dina’s boyfriend, Mark, cries and apologizes to Rachel for not doing anything. “If I hadn’t been such a jerk to her, she never would’ve sent that picture.”

Here, Mark is asking for penance, trying to reconcile with himself for his actions, and

Rachel is there to forgive. She accepts his apology; now knowing it wasn’t he who sent the picture. She’s thankful that he told the truth, and because of his visible pain, she offers him a shoulder to cry on.

The apology never fully comes to fruition in Sexting in Suburbia, as Patty, the photo’s leaker, never apologizes to Rachel. She instead apologizes to her daughter,

Skylar, but only when she’s caught. By having no remorse or showing no guilt for her actions, Skylar doesn’t accept her mom’s apology and storms out. When Rachel confronts Patty, Patty sits there in silence as Rachel apologizes to her. In a sarcastic and sad tone Rachel says, “I’m sorry that you found my daughter so threatening. I don’t know what it could’ve been about my sweet Dina that threatened you so much, but I’m sorry you felt that way. And lastly, I’m sorry our friendship wasn’t real.” By apologizing in an insincere way Rachel only hoped to cast guilt onto Patty. Nothing was reconciled for Patty or her actions, but perhaps it was a way for Rachel to reconcile with herself and her feelings.

Different from Cyberbully and Sexting in Suburbia, Laura in Unfriended seeks no apology. She only seeks justice in the form of revenge by her friends deaths.

Perhaps because Laura is now dead, there is no need for apology as nothing can be reconciled or brought back. Laura seeks no apology, only confession. Confessions,

56 for the teens being haunted, are to admit their sins, to realize their wrongdoing, and to hold a mirror against themselves. The confessions in Unfriended are not apologies, and so there is no way for the Blair and her friends to “reconcile with oneself” (Coicaud and Jonsson, 80).

Solutions: The Right to Loiter & Media Production

Through examples of Internet culture’s responses to young women’s leaked sexual acts and photographs, Chun and Friedland call for “the right to loiter.” They explain that a common solution to leaking is to “caution women to be ‘safe’ in their activity online, to keep their use and exposure contained” (Chun and Friedland, 16).

Chun and Friedland argue though, that this solution isn’t a solution at all. Instead it takes away the women’s agency, as it “curtails women’s access to pleasure within an online public” (17). Chun and Friedland suggest, “Rather than fight for privacy, we need to fight for the right to loiter” (17). This would mean that women would be able to be vulnerable, and not risk the labels that certain (sexual) acts are associated with. The right to loiter would be a reclaiming of space, of digital space that women have been told not to take up, or to hide from.

Chun and Friedland’s notion of the right to loiter is reminiscent of Amy

Hasinoff’s call for sexting as a form of media production. Amy Hasinoff, in “Sexting in

Media Production” calls for a reframing of sexting, calling for authorship and ownership rights. If we did so, Hasinoff argues, perhaps it would stop victim- blaming and start putting the blame on the unconsented leaks of sexts. (450) Chun &

Friedland and Hasinoff’s approaches both call for a reclamation of agency for young

57 women in online form— an argument for fighting the double standard in social media as in real life (offline).

If, in the world of Dina, Taylor, and Laura people were forgiving, or embraced the right to be vulnerable and visible online, perhaps these young women would not have been so viciously bullied by their peers. All three women were called out for being “sluts” or sexually promiscuous, but in a world where one is simply allowed to be, or embraces the labels that are given, there would be no “scandal” to act upon.

One would forgive or, rather, simply not care about Dina’s naked body because it wouldn’t be sensationalized. Taylor’s hacked page wouldn’t have prompted bullying, because her peers wouldn’t care about her personal sex life, real or not real. Laura

Barns wouldn’t have killed herself due to constant teasing, and there would be no need to torture her, or for her to torture her friends so relentlessly.

If the focus was not displaced on to each girl’s “sluttiness,” the emphasis would have been on the outcome of the hacking of the profile, the leaking of a private message, and the uploading of a video. By focusing on those things, eventually people would start to realize that it wasn’t those acts that caused the destruction, it was the bullying. It was the aftermath of what had already happened.

We need to embrace the idea of young women’s sexual agency, and then perhaps there will be no need for torture or bullying because there will be nothing scandalous about any of these young women’s actions. The act of confession and apology, in these three films, as well as in Todd’s suicide, gives the torturers and bullies the ultimate power. Extending McClintock’s analysis, perhaps we are grappling with a war on sexuality. Without the stigma surrounding young women’s

58 sexual agency, the torturers would have nothing to hide behind; they would only be seen for their actions. Without the demonization and stigmatization of young women’s sexuality, no one could take advantage of, or benefit from, revealing or

“leaking” a woman’s sexual selfhood.

59 CHAPTER 3:

“SHE WAS DRUNK”: VICTIM-BLAMING, SHAME AND CONSENT IN DEGRASSI:

THE NEXT GENERATION.

Introduction

Canadian television program Degrassi: The Next Generation (2001-2015) has gained notoriety for tackling teen issues with dramatic storylines, and providing audiences with well-rounded characters and a realistic portrayal of growing up. The program’s slogan, “It Goes There” accurately describes the show’s concept. Rather than shy away from the issues teens experience, Degrassi aims to face them head on, and in so doing to engage with serious issues such as homophobia, rape, and abortion. Not every episode consists of such serious topics; the show balances out the heaviness of such storylines with lighter storylines consisting of body issues, dating drama, and fighting with friends. Degrassi is bolder than most shows in the issues it addresses, and has been celebrated for that boldness by fans and critics alike.

Degrassi: The Next Generation follows an ensemble cast of high-school students at Degrassi Community School in Toronto, Canada. Although the show has no main protagonist, the character of Manny Santos, played by Cassie Steele, has gained audiences’ attention for her iconic Degrassi moments. Manny’s story arc and character development saw her go from the cute girl, to the hot girl, to the school

“slut” (Reese, 2013). Her character began an important transformation in Season

Three when Manny gave herself and her wardrobe a makeover, trying to shed her cute girl image. In the episode, “U Got The Look,” she proclaimed, “I don’t want to be

60 cute, I want to be hot.” In an infamous fan-favorite scene, thirteen-year-old Manny confidently struts down the halls of Degrassi in a royal blue bejeweled thong [see figure 1.0].

Later in the same season, Manny’s story arc gained national media attention in the United States, for an episode in which she becomes pregnant and chooses to terminate the pregnancy. In “Accidents Will Happen” Manny was portrayed to have

“without guilt” gone through with an abortion (McKay, 2004). The episode was pulled from the American network The-N’s rotation, and wasn’t aired until several years after the episode had come out in Canada. Angered fans created a petition demanding the episode be allowed to air, calling its removal “unjust and asinine”

(Mckay, 2004). (The episode was eventually shown during a “every moment ever” marathon on The-N.) As John McKay from The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec) pointed

61 out, when the episode aired in the U.S., “Until now, Degrassi has been getting nothing but praise in the U.S. and abroad for its frank handling of teen issues“ (Mckay, 2004).

Evidently, Manny’s character had “gone there,” but “going there” was not always met with such criticisms. Although Manny’s abortion episode proved to be controversial, the show’s portrayal of serious teen issues was often praised.

Degrassi has been praised for how “real” and “authentic” it is in representing the teen experience. The Washington Post claims that “tapping into teenage culture is what ‘Degrassi’ has always done best” (Butler, 2016). In its thirty seven-year-old legacy1, Degrassi continues to cast actual teens to play teenagers on screen, rather than young-looking adult actors who pass as teenagers. Fans, critics, the show actors, writers, and producers believe the age of the actors to be one of the biggest sources for the show’s realism. Stacy Farber, who plays the character Ellie, has been quoted saying, “We don't have perfect skin. We don't look like the kids from the

'O.C.' [and] that helps kids relate to it more” (Scott, 2004). The show’s creator Linda

Schuyler seems to agree, as she claims that “Degrassi prides itself on its realism”

(Kronke, 2005), and gives the age-appropriate casting credit for giving “the show a very, very real texture that our audience really responds to” as audiences “can project themselves into the show” (Scott, 2004). After all, as Schuyler explains,

“'Degrassi' is a show about firsts, so when you're doing a show about firsts, and some of your actors are really experiencing these things for the first time, there is a sincerity and an authenticity that comes through in the performance that I don't

1Degrassi has had many iterations, The Kids of Degrassi Street (1979-1986), Degrassi Junior High (1987-1989), and Degrassi High (1989-1991). I am only talking about the latest series, Degrassi: The Next Generation (2001-2015).

62 think the best actor in the world can necessarily create'' (Neilhart, 2005). Actors cast on the show have confirmed that the lines between their characters and their own personal journeys growing up have often blurred, making for a unique and special connection between actor, character, and the show’s audience (“It Goes

There” Degrassi special, 2015).

When tackling subjects like oral gonorrhea, mental illness, and cutting,

Schuyler wants to make sure the issues handled on the show are not sensationalized. When an episode of Ellie cutting her wrists aired, executive producer Stephen Stohn said “we were very worried that people might learn what cutting was and actually want try it themselves,” and Schuyler noted that “the last thing we want to do is to suggest that negative behavior has a positive outcome” (“It

Goes There” Degrassi special, 2015). Indeed, it seems that one of Degrassi’s attractions is the way it handles its difficult subjects. In a Degrassi special, Jake

Epstein, who plays Craig Manning, credited the show’s success to its portrayals of real life issues: “It’s always portrayed really serious issues that a lot of teens are going through and it doesn’t try to glorify it, it’s not like a public service announcement, like it just kind of shows these things are happening”(“It Goes

There” Degrassi special, 2015). Farber also believes the show helps to create an open dialogue, “encouraging people to talk about things in an honest way” (“It Goes

There” Degrassi special, 2015).

As the show’s theme song suggests, at the heart of Degrassi are the stories of teens “trying to make it through.” The students of Degrassi navigate “that time in people's lives where they have a foot in childhood and a foot in the adult world”

63 (Toronto Star, 2006) and do so “without much help from parents and teachers: kid characters try to figure out their lives, and kid viewers around the world second- guess them” (Neilhart, 2005). Critics and creators alike believe Degrassi is doing something special in the way it speaks to teens.

With my study I set out to find out how college students talk about Degrassi, and make sense out of a situation in which Manny is a victim of sextortion. By screening and discussing an episode in which Manny is taken advantage of by a male student, and a tape of Manny drunkenly showing her breasts gets leaked around school, I ask my audience if Degrassi paints a realistic picture of the issues of sexual agency and technology teens face, what that picture is, and where the show falls short. My goal was to have my participants discuss Manny’s storyline in a two-part episode in terms of the actions, relationships and drama that is portrayed. As a show that claims teenage agency, I wondered, does it also grant its characters sexual agency? How do these two episodes treat Manny, sexually and racially? Manny’s

Filipino identity is addressed explicitly and though subtext, and I was interested in audiences’ perception of the connection between Manny’s race and her sexual exploitation. Though my hope was that my participants would discuss Manny’s agency in her situation, I also hoped my participants were able to connect what happened to Manny to what happens in their own lives. How do college students talk and make sense of a fictional portrayal of sexual exploitation and abuse?

64 Literature Review (Relevancy, Agency, Consent, Rape Culture)

In this section I review scholarly literature that addresses issues and themes

I further explore in my interviews about the depiction of agency and sexual exploitation in two episodes, “Venus: Part 1” and “Venus: Part 2” of Degrassi: The

Next Generation. The themes include the depiction of sexual exploitation, body and racial insecurities, women’s self-respect and sexual agency, and punishment for abusers.

How audiences view a program, or a situation, may very well be a question of relevancy. A media text’s relevance to its viewer is based on the viewer’s history and personal experience. When doing a study on how audiences make sense of an ambiguously consensual sex scene in an episode of Girls, Chelsea Roesch found that

“audiences are inconsistently able to determine whether depictions of sex are simply ‘awkward’ or actually nonconsensual” (Roesch, 25). She determined through a series of interviews that audiences did not always have the language to talk about sex and consent, and thus posits that this is a shortcoming to current rape culture discourse as it does not establish a recognition of a nonconsensual sexual encounter.

Roesch grouped her interviewees by those “who face gender oppression

(female-bodied/identified) and those who do not typically face gender oppression

(male-bodied/identified) as she had “assumed there would be more openness to sharing honestly in a single-gender interview context due to societal stigma of women-focused discussions of sexuality” (10). Roesch explains that while interpreting the sex scene, some female respondents were more straightforward with their vocabulary, using words like “‘rape culture’” and “’consent’” whereas

65 other women had difficulty explaining and talking about the sex scene. Women who didn’t have access to such language used words like “’scary’” and “’upsetting’” instead (16). This differed considerably from one male respondent who only labeled the sexual experience as “‘awkward’” (18), and not inherently wrong. Roesch summarized the differences in readings as an issue of relevancy as they were “a difference in perception, not plot lines, that inform their readings” (20).

As Roesch’s analysis and conclusion reminds us, “rape and sexual assault are abysmally underreported although nearly one in four women will be assaulted in her lifetime” (24). This could possibly be because “women viewers who do not have access to oppositional discourses to rape culture have difficulty defining consensuality” (26). Overall Roesch’s study reminds us that “without the language to describe their own experiences, survivors will remain silenced” (26) and thus ambiguous language like “awkward” (when describing sex) could further perpetuate the silencing of survivors by not labeling it as what it really is, rape.

In “The Staging of Agency in Girls Gone Wild” Karen C. Pitcher investigates the pornographic entertainment franchise Girls Gone Wild and contemplates whether or not the women participating in the popular video series have agency or not. It’s important to note that Pitcher states, “The intention of this project is not to condemn GGW participants, or to accuse them of false consciousness” (Pitcher, p.

215) meaning she does not wish to pass judgment on these women. Her purpose is to explore how Girls Gone Wild shows the agency of the women participating. As

Pitcher explains, the majority of the women in Girls Gone While are under the influence of alcohol. Pitcher does not seem to bring up a discussion on whether or

66 not these women in Girls Gone Wild can consent while intoxicated although I would argue that being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol makes it impossible for full consent to be given.

Pitcher describes how Girls Gone Wild stages agency, meaning that the women’s agency is, in a way, fake. Pitcher uses clips and quotes to illustrate her point, that with the clips Girls Gone Wild uses, it creates a sense of (false) agency because it depicts women saying they want to be a part of the video (gaining consent), or has women bargaining what they will or will not do (negotiation). By showing the women’s limits, on tape, Girls Gone Wild has “successfully” created the illusion that women are doing this on their own free will and that it’s their personal choice.

Pitcher makes it clear that the majority of these women participating in Girls

Gone Wild are under the influence; audiences have to assume that while these women are made to sign a consent form, these women cannot legally consent due to their intoxication. Pitcher also finds that the women who participate are doing so, by their own free will, for some “pay off” such as a “T-shirt” or under the guise of their fifteen minutes of fame (208). The women in Pitcher’s article explain they are doing it to have fun, and that the act of being wild can be seen as “a mode of feminist empowerment”(202). While this very well may be true, again, due to the intoxication of the participants, their consent is not sure. Pitcher doesn’t follow up and talk with the women the day after, something I find to be a limitation. While I don’t believe every girl would suddenly regret her choice the morning after, I

67 believe it would be beneficial to know how the women respond to their actions while sober, or out of the “carnivalesque” atmosphere Pitcher describes.

On the subject of agency, Lorie E. Koelsch, “Sexual Discourses and the

Absence of Agency,” argues that current discourses of sexual assault and rape do not allow for a sense of agency on the part of the victim/survivor. Koelsch opens her piece by explaining that, “a significant number of women who have had a sexual experience consistent with the legal or research definition of sexual assault do not label the experience as such” (Koelsch, p. 1). These women also don’t use the term victim, as it evokes an absence or loss of agency. Through the use of interviews,

Koelsch finds that these “women’s conceptualization of their own agency before, during, and after their unwanted sexual experiences was important during the labeling process” (16). In Koelsch’s piece she interviews Trish, who describes that she was intoxicated during her sexual experience. Trish does not say she was raped, and Koelsch hypothesizes that “Perhaps for Trish, the experience of being an agent is more ‘real’ to her than the experience of being victimized” (19). For Trish, she felt more agency in her experience by not claiming it as rape, or by labeling herself as a victim. When looking back on her experience, Trish recognized that although she was “an agent who made unsafe decisions, her male peer ultimately made the decision to have sex with her while she was unconscious” and that, according to

Trish, “’shouldn’t have happened’” (26). In her conclusion Koelsch states, “It is important to allow for an expanded discourse of rape and sexual assault that includes victim agency but does not resort to victim blame” (25). I believe this to be an important frame, if women do not classify certain situations as abuse, assault, or

68 rape, it only allows perpetrators to get away with more of this behavior while further silencing those who have had similar experiences but still wish to avoid and further distance themselves from the current stigma around rape victims.

The articles and studies I have so far discussed have primarily focused on the experience of white women. As the character of Manny Santos is Filipino, and comes from an immigrant family, I found it important to discuss the failings and shortcomings of a colorblind feminist discourse, in which race is typically ignored when thinking critically about feminism and fighting back against rape culture. I want to bring into discussion the failings that such a discourse has on women of color, immigrants, and societal issues at large.

Miriam Zoila Pérez in her article “When Sexual Autonomy Isn’t Enough:

Sexual Violence Against Immigrant Women In The United States” argues that the current discourse around combating rape culture does not account for the systematic and historic violence and sexual objectification faced by women of color.

Pérez says “traditional attempts” to combat rape in the US, such as teaching women to avoid behaviors like “wearing skimpy clothing, drinking alcohol, walking alone” all “fall short,” as do “feminist attempts” such as “reclaiming women’s sexual autonomy and pleasure” due to power imbalances and larger racial structures at work (Pérez, 142-143). Pérez describes how immigrant women, especially Asian

Pacific Islander Women, “are particularly vulnerable to rape and sexual abuse because of their socioeconomic position” and that this socioeconomic disparity is

“an issue that current strategies for combating rape do not address directly” (145).

In such cases of trafficking and crossing the border, Pérez explains, the women “are

69 dependent on their abusers for their immigration status,” which Pérez states as “the ultimate form of control” (144). Pérez ultimately calls for inclusion of immigrant women when discussing anti-rape strategies, that as a society “we have to work to place the most marginalized populations at the center of our organizing and move beyond overly individualistic strategies,” as she notes that immigrant women are not offered the same freedom of sexual autonomy as those who don’t “face obstacles of oppression from various fronts” (149). Pérez’s essay reminds us that not all women are in the same place of privilege, and that sometimes agency is not a woman’s biggest problem as larger societal issues may be the reason for some choices.

Methodology

For my study of Degrassi: The Next Generation I chose to conduct small-group interviews. Each focus group consisted of 3-5 people. I chose the small-group format because it mimicked an environment in which people would typically watch and discuss a television show: a comfortable room in a familiar setting. I recruited groups of people who were familiar with one another, albeit to varying degrees.

There is a downside to small-group interviews, especially those with a larger number of participants. In such a setting it’s likely there will be dominant speakers, those who talk over one another, and one or two group members who are not as vocal with their thoughts and feelings as others, due to feeling overpowered by those participants who are more vocal. However, as Justin Lewis notes in “Gathering

Evidence,” “the manipulation and control exercised by dominant group members

70 may simply reflect the reality of social life” (Lewis, 92). The reality of that claim is one of the primary reasons I chose to gather data through small-group interviews.

I initially searched for people who were familiar with the show prior to the interview. I asked Facebook friends if they were, or had friends who were, fans of the show, and if they and/or their friend would like to watch together sometime and then discuss it afterwards. All participants in each group were familiar with at least one another participant in the same group. Not all members of the group had to be fans, or familiar with the show, but it was important there was at least one person familiar with the show in each group.

I told those being interviewed they were going to watch a two-part episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation (Venus part 1 & part 2, season 5, episode 1 & 2), and then answer a series of questions. Interviewees were free to talk back and forth amongst themselves, and pose their own questions (e.g. What is this character’s history on the show?). I tried to be sure that people in each focus group were acquainted with, and comfortable around one another, as well as have the interview take place in a setting that was of their liking. My hope was that this would make it easier to “try to simulate the ‘natural conditions’ in which television is watched and discussed” (Lewis, p. 88). Building off of Lewis’s theory that “intimate groups are much more likely to let the interviewer sit back and listen during the conversation”

(p.90), I chose people who were friends and who watched television programs together. Under such conditions participants seemed likely to share what they thought, and to question one another, resulting in an actual dialogue.

71 The episodes of Degrassi: The Next Generation I chose to show were Season

Five Episodes one and two, “Venus: Part 1” and “Venus: Part 2”. The two-part episode focuses on Manny. While sitting at the pool with her friend Emma, Manny declares “I’m gonna be an actress… I’m doing it. Whatever it takes, I’m doing.” The next day at school, Emma notices Peter, the cute guy from the pool, is now a student at Degrassi. While introducing themselves to one another, Manny mentions she’s been waiting for a call from a casting agent. Peter tells Manny she shouldn’t wait for a call, instead she should go to the agent herself, explaining that his dad always says,

“If you want something in life, don’t ask, just take.“ Manny takes Peter’s advice and decides to go shopping for a new outfit. She returns home and asks her mother for her credit card, prompting an argument between the two. At the mall we’re shown

Manny trying on a blonde wig, and struggling to put on a pair of jeans. In the background of the mall are ads with skinny white women, and ads for plastic surgery with big bold lettering of the words “BODY” “LIFE” and “CHANGE.” When in a subsequent scene Manny messes up her audition, and the casting agent gives her the “advice” to “stop with the beans and rice, and dump the lumps,” Manny decides that she must get plastic surgery. Manny calls Emma to meet her downtown, at a plastic surgeon’s office. When Emma says Manny is crazy, Manny explains she feels like everyone is always joking about her, and that “they won’t be laughing when I’m famous.” Manny meets with the doctor, and even though Manny tells the doctor she believes her breasts to be good the way they are, the doctor persuades her to consider breast augmentation. Believing the doctor like she believed the casting agent, Manny puts down a deposit for surgery.

72 When Manny’s parents, who are Filipino immigrants, discover that Manny has put down a deposit for breast augmentation, her father becomes angry, calling

Manny “a loose girl” and “a slut.” Manny cries and leaves the house, running away to a party Peter had invited her to earlier. Emma asks how Manny knew about the party, and when it’s revealed that Peter invited her, the skinny blonde girl Emma was talking to earlier says, “Oh that explains it. Peter invited her. He does go for girls like that,” further insinuating that Manny is a loose girl. Manny then proceeds to get drunk at the party. As time passes and Manny gets drunker, Peter tells Manny to go home. Manny refuses and leads him upstairs. Manny tells him about how the doctor suggested breast surgery even though Manny said her “boobs are great.” Peter tells

Manny that his camera would make a “great second opinion” and films Manny drunkenly declaring, “I’m gonna be an actress. Like academy award winning; and you can sell this for a million dollars’ cause I’m gonna be famous!” while taking her top off. The episode ends on a close-up of Manny’s face, looking drunk and out of it

[see figure 2.0].

73 Venus part 2 starts off where part 1 left off. The next day at school Manny talks to Peter, not remembering the events from last night. When she learns about the tape Manny says, “But you were sober. Why didn’t you try and stop me?” to which Peter replied, “Because your little request, ‘Let’s make a movie,’ implied you didn’t want me to.” Manny then asks Peter to keep what happened between them a secret, because Emma really likes Peter. Peter promises that he’ll delete the video the first chance he gets. Manny doesn’t believe him and tries to delete the tape herself by sneaking through his bags. She’s caught, and Peter decides to blackmail

Manny into a date. Manny tells Peter she will never go out with him, and that she thinks he’s a freak. Peter is mad at Manny for calling him a freak, and says she can only have the tape back if she buys him a new camera; otherwise he will email the video of Manny to everyone in the school. Manny desperately tries to explain that she doesn’t have that kind of money, and doesn’t have access to her bank cards as they are with her dad, and she’s no longer welcomed back at home. Manny tries to go back home, but gets into another argument with her parents, this time ending with her father kicking her out. Manny doesn’t have the money, and tells Peter she will go out with him. Peter says he doesn’t want to go out with Manny anymore because she called him a freak and now their “little movie” will be released. Manny tells Peter he took advantage of her, and Peter calls her an “attention whore.”

Hearing the word “whore,” Manny dumps Peter’s lunch tray on his lap and enrages

Peter by doing so. Peter retaliates by emailing the video of Manny to the school. The video leads to Manny’s dismissal from the Spirit Squad, and causes a fight between her and Emma. She explains to Emma that she’s lost everything, her family, her

74 reputation and her best friend. Emma forgives her, but not before telling her “It’s hard to watch you sometimes. You have everything going for you and you just keep screwing it up pretty spectacularly.” Manny says “It’d be easier if I were you Em.

Skinny, blonde…” to which Emma says, “That is not what this is about.” The two friends make up, and the next day at school they say they will get through this together. Upon entering the school Manny gets catcalled by her fellow male classmates. The episode ends as Manny walks to her first class, trying to get on with her life and move past what happened.

I showed participants the episode of Degrassi: The Next Generation through

Youtube (and audio recorded the interview with my iPhone). We either watched the episode on my laptop, or if the participants had the technology, I hooked up the laptop to a large television screen. After watching the episode I started my interview with the general question “What are your initial thoughts on what we just watched?”

This open-ended question provided space for a wide range of answers, and from those answers I was able to build and formulate more detailed questions (Lewis, 83-

84). Working from open-ended to detailed questions allowed for the participants to freely and openly voice their thoughts, and also allowed me the gateway to ask more specific questions to my study. Even though participants went off topic at times, or seemed to bring up matters not (obviously) relevant to my study, I was able to use their initial thoughts to understand what is relevant to them, and other perspectives that I had not considered.

For the purposes of this study, which explores gendered messages about sexual agency and consent in Degrassi: The Next Generation, there were no

75 limitations to the race, gender, or sexual identification of participants; the study was open to anyone who was interested in participating. However, I sought more female perspectives, for the episode is mainly focused on Manny and sexual double standards. I was most interested in seeing what other women had to say about

Manny’s situation, her agency, and Peter’s actions.

Data

In my interviews participants devoted most of their time to discussing and commenting on Manny’s behavior prior to the leaking of the video. They grappled with Manny’s agency, wondering if she even had any, because, as Marc (Group 3) said she’s “constantly bouncing around Peter and and the plastic surgeon and the casting agent and Emma and her parents and they all want something from her and she’s never really able to do what she wants.” Manny’s decision to have plastic surgery was looked down upon, as were her drinking habits. Participants were able to say why they believed Peter’s character to be “a dick,” and what they felt would be an appropriate punishment. All of them saw Peter’s actions to be immoral, and as a result my participants were unsatisfied with the conclusion to Peter’s storyline, as they felt he got off with “a slap on the wrist.” Peter’s character was universally loathed, and considered a “dickbag” by participants, yet participants focused on

Manny and her actions to a far greater extent than Peter’s. Many participants believed that Manny could have avoided her situation with a “spoonful of confidence” as many of Manny’s actions were believed to have stemmed from a lack of self-love, and a desire for attention. It was clear that one message (avoiding

76 situations) seemed to outweigh the other (being respectful of others). While all of my participants considered Peter “a creep,” they nevertheless took the episode’s message to be one concerning self-love and confidence, rather about the importance of consent and ethical behavior.

Manny

Participants generally liked Manny, yet had trouble supporting her decisions.

While she wasn’t disliked, her actions were heavily scrutinized. A big fan of the show, Tracey (Group 3) claimed she “loves Manny.” Claire (Group 1) was intrigued by Manny, as she felt “I feel like I wanna know her (Manny’s) whole arc.” Other general responses were that Manny was “irresponsible” (Sasha, Group 2), but that her immaturity was “the right amount of irresponsible” for her age (Sasha, Group 2).

Participants identified multiple (possible) sources of Manny’s insecurities.

Almost all of my participants spoke about how Manny is not white, and noted that the background imagery of the episode made it a point to show Manny in contrast to white bodies. Participants also thought that Manny should have done more, such as telling someone about her situation and the tape (Group 2), whereas some people knew that if she had told someone, she could have gotten herself in trouble which would be “unfair” (Tracey, Group 3) or would “hurt her socially” (Alicia, Group 4).

Participants also believed that the situation could have been avoided altogether if

Manny were more confident in herself and less concerned with other’s opinions of her.

77 Body & Racial Insecurities

Many participants found it hard to relate to Manny, especially when it came to her decision to consider plastic surgery. Claire (Group 1) believed that all of

Manny’s actions stem from insecurity, stating, “I think they (Manny’s actions) spiral from that.” Valerie (Group 2) agreed, saying, “I think it was just body issues that she was going through” that led Manny to her actions. However, Amy (Group 2) pointed out that at the start of the episode, it didn’t seem like Manny had body issues. When talking about a scene in which Emma makes remarks about her own body and

Manny retorts back that Emma’s body is fine, Amy explained that, “It was interesting that she (Emma) was the one that made that remark, because the episode’s more about her (Manny) struggling with her body image issues. But, it wasn’t until someone else pointed it out that she thought she needed it.”

Consistent with Amy’s comment, participants noted that Manny did not show any signs of body insecurity until she went to a casting agent who told her to “stop with the rice and beans, and dump the lumps.” Alicia (Group 4) explained that it wasn’t until “one cunt of a woman said ‘stop eating rice and beans’” that Manny decided the “solution was to go get plastic surgery.” The casting agent’s remark was considered racist, as Manny is Filipino. Other participants noted that the episode

“did a lot, a lot, to show mannequin bodies, the bodies on the bus, the skinny girls at the store and at the pool, and so you could feel the pressure that Manny felt to look a certain way” (Alicia, Group 4). Sasha (Group 2) stated that Manny “has to grow out of that.” Sasha (who identifies as a black woman) further explained that she felt

78 similarly when looking at magazines and seeing only white bodies, but that she

“probably had that in elementary (school)” and Manny is “in high school.”

Manny’s body issues were criticized by many participants, who all claimed that Manny was skinny, and had “nothing to worry about.” Nina (Group 1), spoke to

TV’s tendency to only show thin bodies, and noted that Degrassi did not move away from the norm, and said that, “yes, everyone is entitled to feel how they feel about their body but the face of body issues, they’re always skinny. But that’s never shown, the fact that in order to be able to consume this information it has to be through someone who benefits from skinny privilege” however, Tracey (Group 3) linked her insecurities to not just to body issues, but to racial issues as well, explaining

She’s (Manny) like, a Filipino woman, and she has these body

insecurities, and they kind of make a racist comment to her, like, “Stay

off the beans and rice.” So- even though we do see Manny as very

attractive, it’s not like that insecurity is coming out of nowhere.

There’s definitely a lot of influences that are around her.

Manny’s race was again brought into discussion when participants noticed the scene in which Manny explaining to Emma that she has it easy, saying she’s

“skinny, blonde...” and Emma interrupts her, saying “That’s not what this is about.”

Rene (Group 4) noted, “It’s all very white characteristics that she desires, but she never says outright.” Alicia (Group 4) agreed and reminded the group about a scene at the mall, in which Manny is shown trying on a blonde wig. Alicia says, “They also

79 show her trying on the blonde wig, though. So they totally show everything about her-- she’s insecure about everything.”

Manny and Agency

Many participants struggled when asked if they believed Manny had agency throughout the episode. Most participants believed that Manny did not, because

“she’s just bouncing around Peter and the plastic surgeon and the casting agent and

Emma and her parents… and she’s never really able to do what she wants” (Marc,

Group 3), while few thought she did, during the moments she took action, such as going to the plastic surgeon and when she “takes her shirt off” (Trish, Group 1).

While most participants did not explain what agency meant to them, Nina (Group 1) explained “Agency isn’t necessarily like, ‘it’s good you’re taking action about this,’ it’s like, you’re being an actor in your own life.”

Manny’s decision to get plastic surgery was debated. Either participants viewed Manny’s decision to get plastic surgery as a “quick fix” (Amy, Group 2) or viewed it as a moment of agency. Many did not find her decision to be rational, because of how “extreme” (Serena, Group 1) and quick of an escalation it was and that it would make more sense if Manny had developed an eating disorder instead

(Rebecca, Group 4). Alicia (Group 4) thought Manny’s decision was “immature” because “in this situation, it wasn’t this long standing ‘I’m insecure about the size of my breasts’.” However Clyde (Group 4) disagreed, saying, if he were in Manny’s situation he would think “Oh, my agent said I look like shit, so I’ll get a boob job.”

Which he explained, “I think that’s a rational thought... I don’t think it’s a healthy

80 thought, but I think it’s a rational thought.” Chuck (Group 4) thought Manny had agency when “she has the credit card, but only for that long.” To which Alicia retorted back “Yeah, the one moment she had agency, she ran to the plastic surgeon.”

Trish (Group 1) finds Manny’s decision to go along with what the doctor says to be “very methodical,” explaining, “I think she’s doing what she needs, what she thinks she needs to get done.” Because Manny’s dream is being an actress, Trish explains that while Manny has many outside forces telling her to do things in order to achieve her goal, Manny is not “rebelling against that, she’s like ‘okay’.” While

Manny’s choice to go to the plastic surgeon may have been one of “pure agency” according to Nina (Group 1), Dan (Group 4), however, didn’t think that going to the plastic surgeon was even her choice, as he said, “The choices she’s making are being informed by something else, rather than herself. By all these images that she’s being given.” And so “in a way, her agency is compromised in that way.” Rene (Group 4), differing from Trish and Nina, also believes that any possible agency Manny expressed at the plastic surgeon’s office is dismissed because “the doctor decides basically what she’s going to get. She’s like, ‘My boobs are fine!’ but he just basically makes the decision and she just has to go along with it.”

Interestingly, participants focused more on Manny and her decision to get plastic surgery than Manny’s drunken Girls Gone Wild moment. Out of all of my participants Trish and Nina (Group 1) were the only who voiced the opinion, that

Manny had agency in that situation. Of course the lines blur, as Trish explains, “Yes it’s this moment of him taking advantage of her, but I also feel like it’s a moment of

81 pure agency.” Prior to the flashing, Manny had received many negative comments about her body and appearance, and so when she flashes Peter, Trish believes that

Manny is standing up to her critics in a moment of “No. I’m right about my body.”

Nina agrees:

if you think about the context of the episode she was taking, drunk or

not, really powerful ownership over her body, and being like ‘Here,

look at my body, I’m proud of it,’ and like, for how... low she had been

about her body because of the adults and all of the other people

surrounding her, that she took ownership of her body.

However, Nina believes that while Manny may have been empowered at that moment, the show ultimately set up Manny’s actions as a “mistake” and “that is really fucked up.”

Participants recognized that Manny had been taken advantage of, as Clyde

(Group 4) explains, “He clearly took advantage of her in that situation and it’s made very clear, because he was sober and she was drunk”-- and participants were impressed that Manny, herself, knew that she had been taken advantage of, and used such language. As Clyde (Group 4) explained, “The only person who says that he took advantage of her is her.”. Manny’s acknowledgement that she had been taken advantage of was a powerful and important moment for others to (potentially) recognize situations of abuse. Trish (Group 1) explained “I don’t think I would know that something happening while you’re drunk is not complete consent until

82 somebody told me that.” Kevin (Group 1) agreed, saying he was “surprised… she

(Manny) very explicitly said ‘You are taking advantage of me’” as he didn’t know if

“as a Hampshire student, what I see right now as very clear language would be nearly as clear to me.” Both Kevin (Group 1) and Marc (Group 3) suggested that

Manny’s statement to Peter of “You took advantage of me” is a strong moment with a stronger message that should be taught to viewers, as Marc (Group 3) found one of the episodes’ messages to be about “being cautious about creepy and abusive people” to which he said, “I don’t think that’s an overly cautious message."

Manny Needs to Love Herself More/Manny the Victim

While most participants linked Manny’s insecurities to her race, others didn’t bring up Manny’s race at all, and instead, linked Manny’s actions to her previous behavior and history. Manny’s behavior and personality were thought to have stemmed from a lack of self-confidence and a lack of love. Many participants talked about how they viewed Manny’s self esteem. Paula (Group 2) referred to the infamous thong episode and claimed, “She’s (Manny) always wanted to change herself” which to Paula concurred Manny is always changing her “body image, or self image.” Group 2 firmly believed that the episode’s main message was “self- respect and self-confidence” (Valerie, Group 2). Everyone in Group 2 thought of ways in which Manny’s situation could have been avoided, such as not wanting plastic surgery/being more self-confident, if she had not drunk as much, or if she had communicated better/helped herself. While others participants in other groups shared similar insights, Group 2 remained the most adamant on the subject.

83 When asked what they thought the show’s message was, Paula (Group 2) said it’s “self-respect, self-confidence, and respect for others too.” Serena (Group 1) said “You should love yourself the way that you are, and that you can kind of get to where you want to be just by being yourself.” Clyde (Group 4) said “the message is to love your body for what it is” and “to not make the mistakes she made, which is getting drunk and exposing yourself on camera.” For Paula, getting drunk was one of the biggest mistakes Manny made. While she didn’t approve of her choice of plastic surgery (“You’re in tenth grade, why do you want a boob job?”) Paula (Group 2) really thinks Manny should not have drunk as much as she had, as when Amy

(Group 2) says “I think she could have done a lot more, not when she was drunk perhaps” Paula cut in to say “Right there, she could have not had so much to drink.”

Paula says drinking that much was irresponsible, and while it would not have stopped Peter from filming her, Paula hinted it might not would have happened all together, as she said “You’re not in your clear mind when you’re drinking… and when you’re not in your right mind, you don’t do what you normally would.”

Sasha (Group 2) agreed in thinking that drinking made Manny “very vulnerable” and to her, that scene “showed that she wants love.” Sasha also believed

Manny’s situation could have been avoided, or at least Manny could have done more for herself. “I feel like something could have happened.- I just don’t know. I don’t wanna say something could have prevented it…” Sasha expressed multiple times how frustrated she was over Manny’s lack of actions. She said, “I wish I could have seen her stand up for herself more” and cited a lack of communication to be a downfall. “I thought it was weird that she didn’t go to someone older, like just

84 someone, and say, ‘this is happening, I need some help’.” Sasha believed “if everyone had communicated just a little more, there would have been way less drama… just in terms of how parents and children, friends, faculty, teachers, everything, just - everyone could have communicated better.” Sasha also thought “She (Manny) was just letting him take advantage of so many situations where she most definitely had the right to stand up for herself“ and that was “hard to watch.” Amy (Group 2) agreed with Sasha, saying Manny should “just grab it out of his hand! He was standing right there with it in his hand; I would have.”

Other participants were even more critical of Manny’s situation, and other possible messages the show was trying to portray. While other participants stood by the message of “self-respect”, others were critical of this being the only message.

One participant, Alicia (Group 4), asserted that self-respect was not the message at all, saying, “I don’t think the message is to love your body, I think the message is that if you expose your body, you’ll be punished for it.” Alicia went even further, by suggesting that if Manny had sought help, or “told the principal” it would “ruin her social life.” Alicia said “Then it turns into a rumor of ‘Oh, he has a video of her topless,’ and [then] it’s like an anal sex tape. You know what I mean? A rumor would have spread more.” The idea of a worse rumor spreading or a ruined social life further cements Alicia’s opinion that the episode did nothing for Manny or for self- respect, but rather the episode was only showing punishment for women showing their bodies. Valerie (Group 2) shared similar feelings, agreeing bad things will happen, but still thinking self respect and confidence are good things. Valerie went deeper by explaining the double standard shown.

85

There’s the (message of) self respect and self confidence, ‘cause you

see what happens to Manny and how she wants to change herself and

everything goes down and what you should get out of that is, you

don’t need to change yourself for other people, be yourself, but at the

same time, she’s being slut-shamed and how we noted with the

principal giving her that look, that’s kind of a mixed message, where

it’s like respect yourself and be confident about yourself, but if you do

something sexual then you’re shunned.

Female Competition

Manny and Emma’s friendship/rivalry seemed to be another possible reason for Manny’s insecurities. As noted by my participants, Manny is Filipino and her best friend, Emma, is white. Rebecca (Group 4) pointed out that “from the beginning.

Emma’s supposed to be the more desirable friend, she’s supposed to be the prettier one, the cooler one, and you can even tell that with their names. Manny’s name is

Manny, like that’s not a conventionally attractive name.” Alicia (Group 4) agreed, pointing out that in contrast to Manny, Emma is a “white name.” Alicia (Group 4) also added, “There’s this conflict and maybe understated competition between the best friend who meets all these societal standard of beauty, and the Filipino girl who’s equally pretty but doesn’t fit within that standard.” Adding to the female competition between Manny and Emma, as well as Manny’s self-esteem issues,

Sasha thought “I think just knowing that one boy, who Emma’s crazy about-- and if

86 she (Manny) could get him, then that could make her feel better.” Participants also took notice of the contrast between Manny’s and Emma’s home lives. Clyde (Group

4) noticed that Emma lived in a house, while Manny lived in an apartment. The two girls’ families were also different in terms of support. Claire (Group 1) said Emma’s parents seemed “supportive” because while Manny had been kicked out of her house, Emma’s stepdad was seen in the morning making the girls breakfast when they were hung over.

Many participants were conflicted over Manny and Emma’s friendship. For

Marc (Group 3), the friendship felt “very much like a Mean Girls friendship where both parties know that they’re acting in their self-interests and they’re going to backstab one another but that it’s like a socially politically positive move to be friends.” Participants, for the most part, disliked Emma. They found her to be “a bitch,” (Rebecca, Group 4) “stupid,” (Rene, Group 4) and “a fucking terrible friend.”

(Tracey, Group 3) While the friendship between the girls felt “weird” (Marc, Group

3), participants still defended and normalized this type of “mean girl” friendship.

Paula (Group 2) believed it to be a “normal friendship” in which “we all get mad at our best friends, and most of the time, come back together.” Trish (Group 1) said,

“Honestly, I think through Emma they showed the most realistic portrayal of a girl friend reacting to her girl friend.” Trish continued to speak of female friendships, saying:

I think we try to give girl friendships way more credit--- we wish we

could give them more credit than they currently deserve. Like, I think

87 that in high school it would be a very rare girl friendship, for you to h

ear something about your friend hooking up with the guy that you like

and to not believe it and freak out, because you assume that you’re in

competition, you assume that she’s going behind your back or

whatever.

Others thought Emma’s “friendship” with Manny didn’t add up as Alicia found it interesting that “Emma is painted as the dependable friend, but doesn’t provide Manny with confidence.” She further added “Manny doesn’t feel like she can confide in Emma, Emma doesn’t provide any nurturing friendship, but she’s nurturing in the fact that she’s always a safe place to go.” Clyde (Group 4) also didn’t believe the friendship between the two, as he explained “Emma and Manny are painted as very close, they sleep in the same bed, she goes there when she’s kicked out of her house, but then like the stupidest little thing and it’s like ‘I hate you.’ It just doesn’t seem realistic to me.” Valerie (Group 2) found the friendship to be

“inconsistent” as she explained “I was thinking that Emma and Manny were such best friends, why wouldn’t Emma want to hear her out about something she’s going through?” Tracey (Group 3) found that Emma had a “lack of empathy for no reason,” which she found as “almost unrealistic, not [because] that there aren’t really shitty friends out there, but I just can’t imagine being friends with somebody who would have that sort of logic.” Participants brought up Emma’s speech to Manny “screwing up” saying, “that’s not what a friend does” (Tracey, Group 3) as one of the two places

Emma should have been a better friend.

88 Participants were extremely disappointed with Emma when the video of

Manny is leaked around the school, and Emma’s first response was one out of anger towards her friend. They felt as though Emma was not being a good friend, let alone a best friend, because as Alicia (Group 4) put it, Emma “dropped her like a hot potato.” Participants felt Emma should have been a better friend to Manny and doing so meant putting Manny’s well being before her own crush on Peter. Clyde

(Group 4) said “If they’re so close as it’s painting them out [to be] her first reaction would more be like, ‘Oh my god, I need to go be a friend.’” Chuck (Group 4) instantly agreed, “No boy is more important than her best friend.”

Peter’s Actions and Repercussions

As stated earlier in this section, all participants in groups 1- 4 hated Peter and his actions. The general consensus was that Peter is “gross,” “a dick,” “an asshole,” “sleazy,” and “a freak” (Groups 1-4). Trish (Group 1) said, “He was gross from the first second, they just set him up to be a creepy.” This was met by several agreeing nods, as Trish continued to elaborate by calling Peter “a tame portrayal of the why of ‘why boys shoot girls because they don’t go out with them’.” Participants in other groups had similar feelings, as Marc (Group 3) found Peter to be “the perfect representation of money money money money money… he’s a spoiled little rich kid who’s a brat, and he wants to take advantage of anyone and show off his toys.” Chuck (Group 4) remembered the line in which Peter gave Manny advice;

“When he’s giving advice, the acting advice, to go get the agent, he says ‘My dad says

89 I can just take whatever I want.’” which was responded by the rest of the group groaning, and Alicia pointing out that line “is really rape-y.”

Everyone agreed that the episodes didn’t make explicit what Peter’s punishment was, and that was a failure on the show’s end. Most participants expressed they wanted Peter to be expelled, and some mentioned the legal trouble he could’ve or should’ve gotten in. Marc (Group 3) said there was a “lack of resolution.” The lack of resolution that Marc felt was echoed by Paula (Group 2) who felt that “we don’t know what happened (to Peter), it (the episode) just kind of ended.” Kevin (Group 1), as well, wasn’t sure what Peter’s repercussions were as he had to ask me to clarify “What were the repercussions?” Valerie (Group 2) said all that Peter received was “a slap on the wrist.” And while Manny faced many (social) repercussions Peter faced none, as Alicia (Group 4) noted there was “nothing about it (the episode’s ending) that shows his repercussions for exploitation, manipulation, harassment.”

Though the episode did not show or tell of any repercussions Peter faced, participants believed he should have been expelled. Marc (Group 4) thought

“expulsion makes a lot of sense” and Valerie (Group 2) and Paula (Group 2) said they “expected a suspension or expulsion.” Tracey (Group 3) expressed “I want

Peter to be exiled! I want Peter to be forced to live off the land in Northern Canada!” but said “in a more realistic sense, I think that’s an expel worthy offense-- expulsion worthy.” While it’s uncertain if expulsion would have taught Peter his lesson, participants definitely saw Peter’s actions as “inappropriate“ (Marc, Group 3).

Alternatives to expulsion, participants in Group 1 jokingly suggested Peter have to

90 enroll in “feminist boot camp” where he would receive “anti-rape training.” Nina

(Group 1) seemed the most adamant that they didn’t think expulsion would be the best thing as it would only teach Peter “not to get caught” instead of what he did was bad and for what reasons. Rebecca (Group 4) expressed that the episodes “should have talked about how like, he could have gotten arrested or gone to juvy.” None of my participants wanted Peter to go to jail however. Marc (Group 3) expressed that he “wouldn’t want actual criminal charges brought against him (Peter), but I would want him to be made aware that that is something that could have happened, or that if this kind of behavior continues, will happen.” He continued:

He obviously acted really inappropriately and he needs to learn the

consequences. I’m not sure if I’m comfortable saying he should also be

formally charged, which would probably mean being listed on the sex

offender registry. I don’t think it’s deserving of that, although that’s a

really complicated question, but I think impressing upon him that

that’s something that could happen out of things like that is important

because he needs to understand that like his actions will have

consequences.

Analysis & Conclusion

Overall, Manny’s storyline gave audiences the impression that the episode’s messages were about “self-love” and “self-respect.” While all participants knew that

Peter had done something wrong, they were more focused on critiquing Manny and

91 her actions. Most participants noted that the episode’s message did apply to Peter, such as “respect for others,” but participants felt the majority of the message was towards Manny. Participants found more wrong with Manny, such as self-esteem issues, than they did with Peter who seemed to be viewed as a victim of his upbringing as exemplified by Marc’s (Group 3) and Alicia’s (Group 4) comments on

Peter being “a spoiled little rich kid who’s a brat,” “and the quintessential boy who grew up always being the stereotypically most attractive boy in the room” who is

“fully aware of the fact that he can manipulate people because of the way that he looks.” Participants’ main solution for Peter was expulsion, and very little participants thought further, except for those in Group 1 who suggested a more proactive solution such as anti-rape training and a trip to “feminist boot camp”

(Serena, Group 1). For Manny, on the other hand, the group wanted more confidence, less drinking, and that she would “get over” (Sasha, Group 2) her insecurities.

Though I did not group my participants in any special manner, it was clear that there seemed to be a gap in messages between my participants. Older participants, like those in Group 1, even noted that because they were older and wiser than Manny and her friends, they felt they had more knowledge, and were able to see it as abuse, and that the actual message, like Alicia (Group 4) said, is not about self-love, it’s about not being seen sexually, because when you are, “you’ll be punished for it.” Older participants were more critical on their readings of Manny as well, as they were the ones who felt Manny had some agency (Trish, Group 1), whereas younger participants, who were in Group 2, had less language to talk about

92 Manny’s sexual exploitation, and instead primarily more on the message of self- respect, and self-love and Manny’s lack thereof. By choosing to focus on what they knew, self-respect and self-love, they, like the participants in Roesch’s Girls study, further silenced Manny and victims of such abuse.

Like Roesch’s participants who were unable to label and talk about the Girls sex scene as nonconsensual, participants in my study had difficulty talking about

Manny’s case of sextortion. Many participants chose to focus on Manny’s decision to get plastic surgery, instead of Peter’s actions. While they all agreed what Peter did was terrible, and that Peter shouldn’t have done what he did, they were at a standstill on what further to say. Some even gave examples of how Manny could have prevented it (i.e. not drinking so much, if she had more confidence, if she had a better home life (Groups 1-4)). Some participants conveyed that they felt bad for

Manny, and that they wanted Peter to be expelled, but no one talked about the legality of the subject. Marc (Group 3) even said he didn’t want Peter to have charges pressed, but only threatened with the possibility. Despite participants having little access to language themselves, participants were impressed with

Manny’s clear language and labeling of being taken advantage of. Those who were impressed found her explicit statement “you took advantage of me” to be powerful, as well as a good, strong, and clear message of situations of abusive and exploitive relationships.

Sasha’s (Group 2) comment that Manny should “grow out” of her insecurities was echoed by many other participants, who wished Manny had a pinch more confidence, and took a bit more action. While participants spoke of the ways the

93 episode’s dealt with Manny’s race, and took notice of all the visual cues that Manny was racially different, and (possibly) felt negatively about it, participants did not suggest any larger system at hand, and did not acknowledge Manny’s racial identity when talking about her problem. Manny’s racial identity was not explicitly talked about in conjunction with her body insecurities. Participants did not note a connection between Manny’s race, and her sexualization, which Pérez would say, is inherent. Though Sasha (Group 2), who does identify as a black woman, did claim to have had similar thoughts to Manny, Sasha experienced them “in elementary school,” thus suggesting that Manny is too old for such insecurities.

The lack of support Manny initially had from her best friend perhaps demonstrates the normalized rivalry and aggression within female friendships.

Degrassi offers no solidarity between friends as a mode of resistance to abusers like

Peter. The lack of support and the normalcy of rivalry and aggression was suggested by participants’ responses, such as Sasha’s (Group 2) comment expressing that perhaps Manny would “feel better” if she got the attention of Peter, the boy she knew Emma liked. Sasha’s comment suggests that Manny would always be in competition with her friend. While participants did not explicitly say they thought

Emma chose Peter over Manny, it was heavily implied. My participants all voiced concern when Emma told Manny she hated her because she had assumed Manny and Peter had hooked up while filming the video. By expressing that Emma now hated her friend over “the stupidest little thing” (Clyde, Group 4) participants appointed Emma as a bad friend, and believed their friendship to be “inconsistent”

94 (Valerie, Group 2) with how the characters describe it (self-proclaimed best friends).

Though most participants considered aspects of the friendship as

“unrealistic” (Clyde, Group 4), it was predominantly male participants who talked extensively about it. It was Marc (Group 3) who compared the friendship to that of

“Mean Girls,” in which “they’re going to backstab one another but it’s a socially politically positive move to be friends.” Marc’s comment about Mean Girls perpetuates the idea that this type of friendship is common, albeit terrible and only

“acting to their self-interests.” Tracey (Group 3), a female participant was more hesitant and critical about the friendship to say it was “almost unrealistic.” Tracey addressed the fact that she couldn’t “imagine being friends with somebody with that sort of logic.” By explaining that she couldn’t see herself as a friend to someone like

Emma, mixed with her comment “not that there aren’t shitty friends,” suggests a hesitancy to address how common this type of friendship can be. One comment in particular stands out against this hesitancy. Another female participant, Trish

(Group 1), described Manny and Emma’s friendship as “the most realistic portrayal of a girl friend reacting to her girl friend.” Trish’s comment of a “realistic portrayal” confirms a normalized sense of rivalry and aggression between female friends. Since participants condemned Emma’s behavior, participants’ responses suggest that

Degrassi portrays its female friendships as flimsy, and ultimately “realistic” due to competition for male attention.

Throughout my study I have discovered that audiences, when discussing sexual manipulation, will ultimately slip into victim-blaming. By choosing to focus

95 on Manny’s drinking habits and choice to get plastic surgery, they inadvertently found ways in which Manny could have avoided her “mistake” of allowing Peter to film her taking her top off. My participants’ approach to a solution is not very different than asking a rape victim to recount their sexual history, or recount what they were wearing and how much they were drinking. Focusing on Manny’s past decisions, drinking and plastic surgery easily supplied my participants with a rationale as to how Manny got taken advantage of. This kind of thinking is obviously problematic as it allows people and society at large to find fault with the one taken advantage of, instead of the ones who take advantage of others. My findings demonstrate that it may be easier to rationalize why and how sexual exploitation and manipulation happens, rather than discuss the abusers’ actions, and what their repercussions should be. Lastly, it’s dangerous that people continue to forgive and make excuses for abusers such as Peter; they say they don’t want him to face legal repercussions because that would be too much, but still want him to know what he did was wrong.

96 Conclusion

I have always been a bystander. Quietly watching, never saying anything to ruffle feathers, never feeling my feelings were enough. I needed facts and figures to back them up. As I reflect back on the work I’ve done over the course of this project I realize my intention is to bring up larger issues of consent policies on college campuses, especially Hampshire College. Throughout the year I have kept tabs on

Hampshire students’ social media postings on Facebook and on the anonymous smartphone app YikYak. Through these mediums students have posted their frustrations regarding Hampshire’s policies, and the way the college continues to silence survivors and help their abusers.

There has been discussion about a piece of writing in one of the bathroom stalls on campus. The writing was about someone’s abuser, and her story. Someone wrote in response, “Bathrooms don’t have ears, people do. Tell your story to someone who can help you, not to walls,” and another expressed sympathy while asking them to “Stop writing in this wall, thanks.” In this case, the original writer was shut down by their peers. The comments to the original writing prompted discussion amongst students, some who agreed with the replies, and other who questioned those in agreement.

Survivors need a space to speak freely. The point of the writing in the bathroom was to be anonymous, but still have a voice. Those who opposed the original writing were not very different from my participants in my Degrassi study.

They were sympathetic, but most did not want to deal with the “problem” and its repercussions. Blaming and shutting down the victim is always easier.

97 Recently an article titled “Reslife Silences Survivors” came out in The Howler, a student run newspaper at Hampshire (Anonymous, 2016). The article describes that last fall a Resident Advisor (RA) reported to her superiors that her abuser was present on staff. Upon hearing this, the abuser was not fired nor was investigation launched. According to the article, the Director of Res Life gave her abuser a new position, one that was created just for him. Though, as evident in the article, many complaints were made to the Director of Res Life, the Director further silenced the

RA when she asked when this boy violated conduct, thus further demonstrating that the original complaints (about the abuser) were never taken seriously. Without evidence or without complaints being taken seriously, students’ abusers are not expelled, and instead, survivors are still living next door to their assailants while being forced to share a space with them. Institutions like Hampshire, as well as society, continues to protect abusers and assailants more than those who have suffered because of them.

Another student, who is also a RA, has started a T-shirt campaign to combat this silencing. The shirt says “EXPEL RAPISTS” and all money raised will go towards supporting survivors and activism against sexual assault and relationship violence on and off campus. I believe it is this work, the work done by members of the community, that is integral for positive change.

In this paper I have worked through college students’ experiences, and media portrayals of sexual agency and consent. My focus was on the policing of sexuality, through the use of technology and the Internet. My sexting study shows there is still much work to be done, and that while all genders are aware of risks, such as the

98 sexual double standard, they will ultimately do what makes them feel good, and in order to do so, one has to ignore those risks. In my cyberbullying chapter I analyzed the representation of young women’s sexuality on the Internet. It’s evident within these films that fictional media continues to portray young women’s sexuality as a bad thing, something that should be policed and punished. The cyberbullying within the three films are similar to touchless torture, the breaking down of the self. And due to the films’ containment of murder, suicide, or attempted suicide, it is not hard to conclude that the ethics of punishing one’s sexuality are not called into question until death occurs. No lessons are learned unless a life is potentially taken away. My

Degrassi study demonstrated that our society at large is still better at forgiving abusers than punishing them, as they have no language to do so, however people have at the ready language to describe everything that victims supposedly do wrong. Because I interviewed Hampshire College students for both of my audience studies, it is clear that there is more work to be done on the campus to educate its students on consent and agency.

There are, however, gaps in my project. The issue of consent, especially, is too large to tackle on its own. There are many different directions this project could have gone, and I hope future work and research expands on my findings and interest. I would like to see a study in which people attempt to describe their own understanding and definition of consent, as I have grappled with this myself. I would like to see more people talk about the relationship between consent and sexual agency. I want consent to be seen as empowering. I would like to see further work done exploring the pleasures and pressures young women face when coming into

99 their sexuality, and I would like to see more work on ways in which women can resist traditional teachings of how young women should behave on the internet. I would also like more inclusive work, that speaks to the limitations of most solutions, including the ones I offer, for women of color.

The work that I have done this year is extremely important to me, and its issues are something I’ll continue to grapple with. I hope my work has influenced those reading this, and those to and with whom I have spoken. I want others to continue to break down boundaries and stereotypes of women’s sexuality, and I hope my writing has accurately given my peers a voice and has been able to make people realize why we need more open discussions of sexual consent and agency.

While I am still sad to see there are those who question survivors, or further silence them, I am glad to know, that after I leave Hampshire, there will still be students who care, and are actively questioning the administration. I have no doubt the work I have done will be forever relevant, and I only hope that others continue to research, write, and talk, about young women’s sexual agency and its relation to consent.

100 APPENDIX – Sexting Questionnaire

What are your initial thoughts and feelings on sexting? How do you define sexting? Do you sext (by that definition) Why or why not? Who do you sext with? What is your relation to the other person? How and when did you first hear about sexting? How old were you and what was the context? How did you decide you wanted to start sexting? How old were you and what was the context? Why do you sext? Who do you sext for? Do you like to sext? Why or why not? Do you find yourself initiating sexts more than receiving them? Have you ever felt pressured to sext? If so please elaborate by explaining where that pressure came from. Do you get a personal pleasure in sexting? Where does the pleasure come from? Is sexting always sexual? What are some of the pros and cons of sexting? Potential risks and benefits? How does one consensually sext? What does consent look like in the world of sexting? Have you ever shared a sext (text or photo) with a friend or anyone? Why or why not? If there is a time when you don’t want to sext but another person does, what do you do? Is there a difference between sexting and nudes? Do you have a preference of text or image sexts? Do you ever find sexting to be empowering? Can sexting be empowering? How does sexting make you feel? Describe sexting in 3 words If you have any final thoughts and feelings please share them here:

101 Works Cited "Let's Talk about Sext, Baby." Cosmopolitan.com. N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Oct.

2015.

about-sext-baby/>.

"Sexting." Kids Helpline. BoysTown, Oct. 2015. Web.

"Teen drama Degrassi hits 100." The Toronto Star. March 20, 2006 LexisNexis

Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2016/02/24.

"The Dos and Don'ts of Sexting." Cosmopolitan.com. N.p., 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Oct.

2015.

and-donts-of-sexting/>.

Allen, Samantha. “Colorado’s Sexting Nightmare.” The Daily Beast. N.p., 15 Nov.

2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Barry, Doug. “Stop Being Ageist About Sexting Because Olds Do It, Too.” Jezebel. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Butler, Bethonie. "‘Degrassi’ Is on Netflix Now. It’s Still the Realest Show about

Teens." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 15 Jan. 2016. Web. 24 Feb.

2016.

Chemaly, Soraya. “Teen Sexting Isn’t the Problem—Non-Consensual Forwarding of

Photos Is.” Bitch Media. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Chun, Wendy Hui Kyong and Friedland, Sarah, "Habits of Leaking: Of Sluts and

Network Cards," differences 26.2 (2015): 1-28.

Cloos, Kassondra, and Julie Turkewitz. “Hundreds of Nude Photos Jolt Colorado

School.” The New York Times 6 Nov. 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

102 Coicaud, Jean-Marc and Jonsson, Jibecke, "Elements of a Road Map for a Politics of

Apology," The Age of Apology, 77-91.

Coker, Hillary Crosley. “Surprise, Surprise: Sexting Fallout Is Harder on Girls Than

Boys.” Jezebel. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Cyberbully. Dir. Charles Biname. Perf. Emily Osment, Kay Panabaker and Kelly

Rowan. Muse Entertainment Enterprises Gaiam, 2011. Film.

DelVicchio, Charisse. "HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE: EXPEL RAPISTS." HAMPSHIRE

COLLEGE: EXPEL RAPISTS. Www.booster.com. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

Duncan, Tess. “8 Simple Rules For Sexting A Lady.” BUST: For Women With

Something To Get Off Their Chests. N.p., 30 July 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Foucault, Michael. "We, Other Victorians," "The Incitement to Discourse," "The

Repressive Hypothesis: The Perverse Implantation," "Scientia Sexualis," "The

Deployment of Sexuality: Objective, Method, Domain" in History of

Sexuality, Vol. 1 (New York: Vintage Books Reissue, 1978), 1-114.

Fowler, Tara. “At Least 100 Students Involved in Sexting Scandal at Colorado High

School.” PEOPLE.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Fox, Kevin, and Warren Leight. "Pornstar's Requiem." Law and Order: Special

Victim's Unit. NBC. New York, New York, 22 Oct. 2014. Television.

Grant, Drew. "4 Tricks for Your Steamiest Sexts Yet." Cosmopolitan.com. N.p., 26

May 2014. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

advice/2014/4/lets-talk-about-sext-baby/>.

Hasinoff, Amy Adele. “Sexting as Media Production: Rethinking Social Media and

Sexuality.” New Media & Society 15.4 (2013): 449–465. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

103 Holley, Peter. “How Colorado Teenagers Hid a Massive Nude Sexting Ring from

Parents and Teachers.” The Washington Post 7 Nov. 2015. Web. 15 Nov.

2015.

Horton, Paul. "School Bullying and Social and Moral Orders." Children & Society 25.4

(2011): 268-77.

Howler, Hampshire. "Reslife Silences Survivors." The Hampshire Howler. 14 Apr.

2016. Web. 17 Apr. 2016.

IT GOES THERE: DEGRASSI'S MOST TALKED ABOUT MOMENTS. Dir. Kim Powers.

Perf. Lauren Collins, Jake Epstein, Stacey Farber, Shane Kippel, Adamo

Ruggiero

Kronke, David. "EVERGREEN 'DEGRASSI' CONTEMPORARY CANADIAN SERIES

KEEPSDRAWING LOYAL AMERICAN FANS.(U)." Daily News (Los Angeles, CA).

N.p., 30 June 2005. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Linda Schuyler, Stephen Stohn. IT GOES THERE: DEGRASSI'S MOST TALKED ABOUT

MOMENTS. TEENNICK, 31 July 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Lippman, Julia R. & Campbell, Scott W. (2014) Damned If You Do, Damned If You

Don't…If You're a Girl: Relational and Normative Contexts of Adolescent

Sexting in the United States, Journal of Children and Media, 8:4, 371-386,

DOI: 10.1080/17482798.2014.923009

McClintock, Anne "Paranoid Empire: Specters from Guantanamo and Abu

Ghraib," Small Axe 13.1 (2009): 50-74.

McKay, John "Degrassi worries U.S. teen channel: Instalments held. Two-part

episode focuses on teen who has an abortion." The Gazette (Montreal,

104 Quebec). 20 July. 2004. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed:

2016/02/24.

Mitchell, Kirk. “Hundreds of Students at Canon City High School Could Face Child

Pornography Charges.” The Denver Post 11–6 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Neilhart, Ben. "OMG I Love Ellie and Ashley. Craig Is Totally Hotttt. DGrassi Is Tha

Best Teen TV N Da WRLD!" NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 20 Mar.

2005. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Nicks, Denver. “Massive Sexting Ring Stuns Colorado High School.”Time 7 Nov. 2015.

Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Rahman, Roslan. “Sexting Scandal Shocks US High School.” MSN. N.p., n.d. Web. 15

Nov. 2015.

Reese, Ashley. "15 Moments In Degrassi That Changed My Life - Gurl.com." Gurl.com

15 Moments In Degrassi That Changed My Life Comments. Gurl.com, 09 July

2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.

Ringrose, Jessica et al. “Teen Girls, Sexual Double Standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered

Value in Digital Image Exchange.” Feminist Theory 14.3 (2013): 305–323.

Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

Rosin, Hanna. “Why Kids Sext. ”The Atlantic Nov. 2014. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Scarrow, Shelley, and Sean Reycraft. "Venus "Part One"" Degrassi: The Next

Generation. The-N. Los Angeles, California, 7 Oct. 2005. Television.

Scarrow, Shelley, and Sean Reycraft. "Venus "Part Two"" Degrassi: The Next

Generation. The-N. Los Angeles, California, 7 Oct. 2005. Television.

105 Sciortino, Karley. "Breathless: Mastering the Art of Sexting."Vouge.com. N.p., 11 May

2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

karley-sciortino-sexting/>.

Scott, Tracey L. "Series Reaches the 'Next Generation'" Washington Post. The

Washington Post, 26 Sept. 2004. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Sexting in Suburbia. Dir. John Stimpson. Perf. Liz Vassey, Jenn Proske, Ryan Kelley

and Kelli Goss. Lifetime, 2012. Film.

Sky News Team “Sexting Ring Uncovered At Colorado High School.” Yahoo News UK.

N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Smith, Nigel M. "How the Team Behind Unfriended Pulled Off The Most Ingenious

Horror Film In Years," Indiewire

Unfriended. Dir. Leo Gabriadze. Perf. Shelley Hennig, Moses Storm, Renee Olstead,

Will Peltz, Jacob Wysocki, Courtney Halverson and Heather Sossaman.

Universal Pictures, 2015. Film.

Wallace, Kelly. “28 Internet Acronyms Every Parent Should Know - CNN.com.” CNN.

N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Wallace, Kelly. “Sexting: Majority of Teens Admit Doing It - CNN.com.” CNN. N.p., n.d.

Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

106