Performative Sexuality and Safe Spaces

Performance as an aspect of identitarian development is something that has fascinated me throughout my studies of Women's and Queer Studies. When I consider performative identity, I always associate it most with queer theory, so I looked back at a memo I wrote last semester concerning a chapter in a text called Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. Some of the ideas, when generalized, are surprisingly apropos to the subject at hand. In the context of queered media, I observed that "'performance' is a way of creating this new, revised identification, as it is the total rejection of the idea that a cultural image can replace the singular human experience." In the case of adolescent development, the opposite can be said to be true, since it is modeled entirely on the behavior of others, whether they are peers, whom the girls look to for moral support and guidance, or as mentioned above, cultural images of sexuality. Interestingly, I also observed that "[p]erformance is simply the application of theory to bring about social change," and while a conscious theoretical backing is hardly the province of the girls we observe here, it seems that through their performance of sexuality, they form a safe community to begin to come into themselves, which can be interpreted as small-scale activism, in my opinion. From these ideas, I derive my analysis.

gURL.com is absolutely what I would consider the epitome of mainstream tween culture. It is predicated on a need to establish consumer ideals in the adolescent girl early to carry her into womanhood and a life of spending, and makes the most vapid cultural products mainstays of her universe. However, I think having a place to learn facts about sex in/on her own terms is invaluable to her development as an informed person, and in this respect, websites and magazines of this type are very important. When the dominant discourse teaches that sex is shameful, it is wonderful that girls are allowed to form a space for themselves to see that their doubts about the validity of that claim are bolstered by the resounding agreement from peers that they are experiencing the same doubts. I can't remember a time that sex seemed particularly mysterious to me, and I don't remember ever seeking anything like this out as an adolescent, so the idea that girls need to form their understanding of the world around these spaces saddens me, as I know much of the misinformation stems directly from abstinence only education and parents who are less than forthcoming. In the same vein as safe spaces, I love the observation that IM, or whatever other medium chosen, "becomes a space in which its users are able to negotiate and understand sexuality without having to rely upon bodies" (Stern 68). The idea that the Internet can mediate the formation of attitudes in that way had never occurred to me, but it makes complete sense, since most physical interactions involving teen sexuality are notoriously awkward. In this sense, "safe spaces" are in no way confined to questions on sexual attitudes and what certain slang for sex acts translates to, but also, for the safest possible flirtation and the performative development of the self, predicated on honesty, or ostensibly, an even more interesting, manufactured sense of self. In the same way that disembodiment can embolden girls into aggressive behavior, so can it be a much more positive force for identity construction.

One thing that I found very interesting in the gURL.com article is the implication even by the author that there are only so many acceptable ways that teen sexuality for girls can play out. The comment that reflected on the segment about "fuck buddies" came across very judgmental to me. I understand that for most people, these kinds of interactions are considered emotionally detrimental, but the authors themselves observe that this is a traditionally "male" behavior, and ask no questions about where teen boys "today [are] getting the message that it is acceptable (or, at least, non-problematic) to have sex without romantic attachment," as they do for teen girls (Grisso and Weiss 42). This reification of gender roles, even as we're purporting to be interrogating and challenging them, is so incredibly condescending to me. It is the rough equivalent of the girls who accuse others of being "sluts" in their sexual performativity, and it's most telling that both instances are considered acceptable because they hide behind the guise of concern for the well-being of the transgressor in question. As a caveat to this, I think we can see the "play" in the system when examining these kinds of behaviors, as they are very sexually androgynous from the standpoint espoused by Judith Butler, and by that token (by my approximation), VALUABLE, when we are discussing how we perform our prescribed gender roles, as these behaviors certainly do not fit into that scheme.