Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 73, Issue 7–8, pp 332–339 | Cite as

Living in Metaphors, Trapped in a Matrix: The Ramifications of Neoliberal Ideology for Young Women’s Sexuality

  • Laina Y. Bay-Cheng
Feminist Forum Review Article

Abstract

By proposing that gendered sexual norms dictating young women’s sexuality (i.e., the Virgin-Slut Continuum) are now joined by neoliberal scripts for sexual agency (i.e., the Agency Line), my hope was to prompt new conversations about the ideological context in which young women in the U.S. forge their sexualities. The responses to my original commentary indicate that there are many such conversations to be had. Before pursuing those, I wish to clarify some of the tenets of my proposal, most importantly that I do not advocate for the Agency Line and the matrix created by its intersection with the Virgin-Slut Continuum to be a fair or apt characterization of young women’s lived experiences. To the contrary, I see neoliberal sexual agency as a prescribed and prescriptive normative force that works in tandem with enduring gendered prohibitions to constrain young women’s sexual expression and to reinforce the sexual stigmatization of minority girls and women.

Keywords

Young women Adolescent female sexuality Sexual agency Neoliberal ideology 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The author is unaware of any potential conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abramovitz, M. (2006). Welfare reform in the United States: Gender, race and class matter. Critical Social Policy, 26, 336–364. doi: 10.1177/0261018306062589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association, Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L. T., Armstrong, E. M., & Seeley, J. L. (2014). “Good girls”: Gender, social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77, 100–122. doi: 10.1177/0190272514521220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attwood, F. (2007). Sluts and riot grrrls: Female identity and sexual agency. Journal of Gender Studies, 16, 233–247. doi: 10.1080/09589230701562921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2015). The agency line: A neoliberal metric for appraising young women’s sexuality. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0452-6.
  6. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2013). Ethical parenting of sexually active youth: Ensuring safety while enabling development. Sex Education, 13, 133–145. doi: 10.1080/14681811.2012.700280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2012). Recovering empowerment: De-personalizing and re-politicizing adolescent female sexuality. Sex Roles, 66, 713–717. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0070-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2005). Left to their own devices: Disciplining youth discourse on sexuality education electronic bulletin boards. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 2, 37–50. doi: 10.1525/srsp.2005.2.1.37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Eliseo-Arras, R. K. (2008). The making of unwanted sex: Gendered and neoliberal norms in college women’s unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 386–397. doi: 10.1080/00224490802398381.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., & Fava, N. M. (2014). What puts “at-risk girls” at risk? Sexual vulnerability and social inequality in the lives of girls in the child welfare system. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 11, 116–125. doi: 10.1007/s13178-013-0142-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Fitz, C. C., Alizaga, N. M., & Zucker, A. N. (2015). Tracking homo oeconomicus: Development of the neoliberal beliefs inventory. Journal of Social & Political Psychology, 3, 71–88. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v3i1.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Livingston, J. A., & Fava, N. M. (2012). “Not always a clear path”: Making space for peers, adults, and complexity in adolescent girls’ sexual development. In E. L. Zurbriggen & T. Roberts (Eds.), The sexualization of girls and girlhood: Causes, consequences, & resistance (pp. 257–277). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Livingston, J. A., & Fava, N. M. (2011). Adolescent girls’ assessment and management of sexual risks: Insights from focus group research. Youth & Society, 43, 1167–1193. doi: 10.1177/0044118X10384475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bettie, J. (2003). Women without class: Girls, race, and identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Charles, C. E. (2010). Complicating hetero-femininities: Young women, sexualities and “girl power” at school. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23, 33–47. doi: 10.1080/09518390903447135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Córdova Jr., D., & Cervantes, R. C. (2010). Intergroup and within-group perceived discrimination among U.S.-born and foreign-born Latino youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 259–274. doi: 10.1177/0739986310362371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deal, M. (2003). Disabled people’s attitudes toward other impairment groups: A hierarchy of impairments. Disability & Society, 18, 897–910. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000127317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DuBois, W. E. B. (1998). Black reconstruction. New York: Free Press (Original work published 1935).Google Scholar
  19. Duggan, L. (2003). The twilight of equality?: Neoliberalism, cultural politics, and the attack on democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fasula, A. M., Carry, M., & Miller, K. S. (2014). A multidimensional framework for the meanings of the sexual double standard and its application for the sexual health of young black women in the U.S. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 170–183. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.716874.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Envy up, scorn down: How comparison divides us. American Psychologist, 65, 698–706. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.65.8.698.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fortenberry, J. D. (2014). Sexual learning, sexual experience, and healthy adolescent sex. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 144, 71–86. doi: 10.1002/cad.20061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Froyum, C. M. (2010). Making “good girls”: Sexual agency in the sexuality education of low-income black girls. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12, 59–72. doi: 10.1080/13691050903272583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gavey, N. (2005). Just sex?: The cultural scaffolding of rape. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Gill, R. (2008). Culture and subjectivity in neoliberal and postfeminist times. Subjectivity, 25, 432–445. doi: 10.1057/sub.2008.28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodkind, S. (2009). “You can be anything you want, but you have to believe it”: Commercialized feminism in gender-specific programs for girls. Signs, 34, 397–422. doi: 10.1086/591086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Halliwell, E. (2014). Bisexual women’s understandings of social marginalisation: “The heterosexuals don’t understand us but nor do the lesbians”. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 352–372. doi: 10.1177/0959353514539651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hills, R. (2015). When your sex life doesn’t follow the script. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/when-your-sex-life-doesnt-follow-the-script.
  29. Holland, J., Ramazanoglu, C., Sharpe, S., & Thomson, R. (1998). The male in the head: Young people, heterosexuality and power. London: Tufnell Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hurtado, A. (1989). Relating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordination of white women and women of color. Signs, 14, 833–855. doi: 10.1086/494546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jackson, S. M., & Cram, F. (2003). Disrupting the sexual double standard: Young women’s talk about heterosexuality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 113–127. doi: 10.1348/014466603763276153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Katz, J., & Tirone, V. (2015). From the agency line to the picket line: Neoliberal ideals, sexual realities, and arguments about abortion in the U.S. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0475-z.
  34. Kelly, P. (2001). Youth at risk: Processes of individualisation and responsibilisation in the risk society. Discourse, 22, 23–33. doi: 10.1080/01596300120039731.Google Scholar
  35. Lamb, S. (2015). Revisiting choice and victimization: A commentary on Bay-Cheng’s agency matrix. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0508-7.
  36. Lamb, S. (2010). Toward a sexual ethics curriculum: Bringing philosophy and society to bear on individual development. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 81–106. doi: 10.17763/haer.80.1.c104834k00552457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lerum, K., & Dworkin, S. L. (2015). Sexual agency is not a problem of neoliberalism: Feminism, sexual justice, & the carceral turn. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0525-6.
  38. McRobbie, A. (2008). Young women and consumer culture. Cultural Studies, 22, 531–550. doi: 10.1080/09502380802245803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meier, A., & Allen, G. (2008). Intimate relationship development during the transition to adulthood: Differences by social class. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 119, 25–39. doi: 10.1002/cd.207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Payne, E. (2010). Sluts: Heteronormative policing in the stories of lesbian youth. Educational Studies, 46, 317–336. doi: 10.1080/00131941003614911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips, N. L., Adams, G., & Salter, P. S. (2015). Beyond adaptation: Decolonizing approaches to coping with oppression. Journal of Social & Political Psychology, 3, 365–387. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v3i1.310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279–292. doi: 10.1007/BF00941504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schalet, A. T. (2011). Not under my roof: Parents, teens, and the culture of sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Silva, J. M. (2012). Constructing adulthood in an age of uncertainty. American Sociological Review, 77, 505–522. doi: 10.1177/0003122412449014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 55–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00475.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stephens, D. P., & Phillips, L. D. (2003). Freaks, gold diggers, divas, and dykes: The sociohistorical development of adolescent African American women’s sexual scripts. Sexuality and Culture, 7(1), 3–49. doi: 10.1007/BF03159848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Suls, J., Martin, R., & Wheeler, L. (2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 159–163. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taft, J. K. (2011). Rebel girls: Youth activism and social change across the Americas. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tanenbaum, L. (2015). I am not a slut: Slut-shaming in the age of the internet. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  51. Tanenbaum, L. (2000). Slut! Growing up female with a bad reputation. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  52. Tolman, D. L. (2006). In a different position: Conceptualizing female adolescent sexuality development within compulsory heterosexuality. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 112, 71–89. doi: 10.1002/cd.163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tolman, D. L. (2003). Improving women’s sexual assertiveness. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 48. doi:  10.1111/j.1931-2393.2003.tb00087.x
  54. Tolman, D. L. (2002). Dilemmas of desire: Teenage girls talk about sexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Tolman, D. L., Anderson, S. M., & Belmonte, K. (2015). Mobilizing metaphor: Considering complexities, contradictions, and contexts in adolescent girls’ and young women’s sexual agency. Sex Roles, this issue. doi: 10.1007/s11199-015-0510-0.
  56. Uzogara, E. E., Abdou, C. M., Lee, H., & Jackson, J. S. (2014). A comparison of skin tone discrimination among African American men: 1995 and 2003. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15, 201–212. doi: 10.1037/a0033479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weiss, J. T. (2003). GL vs. BT. Journal of Bisexuality, 3, 25–55. doi: 10.1300/J159v03n03_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilder, J., & Cain, C. (2011). Teaching and learning color consciousness in Black families: Exploring family processes and women’s experiences with colorism. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 577–604. doi: 10.1177/0192513X10390858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations